How Did Jesus Do It?

[Van]

To claim Jesus could not have sinned is to dishonor Christ's life of obedience.

 

[SavedByGrace]

To claim Jesus could not have sinned is to dishonor Christ's life of obedience.

Van, your "theology" gets worse!

 

[George Antonios]

There have been a number of threads on here recently, on whether Jesus Christ, Who IS The Eternal God, could have sinned while He was on earth for about 33 years, but that He chose not to.

It is argued by those who believe that Jesus “could have sinned”, that, for Him to be really “like us”, then He had to have this “ability”, otherwise His human nature was not “like ours”. It is further argued by these, that Jesus’ human nature, was exactly like that Adam and Eve had prior to their “fall”, which was “without sin”. Here is their first error. While I accept that Adam and Eve were Created by God as “sinless” beings, I do not accept that Jesus’ human nature was 100% like theirs. In one respect the human nature of Jesus Christ was like that of Adam and Eve, in that it was “sinless”. But, in Luke 1:35, we are told something that is not true of Adam and Eve, that the human nature of Jesus Christ, from conception, would be “Holy”, ἅγιος, that is “sacred and pure”, by the working of God the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 7:26 says this about Jesus

“For such a high priest became us, Holy, Guileless, Undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens”

Here the Greek word used for “Holy”, is “ὅσιος”, which denotes, “Righteous”. Then we have “Guileless”, which is “ἄκακος”, “free from any guilt”. Then, “Undefiled”, “free from any stain of ungodliness”. Or “free from contamination”. “Separated from sinners”, where “χωρίζω”, which is the perfect passive participle, “to separate oneself from”. This is true of the Lord Kesus Christ, from the time of His conception in Mary, and throughout His life on earth. The language used goes into much detail to ensure that the absolute sinlessness of Jesus Christ is understood. Jesus Christ is rightly called UNIQUE (μονογενής) in Scripture, which means that He cannot be compared to ANY human being, not even Adam, though he was Created as “sinless”.

This brings us to a question, exactly how was Jesus “able not to sin? How did He, for the entire time that He was on earth, not even sin the one time, either in, thought, word or deed? It has been suggested, that Jesus was “able” to do this, because He “relied” on the Holy Spirit, or God the Father, Who gave Him the “ability” to reject any temptations, and remain 100% sinless for some 33 years. Let us suppose that this is true, that through His complete “reliance” on the Holy Spirit, Jesus was “able not to sin”. Why, then, is this not possible for ANY human being to achieve? If we are honest with ourselves, there is not one born-again Christian, who never struggles with temptation, many on a daily basis, many by temptations/sins that weigh you down, and have caused many to backslide. The Book of Job describes him as, “man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.” (1:1). And, even though Job was “protected” by the Lord (Have You not made a hedge for him, 1:10), yet he had a problem with “lust”, as he says in 31:1, “"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman”.

The only answer for those who believe, that Jesus Christ, while on earth, “was able not to sin”, is that He could do so, because of the daily help that He received from the Holy Spirit. But, this could not have been in any way that is available for us humans, because there is not a single Christian, regardless of how “godly” they are, to remain “completely sinless” for their entire lives. This is impossible! Therefore, the “help” that Jesus Christ would have from the Holy Spirit, so that He could choose daily “not to sin”, had to be continuous, literally, 24x7x365, for every nanosecond of His time on earth! If this were true, then this is an very unfair “advantage” that Jesus Christ had against temptation, and therefore cannot be a true representative of any humans! Because, if Jesus Christ did not have this “protection” by the Holy Spirit, while on earth, then there is no way that He could have “rejected temptations”. Humanly, this is impossible!

It is very clear that the teaching that Jesus Christ, while on earth, “was able not to sin”, is 100% wrong, and cannot be justified from any teaching in the Holy Bible. The ONLY correct teaching has to be, that while on earth, Jesus Christ was “not able to sin”, because He was always, The God-Man, both His Divine and Human “natures” are 100% “Holy and Perfect”, and therefore, could not have “fallen”, even though He was tempted as we are.

After a 4th thread on this topic, I suggest we next begin a thread debating how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.

 

[SavedByGrace]

After a 4th thread on this topic, I suggest we next begin a thread debating how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.

