CHRIST: Sinless or not?

[av1611jim]

In another thread the question was asked if one could believe in a "Jesus" who drank alcoholic wine and still be saved.

The response to that question was that if one believed in a "Jesus" who acted contrary to what the word of God said then that person was believing in a different "Jesus". The implication of course is that one could NOT be saved by a different "Jesus" than the one whom God hath sent. (At least that is what I understood his answer to be.)

Also during the various interchanges in the same thread one responder mentioned that he thought "Jesus" may have even said a 'cuss word' while tossing the money changers out of the temple but that would not affect his view of this "Jesus" being sinless.

Both of these responses led me to wondering about this topic. Bible Boy said he would give that thread 24 hours before closing it but then changed his mind and closed it without warning just a couple posts later. (****RATS! Just when I had laboured through 24 pages of "No sir!" and "Yes sirree!" I lost my chance to weigh in.)

My query for the BB is this. Most of us agree that Jesus was sinless, but EXACTLY what does that mean? Some define cussing as sin. Some defiine drinking booze in any form as sin. Some do not. Examples of this apparent dichotomy within Christendom abound but I will not belabour the point. I am sure my readers are intelligent enough to understand the issue.

Does your definition of sin also define the character of the "Jesus" you believe in? How does this affect biblical salvation? The question was sarcastically asked of one poster whether he thought if one believed "Jesus" drank alcoholic beverages could one be "saved".

Can one be sincere in their profession of faith yet in error as to the character of Jesus and still be saved?

I say no. What say ye?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I say no. Jesus was perfectly human, perfectly God, in him was found no guile.

About cussing ? I don't believe he did. He may have cursed them, but I'm betting he used few words, and relied on his actions.

 

[James_Newman]

An interesting question, brother Jim. How are you, by the way? I think that for one to understand the gospel properly, one must understand that Jesus was the sinless lamb of God. The question must then be, does one have to properly understand the gospel in order to benefit from faith in Christ and receive eternal salvation. Certainly the thief on the cross understood that Jesus suffered beside him not because of any sin that He was guilty of, but could you go on to say that the thief understood that Jesus never sinned during His entire life on earth?

 

[richard n koustas]

In another thread the question was asked if one could believe in a "Jesus" who drank alcoholic wine and still be saved.

not sure what your point is here. is my salvation based on whether or i believe Jesus drank alchoholic wine?

Can one be sincere in their profession of faith yet in error as to the character of Jesus and still be saved?

I say no. What say ye?

Absolutely! Is Jesus sinless, yes. do i fully know His character? no. could i be mistaken about something in His character, and still be saved? of course.

 

[Dale-c]

My question is, how does believing that wine is not sinful and believing that Jesus drank wine make that big of a deal?

I certainly don't accuse the grape juice folks of believing in another Jesus. That is crazy.


I believe the wine in the Bible contained alcohol. I believe Jesus drank it and was sinless.

Others believe that some wine in the Bible did NOT contain alcohol and this is what Jesus drank. They believe He was sinless.


Big deal.


Now, saying that what you believe on the topic of wine somehow affects your salvation IS a big deal!

 

[Dale-c]

Absolutely! Is Jesus sinless, yes. do i fully know His character? no. could i be mistaken about something in His character, and still be saved? of course.

Exactly.
Since we are saved by grace and not works, then it is not required for us to have every theological problem solved.

That said we should strive for sound doctrine but only because we are saved, not in order to obtain salvation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Most of us agree that Jesus was sinless, but EXACTLY what does that mean?

Simply put, sin is anything that is opposed to the character and Person(s) of God.

Does your definition of sin also define the character of the "Jesus" you believe in?

I hope it is the other way around. I look to Jesus to learn about the character of God. I study what Jesus did and learn how to live my own life under His power and direction.

How does this affect biblical salvation?

Those who follow Jesus in discipleship are saved. (There are also other believers, who have been misled or left ignorant regarding the nature of the calling of Christ who have also been saved, but they are missing out on the blessings and responsibilities of the Kingdom.

Can one be sincere in their profession of faith yet in error as to the character of Jesus and still be saved?

Yes, it happens all the time. When one comes to Christ, they are usually extremely ignorant about the things of God and do not understand what committed disciples of Christ understand as fundamental principles. Since God's grace is not bound by intellectual capacity or restrained by a lack of imagination on the part of the believer. Eleven of the 12 closest disciples became full believers at some point during their three years with Jesus. Much of their experience with Christ was characterized by gross misunderstandings regarding His character, His mission, and His priorities. Yet in the end, 11 of the 12 were true believers.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Conjecture.

The Bible does not say that the thief did not know of Jesus' life on earth. It is highly possible that the thief saw or heard of the things of Jesus before the cross. In Mark 1 we know that the works of Jesus were noised abroad by the leper that was cleansed.

That thief certainly walked that last mile with Jesus and I am sure he must have heard the cries of the ones witnessing that walk to Calvary.

 

[dan e.]

The question was if a person understood Jesus' sinless life, believed in His death, ressurection, atonement for our sins, even repented etc., yet saw no reason to think that the wine He made or could have drunk wasn't alcoholic...is this person's salvation in doubt. I asked the question because that is what was being alluded to, but never directly answered.

