Could Jesus have sinned?

[rawr]

I don't typically try to get involved in these types of threads, but thought i'd "step in" on this one.

This verse was posted already by justme, but I'll post it again:
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. - John 3:9

In light of this verse, it is obviously Jesus could not have sinned. He was the Son of God, born from God.
That's why I think is a paradox. In a purely potential sense, He could have sinned, because He had a free will, just like every man. But he was born from God, and He could not sin.

this - it's a paradox & a dichotomy - He, Jesus, was fully human, being born of a woman, and on this earth, meaning he was constantly tempted to sin as any of us are (Matt 4:1-11), but also fully God, being not born of man, but the Son of God, perfect and sinless.

It is, as you say, a fuzzy point. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and hence perfect, without sin, and as 1 John 3:9 says, by that virtue, cannot sin. But as Hebrews 2:17 says

For this reason he had to be made like them,[a] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

he was also fully human, and thus, as we see from the account of his time in the desert before His ministry, prone to temptation, as any man.

So was he tempted? Yes, like any man. Did he sin? No, as he is God, and God is blameless? Could he? That is, as you said, a paradox, for man can sin, but God is not capable of such.

I do agree with you though, at a certain point these discussions become moot, and unproductive, just leading to dissension and annoyance.

 

[LucyJr]

I think another issue is that we're on a board that has a variety of different belief systems. It's not just Christian faiths. So when someone poses a question to a variety of faiths with different perspectives, the answers that come forth will be individual opinions that are laden with specific belief systems.

While you might hold that the answer is not an opinion it is a fact, someone that doesn't view Christianity like you, would argue that it's your opinion, not fact. Neither is wrong, neither is right.

I don't think you are correct.
The question was raised in light of christian theology, nothing else.
Barnabas already implied by his OP question the sinless nature of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus was sinless is christian theology, not new age or "new" stuff theology.
So its not about how people view Christianity, its about how christian theology really is.

The problem with Sovereign Grace is that it expects us all to adhere to it's belief system- and fails to acknowledge that it's on a board which caters to a vast number of perspectives.

If it wants to debate about Christianity and it's benefits, and be around those with similar opinions, it should go to another board. Otherwise, it's just trolling here for responses.

Probably in one sense you are right, since the OP was clearly intended for free discussion, but I think Sovereign Grace would had other problems with the OP and its author..."inside" issues

 

[sprinkles]

I don't typically try to get involved in these types of threads, but thought i'd "step in" on this one.



this - it's a paradox & a dichotomy - He, Jesus, was fully human, being born of a woman, and on this earth, meaning he was constantly tempted to sin as any of us are (Matt 4:1-11), but also fully God, being not born of man, but the Son of God, perfect and sinless.

It is, as you say, a fuzzy point. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and hence perfect, without sin, and as 1 John 3:9 says, by that virtue, cannot sin. But as Hebrews 2:17 says



he was also fully human, and thus, as we see from the account of his time in the desert before His ministry, prone to temptation, as any man.

So was he tempted? Yes, like any man. Did he sin? No, as he is God, and God is blameless? Could he? That is, as you said, a paradox, for man can sin, but God is not capable of such.

I do agree with you though, at a certain point these discussions become moot, and unproductive, just leading to dissension and annoyance.

I'd tend to agree it is paradoxical. It can't be only that Jesus can sin but didn't because hypothetically if any human managed to pull off having temptation but not actually sinning, that would put them on par with Jesus.

So I feel it would have to be a level above merely not sinning. Even if it means a paradox.

 

[rawr]

I'd tend to agree it is paradoxical. It can't be only that Jesus can sin but didn't because hypothetically if any human managed to pull off having temptation but not actually sinning, that would put them on par with Jesus.

So I feel it would have to be a level above merely not sinning. Even if it means a paradox.

exactly - if a man could be perfect, without sinning his entire life (though there's the whole original sin/at-birth sin/sinful nature debacle) he would have no need for Jesus to save him, as he was perfect and would not need His sacrifice.

Good insight, sprinkles, thanks.

 

[say what]

I don't think you are correct.
The question was raised in light of christian theology, nothing else.
Barnabas already implied by his OP question the sinless nature of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus was sinless is christian theology, not new age or "new" stuff theology.
So its not about how people view Christianity, its about how christian theology really is.


Probably in one sense you are right, since the OP was clearly intended for free discussion, but I think Sovereign Grace would had other problems with the OP and its author..."inside" issues

You can discuss the history of Christ without being Christian or believing in Christianity. Theological discussions often involve challenging the epistemological assumptions within them. I know we disagree on this, but I believe Christian theology is the way it is, based on peoples' views of it. Without peoples' belief in it, their opinions, perspectives, and understandings, it really is no more than a text. It's value and significance comes from faith and belief. Which changes between individuals.

I could be wrong, but I actually felt that [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] was asking a question to everyone, regardless of faith, theology. I actually don't know his faith or felt that it was particularly relevant to this discussion.

