Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A few last questions for the Catholics

jgredline said:
Many believe this thorn in the flesh to be his blindness or demon oppression...
I believe the Latter

jgredine,
Are you saying that Paul's "thorn" was demon opression? Doesn't that mean God orchestrated this oppression using evil? Not, that I have a problem with that, because I believe God is sovereign and His ways are not ours, but do you believe that?
GMS
 
GMS said:
jgredine,
Are you saying that Paul's "thorn" was demon opression? Doesn't that mean God orchestrated this oppression using evil? Not, that I have a problem with that, because I believe God is sovereign and His ways are not ours, but do you believe that?
GMS

Start a new thread and lets discuss the possibilities
 
jgredline said:
Start a new thread and lets discuss the possibilities

I still haven't seen a Catholic answer my questions in the OP. God is very clear about what he wants us to do. So I would like a Catholic to tell us how can God make his statements clearer. :)
 
aLoneVoice said:
Yes - Jesus was tempted, but being fully God - Jesus could NOT sin. However, in his humanity, Jesus provided for us an example as to how we could overcome the temptations of sin.
I believe that Jesus could have sinned. What is your argument that He was incapable of sin? If you say "He was fully God", the obvious answer is "He was also fully man".

I have never understood why people Jesus as incapable of sin. Please explain.
 
Drew said:
I believe that Jesus could have sinned. What is your argument that He was incapable of sin? If you say "He was fully God", the obvious answer is "He was also fully man".

I have never understood why people Jesus as incapable of sin. Please explain.

You are correct. And this is the dilemna I face when I think of this. I can see both points of view. I believe He couldn't - but I am open to hearing your point of view and changing mine.

Here is my explanation:

If Jesus would have disobeyed, would God have had to bring forth another Messiah? Would the Father call back His own Wisdom and Word? Doesn't the OT, in Isaiah, say that whatever God's Word is sent forth to do, it accomplishes it? If Jesus would have sinned, would that have nullified the mission, the prophecies that He would be a "pure lamb led to the slaughter"?

And of course, there is the matter of God's unity. God the Father and God the Son CANNOT have different wills because they are One in the Trinity, even while the Logos was in the flesh. Thus, I think if one says that Jesus could have sinned, then would that nullify the Trinity and give us more than one God with separate wills? If Jesus was fully united, both natures, then I cannot see how He could have sinned while being God. Yes, He was fully human, but it is NOT human nature to sin. It is a tendency.

Any thoughts?

Joe
 
Drew said:
I believe that Jesus could have sinned. What is your argument that He was incapable of sin? If you say "He was fully God", the obvious answer is "He was also fully man".

I have never understood why people Jesus as incapable of sin. Please explain.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9
 
Solo said:
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9
The context of 1 John 3 clearly shows that the writer is referring to people in general and not to Jesus in particular:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


Since we all sin, it simply cannot be the case this text means what it seems to say (unless one is prepared to sacrifice inerrancy). It seems that this text clearly states that if you sin you cannot be "born of God" The word "whosoever" underscores what the context also shows - people in general are being described, not Jesus in particular. This would disqualify all of us.

There can be no doubt that we all sin. Except Jesus. Since we do sin, we obviously can sin. And the plain reading of the text suggests that we are then not born of God.

So while a literal reading of this text shows that Jesus cannot sin, it also shows that true members of the kingdom also sin, since it is indisputable (I content) that the text refers to people in general, not just to Jesus.

It would seem that this text cannot be taken literally - we know from the evidence of real life that a literal reading has to be false.

Any thoughts?

My only thought is that the intended meaning of verse 9 is something like this:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin habitually or excessively; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin habitually or excessively, because he is born of God
 
Hi everyone, (I'm going to post this here understanding the potential for a thread divide on the topic of Christ's ability to sin or not, but I still want to attach it to the orginal discussion.)

I wonder if the question should be could Jesus deviate from the Father's plan in His flesh? I think He submitted Himself freely, but in being One...being in covenant unity...could He deviate? If He submitted Himself in the flesh freely, could He also have not submitted Himself freely?