It is an important subject, which some on here not able to grasp. I have made some, what I believe to be, important points. No one is forced to read or comment. If you feel there is too much on this subject, then please don't trouble yourself reading it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Why, then, is this not possible for ANY human being to achieve?

Who says it is impossible for a human to achieve?
Jesus was as human as any one of us and he did it.

If we are honest with ourselves, there is not one born-again Christian, who never struggles with temptation,

Jesus did struggle with temptation.
He overcame it.

The only answer for those who believe, that Jesus Christ, while on earth, “was able not to sin”, is that He could do so, because of the daily help that He received from the Holy Spirit.

Yes. the Bible suggests as much. It also repeatedly informs us that his miracles were wrought through that same Holy Spirit.

But, this could not have been in any way that is available for us humans,

Sure it can. the Bible is pretty clear that we have that same Holy Spirit working in us, this renders us without excuse when we give in to sin.

This is impossible!

Where does the Bible say that it is impossible?

It is very clear that the teaching that Jesus Christ, while on earth, “was able not to sin”, is 100% wrong, and cannot be justified from any teaching in the Holy Bible.

Such teaching is implied all over the Bible.
It doesn't comport with your Systematic Theology perhaps, but it's all over the Bible itself.

The ONLY correct teaching has to be, that while on earth, Jesus Christ was “not able to sin”,

Except the Bible teaches otherwise

because He was always, The God-Man,

That he is

both His Divine and Human “natures” are 100% “Holy and Perfect”, and therefore, could not have “fallen”, even though He was tempted as we are.

That is a perfectly good explanation of certain understandings of systematized Theology.
It is not Bible teaching, it's Theological dogma........Even if it is ultimately correct, it is Theological dogma, not Bible teaching.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Who says it is impossible for a human to achieve?
Jesus was as human as any one of us and he did it?

Jesus struggled with temptation.
He overcame it.

Yes. the Bible suggests as much. It also repeatedly informs us that his miracles were wrought through that same Holy Spirit.

Sure it can. the Bible is pretty clear that we have that same Holy Spirit working in us.

Where does the Bible say that it is impossible???

Such teaching is implied all over the Bible.
It doesn't comport with your Systematic Theology perhaps, but it's all over the Bible itself.

Except the Bible teaches otherwise

That he is

That is a perfectly good explanation of certain understandings of systematized Theology.
It is not Bible teaching, it's Theological dogma........Even if it is ultimately correct, it is Theological dogma, not Bible teaching.

[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ while on earth was 100 % God and 100 % Man. He was not only a human. Also His human nature was 100%sinless and incapable of giving into temptation. He did not struggle with sin at all

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Jesus Christ while on earth was 100 % God and 100 % Man.

Better, perhaps to say "truly" God and "truly" man, there's a reason the confessions don't express it in mathematical terms.

Also His human nature was 100%sinless and incapable of giving into temptation

The Bible teaches absolutely no such thing, it doesn't even really speak of "natures" in the sense that Theologians traditionally, and you now are using the term. The Bible itself, however, suggests quite strongly that Christ was quite capable of giving in to temptation. Certain Theological views say otherwise in order to remain internally logically consistent. But the Biblical evidence is quite strong that he very well was capable of it even though he did not.

 

[Larry the Logger]

How Did Jesus Do It?

By the power of the Word of God before He was baptized, and by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Word of God after He was baptized.

 

[George Antonios]

It is an important subject, which some on here not able to grasp. I have made some, what I believe to be, important points. No one is forced to read or comment. If you feel there is too much on this subject, then please don't trouble yourself reading it.

As I specified, "after a 4th thread on this topic". It is profitable to point out when something becomes unprofitable.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Better, perhaps to say "truly" God and "truly" man, there's a reason the confessions don't express it in mathematical terms.

The Bible teaches absolutely no such thing, it doesn't even really speak of "natures" in the sense that Theologians traditionally, and you now are using the term. The Bible itself, however, suggests quite strongly that Christ was quite capable of giving in to temptation. Certain Theological views say otherwise in order to remain internally logically consistent. But the Biblical evidence is quite strong that he very well was capable of it even though he did not.

Strong Bible evidence, really? Give one such example

 

[SavedByGrace]

As I specified, "after a 4th thread on this topic". It is profitable to point out when something becomes unprofitable.

