Featured Could Christ have sinned?

Forgot to ask. Why was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit and it happens before He was tempted? If Jesus was not able to sin, why did the Holy Spirit need to fill Him? And again please answer my question about Philippians. Your # 24 doesn’t do that.

 

All of these discussions go back, as SavedByGrace has said, to the Person of Jesus Christ. And concerning that, Scripture is clear that it is a 'great mystery'. (1 Tim. 3:16) And, it is equally clear that Christ was God in the flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16) Therefore it would have been impossible for Christ to sin.

The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could or would sin. It was to reveal that Christ would not sin. That He could not sin is immaterial. He had to endure severe testings to demonstrate His quality. He being the God/Man defeated satan's temptations. Just like when you test gold. A piece of pure gold will always pass the test. Doesn't make the test invalid.

It would have been first demonstrated to the angelic host's, both good and evil, for make no mistake, they were watching. And there was no man present other than Christ. It would later be revealed to mankind in the Scriptures.

Of course you shouldn't ignore (Philippians 2:5-8). It is clearly stated that Christ "became obedient unto death". Does that mean Christ could have disobeyed. No. (Heb. 5:8) says, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."

Why are we told that Christ must learn obedience? Was there ever a time in all eternity that He wasn't obedient? Of course not. But the Son, as the Son, never felt the draw of temptation. He never felt the suffering due to resisting temptation and being obedient to the Father. Now with a human body, He felt it. There was never any doubt that He would resist any temptation to sin. But He now felt it. It became a learned experience.

It is my opinion that satan wanted no part of this trial of Jesus Christ in the wilderness. Just as the Holy Spirit led Christ to it, so also satan would have to be there. satan knew Who Christ was. he knew Him before. he knew he had no chance at causing Christ to sin. He would give it his best shot, but I don't think he had a choice in the matter.

Quantrill

 

Jesus Christ IS ETERNALLY Almighty God, YHWH.

 

your questions show that you don't really understand Biblical Christology. Start a thread and take it from there.

 

I was wondering how long it would take for the tacit ad hominem.

I'm not trying to be flippant about this subject whatsoever and it matters that Jesus was able to sin per Luke 4, Matt 4, Phil 2, and Hebrews 4. Jesus could absolutely NOT been tested as a man per Scripture had He not been able to sin. If you believe He was not able to sin, fine. I do not but I do believe He was able not to and I helped edit transcripts and produce the audio to Dr Criswell's sermons on Christology, so I know what that is and I do understand it. None of the four main passages regarding Christology (John 1:1,14; Philippians 2:6-8; Colossians 1:2; Hebrews 1 and 2) say that deity means no ability to sin. Nor is there anywhere in Scripture that says having the ability to sin necessarily means you WILL sin or necessarily means you can't be righteous, holy and without spot or blemish. Had Jesus not been able to sin, it is impossible that He could be tested as a man per Matt 4 and Luke 4. THAT is not conclusion, it is in Philippians 2:5-8. Jesus is not lessened, was not unholy, was not imperfect, was not deity because in His humanity, He was able to sin. He functioned like a man by CHOICE. Philippians 2:9 makes that very clear and it is why, since Jesus DID Philippians 2:5-8, God DID Philippians 2:9.

Regarding His filling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' answers to Satan wasn't, "Sorry, can't sin." Instead and much greater than relying on His holiness, He gave reasoned answers from Scripture and because He was filled with the Holy Spirit, and because He applied those passages, He was able to pass the test (in your understanding of "tempted") and was able not to turn stones into bread, jump off the cliff, and become the ruler of the world because in His humanity, He used the power of God's Word and the power of God the Holy Spirit filling Him to demonstrate a fortiori, we can do the same with much lesser tests and much lesser temptations. None of that disregards nor lessens His deity, His holiness, His righteousness or any other of His divine attributes.

And yeah, I'm done with this thread as well.

 

That's true but that's not the right answer to my question.

