SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
did you respond?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Could Christ have sinned?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
- Status
did you respond?
Lodic
Well-Known Member
Whether Satan knew he would fail when he tempted Jesus is not the point. Could Jesus have given in to those temptations? Yes, He had the ability to surrender or not to surrender. This decision is where the 2nd Adam won whereas the 1st Adam failed.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
You, or anyone else has not used a single Scripture to show what you are arguing is even taught in the Bible. I have shown from the Bible, #24, that it is impossible for Jesus to have "failed", and no one has yet responded to this.
For those who are arguing that it is possible for Jesus to have "sinned", this would make His human nature "capable" of sinning, and it is argued that He chose not to sin, though he could have. Does that mean that Jesus Christ "could have" lusted in his heart, for example, for a beautiful woman, but did not? Could He even for a split-second have "desired" a woman, as men do? Or, was He immune from this?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
"As a matter of fact, it was impossible for Christ to commit sin. For in His essential nature He was God, and God cannot sin. This does not mean that He could not be tempted; for as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “We have not a High Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” 4:15. In order for us to understand how Christ could have been tempted while at the same time there was no possibility that He would fall, it is necessary that we keep in mind the real nature of temptation. This has been well expressed by the Lutheran theologian, Dr. Joseph Stump, who says: “Temptation is literally a testing, to see whether the tested one will choose God’s service or not. This does not necessarily imply the possibility of a failure to stand the test. Gold may be tested as well as dross. And gold can never fail to stand the test. Theoretically, that is, as long as we do not know that the metal in question is gold, there may be the possibility in our minds that it will fail when put to the proof. But actually there is no such possibility. The gold, just because it is gold, will stand the test and cannot possibly fail to do so. If we were in ignorance of the true nature of Christ’s person, we should suppose that He might have failed in the hour of temptation. But knowing, as we do, that He is the veritable Son of God, we know that He could not have sinned. Being pure gold, He could not fail to stand the test. He might be tempted by Satan in many ways; but it was not possible that He should fall, because He was the Son of God.” (The Christian Faith, p. 148).
Since Christ was free from every taint of either inherited or personal sin, there was nothing in Him to which sin could appeal, nothing to which it could commend itself as attractive. This was the meaning of the words, “The prince of the world cometh; and he hath nothing in me,” John 14:30. The Devil could find not the slightest evil tendency or desire in the personality of Jesus to which he could make an appeal, no basis on which He could be persuaded to accomplish His ends by other than lawful means. Since His Divine nature was the dominant and controlling principle in His personality, His human will, which was always in full harmony with His Divine will, was kept steadily inclined toward the right. Consequently, sin, regardless of the form in which it was presented, was always repulsive to Him. Sin often does seem attractive to us and we become its victims, because we still have remnants of the old sinful nature clinging to us, although happily we do find some persons who have made such progress in the Christian way that sin is practically always repulsive to them. And if in this life we find that some of those who have been redeemed reach a state in which they almost invariably turn from sin with contempt, it is not strange that the holy nature of Jesus, which was entirely free from all mental and moral aberrations and from all inherited and personal sin, should unerringly have rejected all temptations to do evil. Christ’s inability to commit sin was, strictly speaking, not a limitation, but a perfection; for certainly there is no surer proof of imperfection than that when confronted with a choice between good and evil the person is capable of choosing evil. Consequently, one of the rewards that we look forward to in heaven is that of being confirmed in holiness so that we too shall be unable to commit sin."
(Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, pp. 211-212)
Since Christ was free from every taint of either inherited or personal sin, there was nothing in Him to which sin could appeal, nothing to which it could commend itself as attractive. This was the meaning of the words, “The prince of the world cometh; and he hath nothing in me,” John 14:30. The Devil could find not the slightest evil tendency or desire in the personality of Jesus to which he could make an appeal, no basis on which He could be persuaded to accomplish His ends by other than lawful means. Since His Divine nature was the dominant and controlling principle in His personality, His human will, which was always in full harmony with His Divine will, was kept steadily inclined toward the right. Consequently, sin, regardless of the form in which it was presented, was always repulsive to Him. Sin often does seem attractive to us and we become its victims, because we still have remnants of the old sinful nature clinging to us, although happily we do find some persons who have made such progress in the Christian way that sin is practically always repulsive to them. And if in this life we find that some of those who have been redeemed reach a state in which they almost invariably turn from sin with contempt, it is not strange that the holy nature of Jesus, which was entirely free from all mental and moral aberrations and from all inherited and personal sin, should unerringly have rejected all temptations to do evil. Christ’s inability to commit sin was, strictly speaking, not a limitation, but a perfection; for certainly there is no surer proof of imperfection than that when confronted with a choice between good and evil the person is capable of choosing evil. Consequently, one of the rewards that we look forward to in heaven is that of being confirmed in holiness so that we too shall be unable to commit sin."
(Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, pp. 211-212)
Lodic
Well-Known Member
Hebrews 2:18 and Hebrews 4:15 make it clear that Jesus could have chosen to commit any sin which we are tempted to do. Since He didn't have a fallen sin nature, He has the ability to sin or not. As fallen humans, we do not have that same ability - i.e. we don't have the ability not to sin. I realize that I am repeating myself, but you are having trouble understanding the difference between Christ's humanity and ours.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Take a look at #66
Lodic
Well-Known Member
Quite a read, and Dr Stump does present a good argument. Then again, so does R.C. Sproul. This question has literally been debated for centuries. We can find many respected theologians on both sides of this issue.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
He was able- but not willing. I am able to shoplift, but I am not willing.
Christ's sinlesness is not based on inability but on His righteousness.
37818
Well-Known Member
We agree that God cannot lie according to Holy Scripture. If God is absolutely righteous then none of His Persons can sin. You claim an ability to sin, which is absurd.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
What you fail to accept is His righteousness is His inability to sin.
My claim is that it is impossible for God to sin because God is righteous as opposed to God being incapable. Your claim is absurd. God is not sinless due to a lack of power but due to an absolute holy righteousness.
Not at all. That is what I have stated.
37818
Well-Known Member
An impossiblity is an inability.
No. It is not. In Scripture the point is God's righteousness, not weakness.
37818
Well-Known Member
We are not understanding the meaning of words the same way. In my understanding, what is impossible is a total inablitiy.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
This whole argument is absurd. I have just read R C Sproul's argument saying that "As long as Jesus had no desire to sin, he would not sin", which suggest that in the God-Man, Jesus Christ, there was a "will" that could have "rebelled" and given into sin. Which means that somewhere in His "human nature", there was always the possibility of Jesus "disobeying" the Perfect Will of the Father, not only in the temptation by the devil, but, also of Him not wanting to go to the cross, for which purose He came! The Bible says in Hebrews 10, "hen I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God" (7, 9); and that Jesus "ALWAYS did the things that pleased the Father" (John 8:29). There was NO struggle in the Person of Jesus Christ, on anything, as we humans always have. It is very wrong to try to undersatnd the One Person, The God-Man, Jesus Christ, in humanistic terms, because we are very much limited and faulty in our understanding. Further, ONLY if Jesus Christ were two separate "Persons", rather than "One Person, Two Natures", would His possibility of "failing", be possible. There is no way that the devil, who knew full well, that Jesus Christ IS always Eternally Almighty God, and that He "became flesh", would have tried to tempt only "the human nature", which in itself is a complete nonsense, as Jesus Christ CANNOT be divided.
- Status