CHRIST: Sinless or not?

[npetreley]

How could it be up for debate in a Baptist forum as to whether or not Christ is sinless?

 

[dan e.]

Whoever on the other thread who questioned Jesus' vocabulary when he chased out the money changers needs to read the following:

• Matthew 12
• Mark 11
• John 2

Jesus didn't "cuss" anyone nor did He "curse" anyone. The word "curse" cannot be found in those three accounts. And His anger was a righteous anger. A similar kind of anger that Christians have when we think of all of those aborted babies. But even in our "best" righteous anger, we still sin.

Even in chasing out those who had so grossly defiled the temple and using a weapon against them (a cord) and turning over the tables, Jesus had no sin.

Jesus never sinned....ever. Sin never conquered him. It couldn't. It didn't have the power.

He did curse a fig tree, but cursing and cussing is this context is not the same thing.

Whoever said that in the other thread needs to read up in the scriptures.

I couldn't help but laugh as I was reading this post. I was just creating a *bleepin'* scenario. I promise I will read your suggested passages.

 

[dan e.]

I don't think anyone has ever denied Christ's sinlessness.

 

[Dale-c]

Whoever on the other thread who questioned Jesus' vocabulary when he chased out the money changers needs to read the following:

I am not sure what Jesus said but He could possibly have used words that some may find offensive.
BUt we can rest assured that any words He used were totally right in the context and time that He spoke them.

Consider the following:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

That term is obviously not wrong here but if I called out in anger falsely and called someone such, it would be breaking the 9th commandment.

So whether he "cussed" or not is beside the point. We KNOW that there was no filthy communication that came from His mouth nor were there any false witness.

 

[npetreley]

I am not sure what Jesus said but He could possibly have used words that some may find offensive.

He definitely used words that people found offensive. I don't mean "bad words", I mean what people heard when the words formed sentences.

 

[Dale-c]

How could it be up for debate in a Baptist forum as to whether or not Christ is sinless?

Here is the point.

We believe Jesus drank real wine.

They believe that is a sin.
Since they believe drinking wine is a sin and we believe Jesus drank wine then WE believe that Jesus was NOT sinless.

Or so that is the reasoning.
It matters not that we say over and over again that we DO believe He was sinless.

 

[mcdirector]

FTR, I believe that Jesus was sinless. No doubt about it.

 

[mcdirector]

I don't think anyone has ever denied Christ's sinlessness.

agreed
. . . . . .

 

[Scarlett O.]

I couldn't help but laugh as I was reading this post. I was just creating a *bleepin'* scenario. I promise I will read your suggested passages.

OK, :thumbs: ...my bad.

 

[av1611jim]

Is that really the issue, though? I thought you were talking about whether your "inaccurate knowlege" exempts you from salvation. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your examples have more to do with the rewards and/or consequences a saved person will experience.

Admittedly my first two examples were weak and off topic. Sorry.

However; the third is very much to the point.

IF it is true that any drinking of alcohol is sin (and I believe that to be the case) and you do not:
And IF you believe Jesus not only made it at the wedding of Cana but also drank it (I do not)
THEN you are believing in a "saviour" who is not sinless but in fact is one who laid a stumbling block before many people and is no "savoiur at all.

I care not to make this a wine/no wine thread. The ISSUE is the character of The Lord Jesus Christ.

Must one believe in Christ properly to be saved?

Practically the whole of the New Testament seems to indicate that yes, one MUST believe rightly or he is NOT saved.

 

[mcdirector]

So the issue here really is, that some here believe:

if Christ really drank wine, then he sinned and could not be sinless.

AND this is why the wine issue is so very important to some of our members.

Have I summed this up correctly?

 

[npetreley]

Here is the point.

We believe Jesus drank real wine.

They believe that is a sin.
Since they believe drinking wine is a sin and we believe Jesus drank wine then WE believe that Jesus was NOT sinless.

Or so that is the reasoning.
It matters not that we say over and over again that we DO believe He was sinless.

With respect to our own salvation and life, who cares if they believe it's a sin? Would I drink wine in front of them? No, absolutely not. It's clear that this would be against their conscience, and that would be unbiblical and improper. But that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to agree with them. I think Paul said it all very well here:

23 "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake — 29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God — 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Let's put it this way:

Some say Jesus drank alcohol and condones it in the life of a Christian.

Some say Jesus did not drink alcohol and does not condone it in the life of a Christian.

Only one side can be right.

Which means... one is telling the truth, the other lying.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

So, one side is not going to enter that Kingdom spoken of in Revelation 21:27.

Can any of us truly afford to be wrong?

 

[dan e.]

Admittedly my first two examples were weak and off topic. Sorry.

