Could Christ have sinned?

[Blazin Bones]

This was a topic that was brought up in my History of Christian Thouhgt class. Did Christ have the capacity to sin or not? Please feel free to share your opinions, just respect others as well.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

That is a very good question Timothy and it deserves a very good answer. Unfortunately I am not the man to answer that question. But my answer would be no, since I believe in predestination.

 

[D46]

John 1:29 (KJV) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

How could someone with the capacity to sin, taketh away the sin of the world? Absurd.

Hebrews 4:15 (KJV) 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.

1Peter 2:21-22 (KJV) For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Jesus was perfectly sinless and holy from his conception of the Spirit of God to his ascension into Heaven.

 

[yesha]

I would say that yes, Jesus could have sinned.
If Jesus could not sin, then his sinlessness would not carry any special meaning. Only by his not sinning, even though tempted in every way as we are can he truly be human. A rock, for example, presumably cannot sin. But because a rock lacks the ability to sin, it's sinless state is not impressive.

From a predestination viewpoint, the wording I would use is 'Jesus will not sin", rather then 'could not sin'.

 

[kwag_myers]

I voted yes because I don't think Satan would have bothered with that whole temptation in the wilderness thing if he knew that Jesus couldn't sin. The whole point of Jesus' three year ministry was to show us how to overcome sin and the Devil. Otherwise, He could have come, died, been resurrected and been done with it.

 

[Free]

That is the wrong question to be asking. The real question is: did Christ feel the full force of evil? Yes.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Free, that's a good question too, but we know Christ did by what scripture teaches. Hebrews 4 tells us that he was tempted in every way we are, therefore he had to of felt the full force of evil.

 

[Free]

Timothy,

My point was that it is the question that should be asked in place of "could Christ have sinned?" The problem with your question is that in order to answer it one has to split the mystery of the incarnation and having done that, heresy is not far away. It is a question that really should not be answered.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Free, I understand the thin line this question stands on, but I felt it is a good topic for pure discussion. I also doubt any of us could answer the question, I'm just curious as to what people think. It's a valid, hairy as it may be, theological question.

 

[Free]

I agree that it is a good topic for discussion. What I am getting at is that in answering one must be very careful as to where their answer is pointing - the humanity or divinity of Christ. Jesus is, of course, both God and man and that must be kept in mind when answering. For example:

D46 answered: "How could someone with the capacity to sin, taketh away the sin of the world? Absurd." This appears to deny the humanity of Christ.

And Yesha: "If Jesus could not sin, then his sinlessness would not carry any special meaning." This would mean that God could have sinned.

One way out for both positions is to say that Christ's divine and human natures were separate. But then, where does that lead us?

I voted yes because I don't think Satan would have bothered with that whole temptation in the wilderness thing if he knew that Jesus couldn't sin. The whole point of Jesus' three year ministry was to show us how to overcome sin and the Devil.

If the point of Jesus' ministry "was to show us how to overcome sin and the Devil," then wouldn't the temptation in the wilderness simply be a part of that? This could mean that Jesus was only showing us what to do and wasn't really being tempted or had the capacity to sin.

I'm not saying that anyone is wrong or right, I just want to give some food for thought and hopefully show why the early Church wrestled so long and so hard about the nature of Christ.

 

[yesha]

A human has the capacity to sin because they have the ability to choose. To say Jesus could not sin, essentially denies his humanity to some extent. To say that he could sin, and yet always choose not to inspires humanity. To say that Jesus could not sin, implies that Jesus can not choose and that he can't be tempted. Thus he can't really sympathize with our weakness, nor does the 'yet without sin' imply anything special.

Heb 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin.
(NIV)

So if Jesus, as a man, can sin, does that mean that God can also sin?
Certainly not.

James 1:13-15
13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(NIV)

Does this mean that because Jesus was tempted, that he is not God?
I would say that the human nature (which was created) of Jesus is not divine. Thus Jesus does indeed have two natures. A human nature, which is created, and therefore is not God, and a divine nature (Word of God) through which God created all things.