Says you

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Strong Bible evidence, really? Give one such example

Tons of it, half the book of Hebrews, much has been presented I don't doubt already.
I won't do your homework for you.
The whole of the gospels.

I'd begin in Genesis 1:1 and read the book.

You are making your argument from the standpoint of propositions which must fit an Orthodox Theological mold, not the testimony of the text itself. The testimony of the text itself suggests strong (admittedly not over-whelming I.M.O.) evidence that Christ could have sinned but did not.

Why don't you show the text which suggests his temptations rolled off him like water off a duck's back or that Satan's temptation of him in the wilderness was pointless, that Satan was so stupid he didn't realize he was wasting his time, and he did not need the angels to minister to him afterward etc....after all, you do have a positive case to make that he couldn't.
But, zilch texts suggest he was incapable of sin, many suggest he was capable of it. The weight of evidence (textually, not according to systematic Theology) is that he was "tempted in like manner such as we" and "was touched with our infirmities."
not...
"was tempted but, it was irrelevant because he had a nature which procluded the possibility of sinning and he was in no meaningful since touched with the infirmities you have; and in fact he's an inapplicable example of humanity because he's possessed with another entirely different NATURE simultaneously which you cannot possibly emulate" (such as you are asserting.).... that's fitting a Theological system, (which you are doing quite well) it isn't Bible.

Frankly, it's clap-trap.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Tons of it, half the book of Hebrews, much has been presented I don't doubt already.
I won't do your homework for you.
The whole of the gospels.

I'd begin in Genesis 1:1 and read the book.

You are making your argument from the standpoint of propositions which must fit an Orthodox Theological mold, not the testimony of the text itself. The testimony of the text itself suggests strong (admittedly not over-whelming I.M.O.) evidence that Christ could have sinned but did not.

Why don't you show the text which suggests his temptations rolled off his back like water on a duck, or that Satan's temptation of him in the wilderness was pointless and he did not need the angels to minister to him afterward etc....after all, you do have a positive case to make that he couldn't.
But, zilch texts suggest he was incapable of sin, many suggest he was capable of it. The weight of evidence (textually, not according to systematic Theology) is that he was "tempted in like manner such as we"........not "was tempted but, it was irrelevant because he had a nature which procluded the possibility of sinning" (such as you are asserting.)

For someone to experience real temptation does not mean that they would have succomed to it. The fact that the Bible says that God cannot be rempted to sin and since Jesus is eternally Almighty God even though with a human nature, is nonetheless One Person the God-Man and therefore incapable of yielding to temptation

 

[George Antonios]

Says you

Says the word of God: 2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

It may not be a foolish question, but after 4 threads, the answers become foolish.

This is not remotely an important doctrine; nor is anyone that takes one side of that issue over the other, guilty of being a heretic.

And therefore, accordingly, my last word.

 

[Van]

Van, your "theology" gets worse!

And general "taint so" posts are the fruit of malice.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

For someone to experience real temptation does not mean that they would have succomed to it. The fact that the Bible says that God cannot be rempted to sin and since Jesus is eternally Almighty God even though with a human nature, is nonetheless One Person the God-Man and therefore incapable of yielding to temptation

A wonderfully and perfectly Orthodox and Theologically expressed Systematic syllogism which makes sense in light of presuppositions which you need to be true for your understanding to remain consistent.
These arguments have been around for literally millennia.
They are directly related to why Catholicism insists on the Immaculate Conception of Mary....seriously, look it up.
It fits a necessary niche in a consistent Theological mold.

It isn't Bible.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Says the word of God: 2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

It may not be a foolish question, but after 4 threads, the answers become foolish.

This is not remotely an important doctrine; nor is anyone that takes one side of that issue over the other, guilty of being a heretic.

And therefore, accordingly, my last word.

Well said, actually.....specifically, that neither view classifies as heresy.

It is somewhat important, and worth discussion, but, well-said all-in-all.

 

[MB]

.

And general "taint so" posts are the fruit of malice.

You Should know !

 

[Van]

Well said, actually.....specifically, that neither view classifies as heresy.

It is somewhat important, and worth discussion, but, well-said all-in-all.

HeirofSalvation is always posting falsehoods about others, which shows no effort to follow Christ's commands.

 

[Van]

.

You Should know !

On and on folks, these posters are ignorant of the topic, but know what it is not.