We know He was the manifestation of the Godhead in bodily form, but what was the flesh nature? I would say that as God, His divine nature was perfection, but coming in the flesh He was given both flesh and soul. What was the nature of His flesh? He was born of woman, and not of a man, and so the seed (guilt stain) of original sin was not upon Him. He was born of God, and of the flesh, and I believe He had a complete free will (a true picture of Truth, and the ability to make decisions based on that knowledge)as Adam did (In the beginning) in His flesh, but also the divine nature of God. However, being God could He be presumtuos as Adam and Eve were...could He not believe Himself, or could He somehow not Trust the Father and the Spirit to guide Him...to raise Him from the dead? Was there something about the flesh that gave Him some separate ability to potentially doubt, and be truly in the nature of flesh? He prayed to the Father, and relied on the Spirit while in the flesh...it seems He left glory, and emptied Himself of His divine power to become the Priest, Lamb, King, but what did that mean for Him once He was here and relying solely on the Father and the Holy Spirit to guide Him?

He did experience, and deal with, the consequences of the original sin of Adam...pain, grief, death, etc, but though He suffered bruising from the Father, it was undeserved all the way to the end not having the guilt stain on Him, and not having committed sin. So, He took what was our punishment freely, and submitted to the Father's will. He had a perfect fear of God, and a submissive heart to His will, and in this was able to drink of the bitter cup of the Father's wrath...the cup that we deserved. So, if He walked as Adam did in the garden...free from sin...could He also have been tempted to sin in the flesh as Adam was...having a true free will? Being from Heaven He had a good knowledge of the Father's ability, but He also had a good knowledge of what it meant to have the Father turn from Him on the cross.

The Temptation...

Consider first that Scripture teaches that Christ was tempted as Adam was.

I think about the Temptation, and when I look at that passage, I see Satan doing the very things that He tries to tempt Christ to do...one of those things is tempting God. In tempting Christ, he tempted God, but he also tempted Christ's flesh, and all that encompasses...His mind, emotions, will, etc. I think it was to cause Him to satisfy His flesh, and to deviate from the plan of redemption by tempting the Father and the Holy Spirit, and to do things in His own power. I am open to learning more about that...just thinking out loud here.

1. Jesus made bread so many times, but he would not when satan asked Him to. I think He wanted Jesus to pick up His power and satisfy His flesh, and do a miracle apart from the Spirit. He only listened to the Words of the Father, though...those that proceeded from God's mouth gave life, and Christ proved that by quoting it, and applying it. In John we learn that He was careful to only speak those things that His Father taught Him. How hard could that have been in the flesh...what strength to not please Himself, or not speak of Himself. I think that is interesting. He would not satisfy His flesh, as Adam did, but rather used that to express the need for the bread from Heaven...Himself....that is given by the Father alone.

2. He would not cast Himself down to test God, but rather remained dependant upon the Holy Spirit to guide Him in following the Father's plan...not seeking a sign for proof of the Father's faithfulness to Him. He did not feel the need to test the Father, but trusted...even though He would ultimately die, and be bruised by God.

3. He did not bow to satan to gain the whole world, but rather kept with the Father's plan of redemption...to the cross...becoming a sacrifice for man to buy him with a price. He did not make Himself equal with the Father, but remained submissive unto death. I think of how Adam and Eve thought they would be like God.

Maybe Christ had the potential to give in to the flesh, but would that have been sin...or a change in plan for man's redemption? Could that have happened, or would it have happened? What did Christ lay down exactly when He became flesh? What power? Jesus certainly was worthy to be the Lamb of God, and unlike Adam did not fail the temptation test, but was this only done by the plan of the Father, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit...Was Jesus truly trusting in them alone in His flesh and not relying on His divine nature (power?)? Or, was there something in His nature to prevent Him from sinning, or deviating? I hope to know farther along in Heaven the answers in a solid way. This is so hard to understand, to be honest, and when I think I know one way or the other for sure, I learn something new to add to the mix.

I know that as our Priest He was able to offer only one sacrifice at a given point in time for all because He remained sinless...no sin abided in Him, and when we are in Him none abides in us willfully. He also had every right to be our Priest, even though He was not of the tribe of Levi, because He was of a divine order.