Rom 1:25
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
(NIV)

 

[thessalonian]

As a matter of having all the "tools" to sin, was it outside Christ's ability to sin? No. But my answer is based on who God is. He is ALL GOOD, ALL KNOWING, ALL WISE. It is not in Christ's nature, who was God, or his will to sin. Had he sinned he would not have been God. Therefore it was impossible for him to have sinned.

One other comment. This is not against his free will because free will is the ability to do good as a best definition. The definition that it is the freedom to choose between good and evil is a bit of a misnomer because once someone has sinned, they are no longer free to make such choices as they are enslaved by the sin. Christ's death on the cross freed us from this bondage and gave us true freedom.

Blessings

 

[cj]

Thessalonian gave a good response inthat it brings the focus on Jesus' nature.

I think that Free also touched on an important point, that being the asking of the proper question.

Perhaps the answer is found in the temptations put before our Lord, what were they directed at? What did Satan try to get Jesus to do?

The answer is Satan tried to get Jesus to conduct Himself as the Son of God rather than as the Son of man.

Make a close note of this way Satan took, as for Jesus' work to be of any value it had to be done as a man.

I believe that the only "failure" Jesus could have suffered is that of losing patience with Satan, and thus with all fallen creation, and therfore just ending it all. Which would not have been in accordance with the Father's will.

But Jesus was obedient to the Father's will, it was His choice, and in this choice He found all the power He needed to overcome the adversary.


A believers focus should not be on overcoming temptation/sin, it should be on remaining obedient to the Father's will.

And unfortunately, not many believer's are clear on what the Father's will is.

Very thin line it seems, but a line nevertheless.


in love,
cj

 

[cly]

I think that Christ had the ability to sin because He was human. Although the arguments above do outline the thin line that, in all honesty, I didn't know existed with this subject. Now that I see it, I'm not sure how I missed it, though.

You all said that by saying Jesus had the ability to sin implies that His being a deity isn't real, yet by saying He could not sin implies that His humaness wasn't real. Could our inability to comprehend Jesus as both a human and God prove that, during His time on Earth, He was both? I have always been taught that Jesus as both a human and God is something I can't comprehend with my finite mind - which doesn't make the idea false,and thereby proves that He was indeed both. Since Jesus was both, it means He was human - in some way - and that He did have the ability to sin, but unlike the rest of us humans, He made the right choice and did not sin.

Maybe this makes a teensy bit of sense, and I didn't prove my lack of theological knowledge once again. You guys can pull out information on things I never put much thought into before, which makes it hard for me to discuss stuff here sometimes, but that's a good thing. I learn a lot from it. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

 

[Orthodoxy]

This was a topic that was brought up in my History of Christian Thouhgt class. Did Christ have the capacity to sin or not? Please feel free to share your opinions, just respect others as well.

Yes. Jesus could sin but did not in that He was totally dependant on the Father at all times.

With all due respect however, the Protestant Reformation will insist Jesus Christ did commit a couple of sins in is His disrespect for Mary, His mother, at the Marriage at Cana and the event of Mary and His "brothers and sisters" looking for Him. This example Jesus is seen denying Mary is even His mother breaking the command to honor your father and mother. He basically disowns her. Jesus Christ is seen insulting His mother before a whole group of people. How humiliating for Mary. He is rather "irritated" with His mother at the Marriage of Cana, not patient, nor kind but finally giving in to the old woman's demands, reluctantly. What kind of fruit is that from a loving Son?

IMHO the Jesus Christ place before men by the Protestant Reformation is a jerk and a sinner. Yea I want my son to grow up like that, NOT.

In Love,

Orthodoxy

 

[BradtheImpaler]

With all due respect however, the Protestant Reformation will insist Jesus Christ did commit a couple of sins in is His disrespect for Mary, His mother, at the Marriage at Cana and the event of Mary and His "brothers and sisters" looking for Him. This example Jesus is seen denying Mary is even His mother breaking the command to honor your father and mother. He basically disowns her. Jesus Christ is seen insulting His mother before a whole group of people. How humiliating for Mary. He is rather "irritated" with His mother at the Marriage of Cana, not patient, nor kind but finally giving in to the old woman's demands, reluctantly. What kind of fruit is that from a loving Son?

