Could the Lord jesus ACTUALLYhad been Able To Sin?

[JesusFan]

Was it even a possibility that he could have NOT being to resist His temptations, and had fallen into being a sinner?

if not even a possibility, was that due to Him being also God,or to the fact that he FULLY relied upon the Holy Spirit at all times, as he chose NOT to use his "God nature" to resist the temptations?

 

[menageriekeeper]

If, as we believe being Baptists, that Jesus was fully man and at the same time fully God, then he was capable of sinning but at the same he was capable of choosing NOT to sin. Or rather capable of denying his fleshly desires in favor of his spiritual ones. (unlike we humans who are capable of sinning, but not capable of choosing to not sin all the time. There will be something that appeals to our flesh and the temptation will be greater than our strength. Were it not so, we wouldn't have needed a Savior)

 

[freeatlast]

If, as we believe being Baptists, that Jesus was fully man and at the same time fully God, then he was capable of sinning but at the same he was capable of choosing NOT to sin. Or rather capable of denying his fleshly desires in favor of his spiritual ones. (unlike we humans who are capable of sinning, but not capable of choosing to not sin all the time. There will be something that appeals to our flesh and the temptation will be greater than our strength. Were it not so, we wouldn't have needed a Savior)

By this reasoning are you saying that because Jesus was also man that sin appealed to His flesh?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Yep. Isn't that what this passage suggests to you?

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

or this one:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

How else does one tempt a man but through his flesh?

 

[J.D.]

He could be tempted but he could not sin.

 

[freeatlast]

Yep. Isn't that what this passage suggests to you?

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

or this one:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

How else does one tempt a man but through his flesh?

Here is the problem with taking those passages as meaning He actually felt temptation like we do.
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

If you follow the idea it means He actually felt the temptation, desire, in His flesh, and it is saying He felt to do adultery, homosexuality, lie, murder and on and on, but He just did not carry it out then I think we have a problem.
Personally I don't buy that. I do not believe He felt the desire (temptation) to look on a woman with lust. It has to mean something else.

 

[freeatlast]

He could be tempted but he could not sin.

Pleasae explain what you mean by what you have stated in light of my post #6

 

[menageriekeeper]

He could be tempted but he could not sin.

What is the point of tempting a person who is incapable of sinning?

It has to mean something else.

What do you suppose it means?

I have another question for you FaL: Why would it matter if Christ could feel desire for a woman or one of the other things you mentioned?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Here is the problem with taking those passages as meaning He actually felt temptation like we do.
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

If you follow the idea it means He actually felt the temptation, desire, in His flesh, and it is saying He felt to do adultery, homosexuality, lie, murder and on and on, but He just did not carry it out then I think we have a problem.
Personally I don't buy that. I do not believe He felt the desire (temptation) to look on a woman with lust. It has to mean something else.

Free—I don’t understand what your saying--& since I’m working on a sermon about Matt 4:1-11; Heb 2:16-18; & Heb 4:14-16 for this Sunday—I’d be interested in knowing what you find to be problematic with Christ being legitimately tempted? I’m not following your use of Jam 1:14—could u please explain

 

[J.D.]

Pleasae explain what you mean by what you have stated in light of my post #6

I really have nothing else to add to my post because everything beyond that is cloaked in the mystery of the hypostatic union. Being God, He was not capable of sin, but being man, he was "tempted in all like manner as we are, yet without sin".

I do not know where the line between temptation and sin is when it comes to sins of thought, but wherever the line is, Jesus never crossed it.

 

[freeatlast]

What is the point of tempting a person who is incapable of sinning?



What do you suppose it means?

Really I am not sure, but I have a not so dogmatic opinion. (by that I mean I am not sure of my belief, but I am sure He did not feel those desires)

I believe what it is saying is this. As you know we are all tempted in different things. For me it is certain things and perhaps you others. However just because I am tempted I am not always feeling the desire. For instance someone might come to me and say let's go smoke a joint. They have tempted me, from the standpoint of a temptation, but I feel nothing. I have no battle, I have no desire, it is nothing to me, yet one could say I was tempted.
I think the same is with the Lord. He was tempted, but had absolutely no desire. James 1:14 He felt nothing to the temptation because there was no lust in Him and His only desire was the Father's will.

Yet at the same time He suffered, not the desires of temptations, but the sufferings because he withstood them. He was mocked, and suffered hunger, and suffered physical hurts as well as mental which brought weeping and finally the sufferings of the cross and being forsaken by the Father.
I do not believe it means he actually felt any desire even in the flesh or any other way to do sin of any kind.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Really I am not sure, but I have a not so dogmatic opinion. (by that I mean I am not sure of my belief, but I am sure He did not feel those desires)

I believe what it is saying is this. As you know we are all tempted in different things. For me it is certain things and perhaps you others. However just because I am tempted I am not always feeling the desire. For instance someone might come to me and say let's go smoke a joint. They have tempted me, from the standpoint of a temptation, but I feel nothing. I have no battle, I have no desire, it is nothing to me, yet one could say I was tempted.
I think the same is with the Lord. He was tempted, but had absolutely no desire. James 1:14 He felt nothing to the temptation because there was no lust in Him and His only desire was the Father's will.