As our Lamb He was without blemish, and being divine was sufficient for the whole of man to be bought...more than sufficient. He was spotless and divine, and since we have been sprinkled with His blood, we are able to enter in to the Holy place without stain.

As our King He will judge us, and pardon us, because we are His children. He is our Sovereign because of His divine heritage, but because of His coming in the flesh we are able to share in that inheritance.

I hope to learn more about this all, it is so interesting. I probably added more questions than answers...sorry about that. Interesting topic, though.

The Lord bless all of you.
 
Unless someone beats me to it (again), I will answer the question about Jesus being able to sin or not sin in another thread. :D

Let's attempt to keep this thread on topic. Lovely, perhaps you could repost your post under the new topic heading?
 
Drew said:
The context of 1 John 3 clearly shows that the writer is referring to people in general and not to Jesus in particular:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


Since we all sin, it simply cannot be the case this text means what it seems to say (unless one is prepared to sacrifice inerrancy). It seems that this text clearly states that if you sin you cannot be "born of God" The word "whosoever" underscores what the context also shows - people in general are being described, not Jesus in particular. This would disqualify all of us.

There can be no doubt that we all sin. Except Jesus. Since we do sin, we obviously can sin. And the plain reading of the text suggests that we are then not born of God.

So while a literal reading of this text shows that Jesus cannot sin, it also shows that true members of the kingdom also sin, since it is indisputable (I content) that the text refers to people in general, not just to Jesus.

It would seem that this text cannot be taken literally - we know from the evidence of real life that a literal reading has to be false.

Any thoughts?

My only thought is that the intended meaning of verse 9 is something like this:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin habitually or excessively; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin habitually or excessively, because he is born of God
Sin is sin whether habitually, excessively, or not. Jesus being born of God cannot sin.
 
Solo said:
Sin is sin whether habitually, excessively, or not. Jesus being born of God cannot sin.
If you use the 1 John text to argue that Jesus cannot sin, you are also forced to assert that anyone "born of God" cannot sin. This is because the context is obviously about people in general Are there not people walking around today who are "born of God"? If there are, then by your reasoning, they cannot sin.

But they obviously do.

So this text cannot be used to justifiy a claim that Jesus cannot sin.

It must mean something else.
 
Drew said:
If you use the 1 John text to argue that Jesus cannot sin, you are also forced to assert that anyone "born of God" cannot sin. This is because the context is obviously about people in general Are there not people walking around today who are "born of God"? If there are, then by your reasoning, they cannot sin.

But they obviously do.

So this text cannot be used to justifiy a claim that Jesus cannot sin.

It must mean something else.
The New Creature that Paul describes as the inward man is that which is born of God when one becomes a believer. The inward man does not, nor can he sin, and that is the battle within the members of the believer. The flesh is sold under sin and can do nothing else but sin, while the inward man, the born again New Creature does not sin but walks in the Spirit following the righteous law of God almighty.

Those who are not born again, do not, nor can they understand the spiritual and is the hint that one needs salvation.
 
Solo said:
The New Creature that Paul describes as the inward man is that which is born of God when one becomes a believer. The inward man does not, nor can he sin, and that is the battle within the members of the believer. The flesh is sold under sin and can do nothing else but sin, while the inward man, the born again New Creature does not sin but walks in the Spirit following the righteous law of God almighty.

Those who are not born again, do not, nor can they understand the spiritual and is the hint that one needs salvation.
The 1 John text does not make the distinction that you draw. It does not say:

"Whosoever's inner man is born of God doth not commit sin in his inner man (he still sins in his flesh); for his seed remaineth in him: and his inner man cannot sin (but the flesh can), because his inner man is born of God."

I know where you are going but I think you are reading a distinction into this text.
 
Drew said:
The 1 John text does not make the distinction that you draw. It does not say:

"Whosoever's inner man is born of God doth not commit sin in his inner man (he still sins in his flesh); for his seed remaineth in him: and his inner man cannot sin (but the flesh can), because his inner man is born of God."

I know where you are going but I think you are reading a distinction into this text.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There is a distinction between that which is born again, and that which is not. The carnal flesh is not born again, but the New Creature is.
 
Back
Top