If someone told you Jesus broke the Sabbath (broke the law) that's okay because he is the "Lord of the Sabbath", right? Well, by the same token, maybe he's the "Lord of disrespecting his mother" also? Or let's play the "dual nature" game and say that it was the God Jesus that dissed Mary, not the man Jesus?

In any case, that Jesus "slammed" Mary is obvious per these examples. If that offends your extreme veneration of Mary, that's your problem. Get another demigod to venerate if you have to have that sort of thing.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

With all due respect however, the Protestant Reformation will insist Jesus Christ did commit a couple of sins in is His disrespect for Mary, His mother, at the Marriage at Cana and the event of Mary and His "brothers and sisters" looking for Him. This example Jesus is seen denying Mary is even His mother breaking the command to honor your father and mother. He basically disowns her. Jesus Christ is seen insulting His mother before a whole group of people. How humiliating for Mary. He is rather "irritated" with His mother at the Marriage of Cana, not patient, nor kind but finally giving in to the old woman's demands, reluctantly. What kind of fruit is that from a loving Son?

If someone told you Jesus broke the Sabbath (broke the law) that's okay because he is the "Lord of the Sabbath", right? Well, by the same token, maybe he's the "Lord of disrespecting his mother" also? Or let's play the "dual nature" game and say that it was the God Jesus that dissed Mary, not the man Jesus?

In any case, that Jesus "slammed" Mary is obvious per these examples. If that offends your extreme veneration of Mary, that's your problem. Get another demigod to venerate if you have to have that sort of thing.

I think you missed the point Orthooxy was making, and that is that certain Protestants draw erroneous conclusions about the text, based upon their sola scriptura belief, coupled with their English-only reading and lack of cultural and historical context.

In point of fact, Jesus did not 'slam' his mother, nor did He disrespect her. You have taken an English translation and read into it affective states on the part of the speaker, so that she was 'dissed.' I challenge you to study the matter before you speak on it. Jesus' comments to her mother were neither disrespectful or irritated.

example
legei auti o Iesous ti emoi kai soigunai oupo ikei i ora mou
rendered in KJV

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Sounds short of patience according to our cultural and linguistic norms. The NLT does a better job with this translation

"How does that concern you and me?" Jesus asked. "My time has not yet come."

Neither rude nor irritated-sounding, just a pointed question. And where do we go from there? She says "Do whatever He tells you."
Those are still good instructions.

Jesus did not break the Sabbath, He observed it as it was intended to be observed. The rules that He broke regarding Sabbath were rules attached to the Sabbath by those who wanted clear guidelines. Unfortunately, their guidelines became the focus, and not the intent of the Sabbath:
"Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy."
Healing a crippled man on the Sabath is in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath, which was and is the healing of man, the healing of the earth (fallow ground), and so forth.

Lastly, veneration is not worship. Veneration is honor, and honor should be paid to all of God's children, not just Mary. But yes, Mary should receive high honor- or rather, Mary did receive the highest honor, and we worship with her He who is without beginning, yet was brought forth from her womb.

 

[thessalonian]

Well spoken OC.

 

[cj]

Lastly, veneration is not worship. Veneration is honor, and honor should be paid to all of God's children, not just Mary. But yes, Mary should receive high honor- or rather, Mary did receive the highest honor, and we worship with her He who is without beginning, yet was brought forth from her womb.

See OC, in my opinion you contradict yourself above.

To honor a man or a woman is to appreciate them. And what we know of Mary as related to us in the scriptures we can certainly appreciate, aand in this appreciation honor her.

But worshipping a man or a woman is another thing; worshipping is serving, and we in no way serve Mary. Therefore we in no way worship Mary.

To say that "we worship with Her" is a wonderful thought that in reality has turned into something twisted. The fact is, millions upon millions of believers are unclear about the difference between appreciating/honoring Mary and worshipping/serving her. And history, as well as the false doctrines, have exposed the apostate institutions as encouraging this ignorance to one degree or another, with a definite intention to promote a form of submission to the clergy from the laity.

And look,.... don't worry bring the "this says" or "that says" arguments, as I have witnessed this myself for years among their gatherings.