 

[sprinkles]

exactly - if a man could be perfect, without sinning his entire life (though there's the whole original sin/at-birth sin/sinful nature debacle) he would have no need for Jesus to save him, as he was perfect and would not need His sacrifice.

Good insight, sprinkles, thanks.

And to add to that I think he'd have to be both and that's why a paradox is necessary.

If it's only as simple as not being capable at all of sinning then being blameless is just as easy as breathing. There'd be no worth to it, it'd be like praising a tree for not stealing.

On the flipside of that there is no human that doesn't sin, but humans still have to be able to not sin because if they have no choice then they can't be culpable. It would be unjust.

 

[rawr]

If you're on the fence about whether or not Christ is holy and incapable of sin---once again:

You do not know Christ, so you do not believe on Christ. At this point in time, you are lost.

You should not be teaching or preaching to anybody. Sincere or not, you are a false prophet.

Stop teaching and preaching, and learn who Christ is. Then God may send you to teach and preach.

Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Romans 10:13 :


You might think I'm against you, but I'm very much for you. My heart's desire is to help you.

Right now, you are under a deadly delusion. I want you to come to the truth.

If at some point you come to realize the truth that you are lost, and you need help, please just let me know. I'll do what I can.

Please don't do this - it is entirely inappropriate, and frankly, as a fellow Christian, I am ashamed.

You don't know Barnabas, you don't know his heart, it is not your place to judge, only God's alone. (See Luke 6:37 Matthew 7:1-5, and especially Romans 14:1-23:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Also, not knowing every point of theology does not make one a false prophet, and frankly i'm appalled that you made such an accusation. It's all about the heart, you do not know Barnabas's, and therefore have no right to call him such.

Job had questions. David had questions. Elijah and Elisha had questions. Moses and Abraham had questions and lack of understanding. Samuel had lack of understanding; all the disciples lacked understanding; hell, Peter, one of Jesus's favourites, had grave misunderstandings. Did that make them any less godly men? No.


I'm sorry if i have come across too harsh, or if I picked an inappropriate medium for saying what I have, but I am not sorry for what I've said and stand by it.

Please rethink your position and attitude, and if it aligns with your beliefs. Christ ministered through love, not judgement.

 

[the]

If you're on the fence about whether or not Christ is holy and incapable of sin---once again:

You do not know Christ, so you do not believe on Christ. At this point in time, you are lost.

You should not be teaching or preaching to anybody. Sincere or not, you are a false prophet.

Stop teaching and preaching, and learn who Christ is. Then God may send you to teach and preach.

Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Romans 10:13 :


You might think I'm against you, but I'm very much for you. My heart's desire is to help you.

Right now, you are under a deadly delusion. I want you to come to the truth.

If at some point you come to realize the truth that you are lost, and you need help, please just let me know. I'll do what I can.

How well must you know Christ to be saved? Its not an all or nothing question. There are degrees to knowing.

 

[EFabricio]

Could Jesus have sinned? Yes, he could have and still can.

This poses quite a difficult question when you think about it in that way. I mean, when you think about it as a trinitarian, when you believe that the Father , the Son and the holy spirit are three persons but at the same time they are one person. If you can conceive such an idea then the answer is "yes" and "no" and you should be fine with it.

However, if you carefully read the Bible, you'd realize that it is not so easy to sustain that particular belief. The Bible teaches that there is only one God, Jehovah, the father of Jesus. Jesus believed this and even quoted from the Hebrew scriptures supporting this fact.

Deuteronomy 6: 4, 5: “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."
Isaiah 42: 8: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, nor my praise to graven images."
Matthew 4: 10: "Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Jesus was Jehovah's first creation. Colossians 1: 15 says that he is "the firstborn of all creation". And regarding his knowledge and wisdom he said "“What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my own originality." (John 7: 17), Plus, Jesus was a man of faith and a man who prayed... Who did he pray to?... Jesus was resurrected... so who resurrected him?

You can go on to a long theological debate trying to prove that God is the Son and the Father at the same time, and he was flesh and spirit at the same time... But, in my opinion that makes things very difficult to understand. If you believe that Jehovah and Jesus are not the same person (or of the same substance, or follow that idea somehow) as the Bible teaches, then it is quite simple:

Since Jesus is not the Creator (and the lawmaker) but a being inferior to God, he could have sinned and still can. In my opinion, even Jehovah could sin but in His case it wouldn't be considered a sin because... Who could judge Jehovah? Who could accuse him of bending his own rules? (Isaiah 40: 12-14)... Fortunately, when you truly know God, you know that he doesn't act wickedly... he could if he wanted to, but because of the person He is you know He won't. If you read and study the Bible you'll realize what a wise man called Elihu once said:

"For a certainty, God does not act wickedly;
The Almighty does not pervert justice"
-Job 34: 12

 

[Eventhorizon]

Yet again, I seem to lean heavily to listening to people who have open minds and can discuss things and cringe from those who claim to know without any doubt how things were and are especially when it pertains to people who have been dead for thousands of years or who in all likelihood never really existed in the first place.