Yet at the same time He suffered, not the desires of temptations, but the sufferings because he withstood them. He was mocked, and suffered hunger, and suffered physical hurts as well as mental which brought weeping and finally the sufferings of the cross and being forsaken by the Father.
I do not believe it means he actually felt any desire even in the flesh or any other way to do sin of any kind.

I think that’s a very reasonable point—although I don’t fully agree---do you believe he was not tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane to not go to the cross although it was the Father’s will?

 

[revmwc]

I think that’s a very reasonable point—although I don’t fully agree---do you believe he was not tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane to not go to the cross although it was the Father’s will?

He was not tempted in the Garden at all. If you look at the text in all the places we see this then you would see He had every intention of making it to the cross. He was not asking not to make it to the cross that night, His prayer was that He would make it.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

He was not tempted in the Garden at all. If you look at the text in all the places we see this then you would see He had every intention of making it to the cross. He was not asking not to make it to the cross that night, His prayer was that He would make it.

Having intentions to do something & being tempted to do otherwise do not necessarily counteract each other—I just don’t see how what you said negates temptation---hey I could be wrong---but asking for strength to make it would actual seem to imply a temptation to not do it. Esp since he said not my will but thine. Even though I do agree he had every intention to go through with it.

 

[freeatlast]

I think that’s a very reasonable point—although I don’t fully agree---do you believe he was not tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane to not go to the cross although it was the Father’s will?

No I really don't, at least in Him not wanting to do the will of His Father. I think we can see His human side and being human He did not want to suffer if there was another way. This was not a piece of cake or easy for Him. In reading the text it becomes clear that He is totally surrendered to the Fathers will. The Fathers will is His will! The Lord never feels anything else as far as who's will He wants to fulfill. It is not that He has no desires. He is not a robot as some think we are because of claims of predestination and His request does not make His feelings sin. However because of the upcoming suffering He is simply asking if there is another way and that He would like the Father to consider it. I don't see that He felt any kind of desire not to do what ever was His Father's will, even the cross, but rather sought only to get a clarification that this was the only way to carry it out.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

No I really don't, at least in Him not wanting to do the will of His Father. I think we can see His human side and being human He did not want to suffer if there was another way. This was not a piece of cake or easy for Him. In reading the text it becomes clear that He is totally surrendered to the Fathers will. The fathers will is His will! The Lord never feels anything else as far as who's will He wants to fulfill. It is not that He has no desires. He is not a robot as some think we are because of claims of predestination and His request does not make His feelings sin. However because of the upcoming suffering He is simply asking if there is another way and that He would like the Father to consider it. I don't see that He felt any kind of desire not to do what ever was His Father's will, only to get a clarification that this was the only way to carry it out.

I really don’t have a problem with your overall analysis—but I still don’t see how that negates temptation to do otherwise---honestly I think we agree up to every point, except that he did not face real temptation.

 

[revmwc]

Having intentions to do something & being tempted to do otherwise do not necessarily counteract each other—I just don’t see how what you said negates temptation---hey I could be wrong---but asking for strength to make it would actual seem to imply a temptation to not do it. Esp since he said not my will but thine. Even though I do agree he had every intention to go through with it.

His prayer was Father help me make it to the cross, He never ask not to get to the cross no temptation no desire never the thought of not making it. The prayer in the Garden has been mis-interpreted for many years.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

His prayer was Father help me make it to the cross, He never ask not to get to the cross no temptation no desire never the thought of not making it.

Hey-I agree--but how is this negating temptation? And even more importantatly how is it that Matt 4:1 says he was driven by the Spirit to b tempted by Satan in the wilderness, if he never faced real temptation

 

[freeatlast]

I really don’t have a problem with your overall analysis—but I still don’t see how that negates temptation to do otherwise---honestly I think we agree up to every point, except that he did not face real temptation.

I understand and as I stated earlier I am not totally convinced of my own belief as to how this works because there is not enough information although I do lean this way. I do take a stand that He did not literally feel the desires of temptation because of James 1:14. as well as because I just do not believe that gritting His teeth and not doing the temptations while desiring them as we do many times would have left Him sinless..
So I hold it was real temptation, but without the feelings of desire to do them. I don't believe He ever felt to have immoral relations or any other desire contrary to God as we have.

 

[revmwc]

Hey-I agree--but how is this negating temptation? And even more importantatly how is it that Matt 4:1 says he was driven by the Spirit to b tempted by Satan in the wilderness, if he never faced real temptation

If you study the pasages you would see that the cup he wanted to pass from him was not the cross, He wanted to make the cross. His whole ministry and life revolved around His doing the Fathers will and the cross was that will.