Money thrown at the feet of lifeless statues, water taken from the ponds that are dedicated to her, bloodied knees and feet, candles, annual processions,special prayers,... all with a focus on what Mary can do for the participants,...... and thus, the flip side being that these things are being done "for" Mary (and what she can do). Which is not appreciation of her, but is worship/service.

"I'll do this and believe by doing it I'll get something in return."

And this is the sickness of Mary-worship.

I fully understand the honoring of Mary and do appreciate/honor her, but I don't in anyway equate this appreciation to what the apostate institutions do.

Typical to these institutions, they have taken a simple matter and contrived convoluted human doctrines designed for the sole purpose of perpetrating some degree of lordship over others.

Again OC,..... I have witnessed this with my own eyes on more than one occasion.

At a synagogue named Our Lady of Lourdes (one of many named like this as its a popular name) I witness the leading priest manipulate the gathering for the explicite purpose of gaining more money for the building of a new and more grand synagogue (even comparing the synagogues in other parishes to condemn the attitude of the gathering towards building this new place).

And how did he do this? By speaking about Mary, the one who is represented by the name of the synagogue. This priest spoke about his trip to Lourdes, and how he sensed that in the healing he received was a message to the parish that they need to do something more for her so that a greater impact can be made on the community.

"Do you not want to do something that is pleasing to the Holy Mother" is the kind of feeling he forced on the gathering.

Honestly, it was abject wickedness that was being carried out by this priest; and you know what was even more sickening, I later found out that the "profession" of this priest is one of being sent to parishes that are not meeting the "budgeted" projections and growth plans of the diocese, with the specific purpose of turning the situation around in favor of the corporate financial/growth goals.

And how did he do this, what was his marketing tool?

Mary. What she has done and what she can do.

What I witnessed was Satan ministering from a pulpit, while standing under a cross on which the figure of a man hung, with two figures, one on either side, representing Mary and Joseph.

And this Satan had no problem "venerating" Mary even as he perpetrated his wickedness on those in the pews.

And then to top it off, cards were distributed, on which each person was to write their name and the amount they would give to Mary for her "church-building" fund.


Honestly, even as I sit here think about what I witnessed I feel the nastiness associated with what took place, the filth that it was.


And this is being done in one form or another, to one degree or another, on gatherings of believers throughout the world.


The unfortunate thing is OC, men are failures at limiting/restraining themselves. Hence Christianity in all its multitude of corrupt expressions.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Lastly, veneration is not worship. Veneration is honor, and honor should be paid to all of God's children, not just Mary. But yes, Mary should receive high honor- or rather, Mary did receive the highest honor, and we worship with her He who is without beginning, yet was brought forth from her womb.

See OC, in my opinion you contradict yourself above.

To honor a man or a woman is to appreciate them. And what we know of Mary as related to us in the scriptures we can certainly appreciate, aand in this appreciation honor her.

But worshipping a man or a woman is another thing; worshipping is serving, and we in no way serve Mary. Therefore we in no way worship Mary.

To say that "we worship with Her" is a wonderful thought that in reality has turned into something twisted. The fact is, millions upon millions of believers are unclear about the difference between appreciating/honoring Mary and worshipping/serving her. And history, as well as the false doctrines, have exposed the apostate institutions as encouraging this ignorance to one degree or another, with a definite intention to promote a form of submission to the clergy from the laity.

And look,.... don't worry bring the "this says" or "that says" arguments, as I have witnessed this myself for years among their gatherings.

Money thrown at the feet of lifeless statues, water taken from the ponds that are dedicated to her, bloodied knees and feet, candles, annual processions,special prayers,... all with a focus on what Mary can do for the participants,...... and thus, the flip side being that these things are being done "for" Mary (and what she can do). Which is not appreciation of her, but is worship/service.

"I'll do this and believe by doing it I'll get something in return."

And this is the sickness of Mary-worship.

I fully understand the honoring of Mary and do appreciate/honor her, but I don't in anyway equate this appreciation to what the apostate institutions do.

Typical to these institutions, they have taken a simple matter and contrived convoluted human doctrines designed for the sole purpose of perpetrating some degree of lordship over others.