The distinction is not about the nature or work of Jesus, but on a piece of historical information; such as was the wine alcoholic? It appeared that a person's salvation hinges not only on the work of Jesus, but on bits of historical facts that may or may not be true. That was the answer I received through vague responses; if it was wrong, I have no idea. I was never corrected to think otherwise.

 

[av1611jim]

An interesting question, brother Jim. How are you, by the way? I think that for one to understand the gospel properly, one must understand that Jesus was the sinless lamb of God. The question must then be, does one have to properly understand the gospel in order to benefit from faith in Christ and receive eternal salvation. Certainly the thief on the cross understood that Jesus suffered beside him not because of any sin that He was guilty of, but could you go on to say that the thief understood that Jesus never sinned during His entire life on earth?

Hey bro! I am well thanks. How are you?

I think the thief in question did indeed understand the sinlessness of Christ when he rebuked the other with the words, "this man has done nothing amiss". I think this satement would indicate that this thief was not altogether unfamiliar with the ministry of Christ , hence the motivation for his rebuke to the other.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29)

Many will think they are doing the work of the Father and not even truly know the One the Father has sent. We must know Him.

 

[Dale-c]

The question was if a person understood Jesus' sinless life, believed in His death, ressurection, atonement for our sins, even repented etc., yet saw no reason to think that the wine He made or could have drunk wasn't alcoholic...is this person's salvation in doubt. I asked the question because that is what was being alluded to, but never directly answered.

Don't get your hopes up.
HB is better than Bill Clinton at dodging questions.

 

[Dale-c]

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Just a warning, quoting from this verse does not exempt you from it's contents.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Dale,

Quit with your attacks. It is very unChrist-like.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale,

Quit with your attacks. It is very unChrist-like.

I will not claim that everything I do is Christlike.
But lying certianly does NOT become a believer.

Something you have done everytime you say you have answered Dan's question.

 

[av1611jim]

Some have weighed in on this issue and state that one need not have all their ducks in a row. I can agree in principle. But in the practical outworking of this position I must disagree.

For example. You believe alcohol to be a good thing; but like all good things it can be abused and it is the abuse of such which becomes sin and not the thing itself. At the judgment seat of Christ you learn that alcohol is an evil thing and you must now answer for your use of it and your advocacy of it.

A better example. You believe the same as I stated above and are quite vocal about it. You even vehemently support your view in a worldwide forum (such as this). A young believer sees this exchange, trusts that you know what you are talking about and in short order finds himself trapped in alcoholism and dies a drunkards death. It all began with a glass here and a glass there but soon he falls victim to the deceitfullness of booze. What shall you answer? They were your words which emboldened said young man to think he can safely partake.

And yet one more. You believe the same philosophy as above and teach men such things. The truth is revealed in days to come that Jesus did NOT use alcohol and it is totally contrary to His character. Yet you have taught others that this is within His character. You have presented a false Christ and encouraged men to trust this false Christ. What will be your answer? Do not presume to think you can turn this last scenario around upon the "teetotalers" since THEIR view is one of purity and not one of permission.

 

[Scarlett O.]

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.

 

[dan e.]

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29)

Many will think they are doing the work of the Father and not even truly know the One the Father has sent. We must know Him.

I definitely agree with you on this verse...however the context is speaking about the fruit of people claiming to do the work of God. Jesus said that "you'll recognize them by their fruit." He is talking about DOING the will of God. He is not talking about a piece of factual information such as was the wine alcoholic, or nonalcoholic. I don't think the context of this verse supports the fact you believe those who believe the wine was alcoholic are not saved. That soteriology is unbiblical. It focuses on believing extra-biblical notions that are not even necessarily true (that the wine was non-alcoholic).

 

[npetreley]

Some have weighed in on this issue and state that one need not have all their ducks in a row. I can agree in principle. But in the practical outworking of this position I must disagree.

For example. You believe alcohol to be a good thing; but like all good things it can be abused and it is the abuse of such which becomes sin and not the thing itself. At the judgment seat of Christ you learn that alcohol is an evil thing and you must now answer for your use of it and your advocacy of it.

A better example. You believe the same as I stated above and are quite vocal about it. You even vehemently support your view in a worldwide forum (such as this). A young believer sees this exchange, trusts that you know what you are talking about and in short order finds himself trapped in alcoholism and dies a drunkards death. It all began with a glass here and a glass there but soon he falls victim to the deceitfullness of booze. What shall you answer? They were your words which emboldened said young man to think he can safely partake.

And yet one more. You believe the same philosophy as above and teach men such things. The truth is revealed in days to come that Jesus did NOT use alcohol and it is totally contrary to His character. Yet you have taught others that this is within His character. You have presented a false Christ and encouraged men to trust this false Christ. What will be your answer? Do not presume to think you can turn this last scenario around upon the "teetotalers" since THEIR view is one of purity and not one of permission.

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.

 

[SBCPreacher]

I vote for "Christ is sinless."

If He had sinned, He could not have been the perfect sacrifice, and we would all still be dead in our sins.