However; the third is very much to the point.

IF it is true that any drinking of alcohol is sin (and I believe that to be the case) and you do not:
And IF you believe Jesus not only made it at the wedding of Cana but also drank it (I do not)
THEN you are believing in a "saviour" who is not sinless but in fact is one who laid a stumbling block before many people and is no "savoiur at all.

I care not to make this a wine/no wine thread. The ISSUE is the character of The Lord Jesus Christ.

Must one believe in Christ properly to be saved?

Practically the whole of the New Testament seems to indicate that yes, one MUST believe rightly or he is NOT saved.

It is the OPINION of some that alcohol is inherently sinful...an opinion that is not necessary to be dogmatic about, and there is room within God's family to disagree.
Those who have the OPINION that alcohol is not inherently sinful do not believe Christ sinned in any way, and should not be accused of believing in a Jesus who sinned.
As far as believing Christ "properly"....I can only imagine who gets do define "properly". I think we're all pretty clearly jacked up and are not "proper" in our thoughts and actions. Rather with the help of the Holy Spirit we can pursue being like Jesus.
It is deceitful to turn this around and try and demonstrate that if you believe Jesus made/drank alcoholic wine than you don't believe in the "correct" Jesus.

 

[dan e.]

Let's put it this way:

Some say Jesus drank alcohol and condones it in the life of a Christian.

Some say Jesus did not drink alcohol and does not condone it in the life of a Christian.

Only one side can be right.

Which means... one is telling the truth, the other lying.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

So, one side is not going to enter that Kingdom spoken of in Revelation 21:27.

Can any of us truly afford to be wrong?

See....we're all pretty jacked up.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Ah.....I see now! (Would have helped had I read more thoroughly the first time.)

This is a debate between the following two camps.

Camp 1
"Drinking wine is sinful. Therefore, if Jesus Christ is sinless, then He never made nor drank a fermented drink. To say that He did is to say that He is sinful......ergo, wine in the bible must have been grape juice."

Camp 2
"Jesus Christ turned water into real wine and moderately ate/drank what everyone else in his culture typically ate/drank at meal time. Therefore, since Jesus Christ never committed a sin, then drinking wine in moderation is not a sin, but drunkeness is."

Methinks this is where I will bow out.......

 

[av1611jim]

So the issue here really is, that some here believe:

if Christ really drank wine, then he sinned and could not be sinless.

AND this is why the wine issue is so very important to some of our members.

Have I summed this up correctly?

Yes, Bitsy, you have summed it up nicely. Thanks.

The issue is NOT about wine, per se. The issue is the sinless character of Christ and exactly what that means and what that looks like in the practical experience of our daily lives.

For Christ said, "...let him deny himself and come follow me."

Can one be mistaken about the character of Christ and be SAVED?

Some have said yes, indeed one could be saved yet mistaken about Christ.

My answer is this:

THAT view opens the door for all kinds of heresy. i.e. Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, et al.

 

[mcdirector]

Let's put it this way:

Some say Jesus drank alcohol and condones it in the life of a Christian.

Some say Jesus did not drink alcohol and does not condone it in the life of a Christian.

Only one side can be right.

Which means... one is telling the truth, the other lying.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

So, one side is not going to enter that Kingdom spoken of in Revelation 21:27.

Can any of us truly afford to be wrong?

Someone can be wrong without lying. This is the kind of thing that gets people riled up. Why can't we have a discussion about God's Word with it being two sides?

This is not a salvation issue.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

 

[Dale-c]

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

I totally agree. It seems some would have it:

Believe that that Jesus Never Drank real wine and thou shalt be saved"

 

[mcdirector]

Yes, Bitsy, you have summed it up nicely. Thanks.

The issue is NOT about wine, per se. The issue is the sinless character of Christ and exactly what that means and what that looks like in the practical experience of our daily lives.

For Christ said, "...let him deny himself and come follow me."

Can one be mistaken about the character of Christ and be SAVED?

Some have said yes, indeed one could be saved yet mistaken about Christ.

My answer is this:

THAT view opens the door for all kinds of heresy. i.e. Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, et al.

OK, so the difference is that some of us don't think that that it is a sin to have an occassional glass of wine. Some of us do choose not to drink because we believe in abstinance, but we believe the wine in the Bible was alcoholic when the term wine was mentioned. (low alcohol content, but still, it was there.)

That would mean that Jesus drank wine based on what we believe, but He was still sinless. He drank it as a beverage. He did not get drunk; he would not have abused it because that would have been outside the boundaries of it's use. He would not have done those things with food either.

This really is an interpretation of the Scripture. We are going to find scholars (good ones that are well known and honestly love the Lord) to back up both sides of this issue.