Again OC,..... I have witnessed this with my own eyes on more than one occasion.

At a synagogue named Our Lady of Lourdes (one of many named like this as its a popular name) I witness the leading priest manipulate the gathering for the explicite purpose of gaining more money for the building of a new and more grand synagogue (even comparing the synagogues in other parishes to condemn the attitude of the gathering towards building this new place).

And how did he do this? By speaking about Mary, the one who is represented by the name of the synagogue. This priest spoke about his trip to Lourdes, and how he sensed that in the healing he received was a message to the parish that they need to do something more for her so that a greater impact can be made on the community.

"Do you not want to do something that is pleasing to the Holy Mother" is the kind of feeling he forced on the gathering.

Honestly, it was abject wickedness that was being carried out by this priest; and you know what was even more sickening, I later found out that the "profession" of this priest is one of being sent to parishes that are not meeting the "budgeted" projections and growth plans of the diocese, with the specific purpose of turning the situation around in favor of the corporate financial/growth goals.

And how did he do this, what was his marketing tool?

Mary. What she has done and what she can do.

What I witnessed was Satan ministering from a pulpit, while standing under a cross on which the figure of a man hung, with two figures, one on either side, representing Mary and Joseph.

And this Satan had no problem "venerating" Mary even as he perpetrated his wickedness on those in the pews.

And then to top it off, cards were distributed, on which each person was to write their name and the amount they would give to Mary for her "church-building" fund.


Honestly, even as I sit here think about what I witnessed I feel the nastiness associated with what took place, the filth that it was.


And this is being done in one form or another, to one degree or another, on gatherings of believers throughout the world.


The unfortunate thing is OC, men are failures at limiting/restraining themselves. Hence Christianity in all its multitude of corrupt expressions.


In love,
cj

I know, CJ, I've seen the excesses and the blasphemies of Marian culticism. I find the manipulation of people regarding supposed miracles to garner money completely beneath contempt.

I make no excuses for such practices, and any priest or hierarch who turns a blind eye to such- or worse- encourages it- will face fiery indignation. Respect and veneration must be carefully taught and rightly demonstrated, beginning at home between two parents, and extending into the world.

I am the least to speak of veneration, for I have denigrated often my brothers. Yet I know that honor is due.

I've seen such manipulations and excesses in Evangelical groups as well- especially on the fund raising end. I've seen pastors raised up to demigods, in much the same way as some may (wrongfully) view their bishops. I've seen the same thing in non-denoms and home church fellowships, where everyone is waiting on the word of some supposed gifted prophet or teacher.

Yes, humans are prone to error, excess, idolatry, and I might add, narrowed views according to their influences.

I know that there are people in every group that I have encountered who have, in my estimation, seized upon doctrines and custom-fit them to their own comfort or advantage.

The gate is narrow as is the Way, few enter therein.

There was a wise old priest, wise in that he loved the Lord with his whole being. As we sat around taking in the beauty of a church we had entered, candles lit, on the night of Pascha, known in the West as Easter, he said "Beautiful, isn't it." "Yes" was the enthusiastic response of those around him. "It's all got to go" he said, to the quizzical looks of those with him. ""If anything comes before our love of Christ, it's got to go."

He did not mean that stripping the church was what was needed. No, he meant that if the adornments of the church, or the beautiful worship service, or ANYTHING became an idol in our inner Temple, it had to be stripped from our inner Temple.

The Reformers, in many ways, took out of churches what they felt to be idols. What needed removing- and still does- is the idols from our hearts. Perhaps for some people that will involve stripping their worship environment down to a Catacomb setting, a prayer closet. For others of us, it means that we allow God to shine the light on what is andechristo- in the place of Christ- in our hearts.

I have found beauty in the Orthodox Church, but that is not why I am there. The beauty will burn one day- it has many times. I finhd beauty in the simplicity of austere worship- but that can become a prideful idol of piety, also, and has for many.

We have an enemy who is working without cease to turn our hearts and minds after strange 'gods,' whether we dwell in Babylon or Jerusalem or Rome or Constantinople.
Therefore, fixing our eyes on Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, we run the race.