 

God in the flesh but not fully human. He did not have the sin nature for in Him is no sin. But you are saying He could not possibly be really the Last Adam, because there was not even the remotest chance He could choose to sin. So because he could not have chosen to sin He was not really like Adam. You think He had a super-duper protection in that because He is God He would never incorporate into Himself the possibility to do wrong. He made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (but a man without choice). The first Adam had choice but not the Last Adam.

 

As I have said you need to understand Christology as taught in the Bible before you can respond correctly

 

Another person who does not understand Biblical Christology

 

I've seen threads like this before, and they inevitably seem to fall apart because two sides emerge in the discussion...
Jesus is both man and God, and one side ends up saying that He could have and didn't, and the other says that He could not have, even though He was tempted in all points.
To me, the problem exists in our own minds...
But what does the Scripture say?


" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ( John 1:1 ).
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."(John 5:18)
" Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." ( John 8:58 ).
" Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" ( Philippians 2:6 ).

" For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" ( Romans 8:3 )
" For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ).


My best and honest answer would be, "NO".
Just because He is a man, makes Him no less the Lord.
There was no "charade"... He did, as a man, what no other man could do:
Please the Father through His own obedience.

This is but one thing that makes Him worthy of our worship and gratitude.

 

Jesus being "made" sin in Corinthians can only mean "sin offering" not that He became a sinner on our behalf

 

I like to observe the various doctrinal positions Christians hold. Because it usually works out that their positions reflect either a grace only salvation or a grace/works salvation.

And I believe the subject of this thread is no different. Those who believe Christ could not sin, are more in the 'grace only' salvation. Those who believe Christ could sin but was obedient, are more in the 'grace/works' salvation.

Quantrill

 

And exactly how do you arrive at your conclusion

 

Why? Do you disagree?

Quantrill

 

you have asked two questions, but failed to answer my one question.

 

I do, and I do understand Christology as taught in the Bible like I have said, using the four passages as references. Your ad hominem engine might be going full frontal smug which hinders reasonable discussion.

 

right then, show from your own Bible references, where it says in any of the passages, that Jesus Christ could have sinned, but chose not to.

John 1:1,14; Philippians 2:6-8; Colossians 1:2; Hebrews 1 and 2

 

Show me in the doctrine of Christology using those passages that His deity, holiness, righteousness, along with all His divine attributes, all present in Christ during His first advent, says He was not able to sin (non posse paccare).

 

So you can't prove your theology from the Bible. I thought so. Move on

 

I absolutely CAN and I absolutely DID.

YOU are the one who brought up Christology and its associated passages and YOU are the one who, via the doctrine of Christology, said that it proves Christ was not able to sin. It does not. I NEVER said nor suggested that the doctrine of Christology proves that Jesus was able not to sin yet YOU demanded that I prove it using that doctrine. Nice rabbit hole try but no thanks. You kept bringing Christology up as your ad hominem bludgeoning tool. MY theology used the passages in Heb 4:15, Philippians 4:5-9, Matthew 4 and Luke 4 to illustrate that the Lord Jesus, in His humanity chose NOT to function in His deity yet you failed to address those with any kind of reasonable argument other than Christ is fully deity and fully God (which I completely agree) and therefore God cannot sin. I do not agree that Christ in His humanity was non posse paccare, not able to sin. He could not have been actually tempted (and by the way "tested" means there is a pass or fail grade as necessary possibilities or it's NOT a test) as a man were that the case. And I also explained why and addressed your arguments WITH Scripture. YOU are the one who cannot prove from Christology that Christ, in His humanity chose not to function with His deity per Philippians 2:5-8. It's not germaine to the subject at hand. Good grief.

So, if you can hold back on the smugness and lose your Christology bludgeon tool that YOU brought up as proof of non posse paccare during Christ's first advent (which it does NOT), my questions are quite valid and none require knowledge of Christology (which I have) but DO require knowledge of, and understanding of Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 4:15 in addition to the proof Jesus actually did choose not to use His deity during His ministry but used the Holy Spirit's power and His knowledge of God's Word as illustrated by Matt 4 and Luke 4.

"I thought so. Move on." Seriously?