 

[LucyJr]

You can discuss the history of Christ without being Christian or believing in Christianity. Theological discussions often involve challenging the epistemological assumptions within them. I know we disagree on this, but I believe Christian theology is the way it is, based on peoples' views of it. Without peoples' belief in it, their opinions, perspectives, and understandings, it really is no more than a text. It's value and significance comes from faith and belief. Which changes between individuals.

I could be wrong, but I actually felt that [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] was asking a question to everyone, regardless of faith, theology. I actually don't know his faith or felt that it was particularly relevant to this discussion.

Agree.
But still, the whole problem is that theology is best understood by people who believe in it and study the Bible passionately. To those people, the secrets of Scriptures for understanding are opened, as God said in the Bible many times. Whithout Revelation, the Bible can not be understood.

Yet at least half of the people who posted here know theology from sunday school (when they would go to church), movies, popular media and hollywood. And many of them have a a "refined" view of theology from critics, most of them atheists. And this is important, because atheists critics have a very interesting tendency to re-interpret christian dogma as they think it should be interpreted.

On top of that, they (most of the guys who posted in this thread) don't even believe Jesus was the Son of God. They don't believe Jesus was sinless.
So asking them if Jesus, who was sinless, could had possibly sinned, just to open a discussion which pretty much they don't believe in its value, its non-sensical to me.

 

[rawr]

Agree.
But still, the whole problem is that theology is best understood by people who believe in it and study the Bible passionately. To those people, the secrets of Scriptures for understanding are opened, as God said in the Bible many times. Whithout Revelation, the Bible can not be understood.

Yet at least half of the people who posted here know theology from sunday school (when they would go to church), movies, popular media and hollywood. And many of them have a a "refined" view of theology from critics, most of them atheists. And this is important, because atheists critics have a very interesting tendency to re-interpret christian dogma as they think it should be interpreted.

On top of that, they (most of the guys who posted in this thread) don't even believe Jesus was the Son of God. They don't believe Jesus was sinless.
So asking them if Jesus, who was sinless, could had possibly sinned, just to open a discussion which pretty much they don't believe in its value, its non-sensical to me.

what she is saying is still valid though - this is an open forum, so by default OP is inviting anyone to participate. If he or she just wanted to ask Christians, we have a group for that.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

As [MENTION=2240]rawr[/MENTION] said, I perfectly understand the discussion was for everybody, no matter their understanding of christian dogma, or their level of academic studies in chiristian dogma.

 

[SovereignGrace]

How well must you know Christ to be saved? Its not an all or nothing question. There are degrees to knowing.

It's not a matter of how much one knows--it's whom one knows.

Do you know Christ? --That's the question.

Do you know Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, and not just a "Christ" of your own imagination?

And I'm not saying that just knowing Biblical facts about Christ is knowing him either. Let's get that straight.
But if someone doesn't even know the basic facts about Christ, then it's absurd to say they "know" Christ.

I can't know someone's heart, so if they say they believe that Christ is the sinless Son of God who died on the cross as their substitute, then I take their word for it.

But if someone doesn't even know that Christ is sinless, or that he died to save his people from their sins, by the shedding of his own precious blood, or that he saves his people from God's holy wrath against sin.....

Well, it's obvious that person doesn't know who Christ is or what he's done, or why he had to die in the first place, so it's absurd for that person to say that he knows Christ.

If I told you I know your aunt Sally, but I don't know anything about her, that wouldn't make sense, now, would it?

ALSO, AGAIN---for the record, Barnabas SAID he was "on the fence" about whether or not Christ is capable of sin.

I didn't just assume he was on the fence based on the OP.

Here's the quote, with the relevant parts bolded:

I'm interested in the opinions of the members of the forum, I come here to listen and converse because find these people to be interesting and or insightful. It's an interesting question that came out of my friends theology class that had moderately split answers, most were on board with him not being able to sin few my friend included were of the opinion that he could have sinned but did not.

I'm still on the fence, and while I don't like to make theological decisions based of the answers of the forum, It helps me to talk it through with people of opposing opinions.

 

[say what]

It's not a matter of how much one knows--it's whom one knows.

Do you know Christ? --That's the question.

Do you know Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, and not just a "Christ" of your own imagination?

And I'm not saying that just knowing Biblical facts about Christ is knowing him either. Let's get that straight.
But if someone doesn't even know the basic facts about Christ, then it's absurd to say they "know" Christ.

I can't know someone's heart, so if they say they believe that Christ is the sinless Son of God who died on the cross as their substitute, then I take their word for it.

But if someone doesn't even know that Christ is sinless, or that he died to save his people from their sins, by the shedding of his own precious blood, or that he saves his people from God's holy wrath against sin.....

Well, it's obvious that person doesn't know who Christ is or what he's done, or why he had to die in the first place, so it's absurd for that person to say that he knows Christ.

If I told you I know your aunt Sally, but I don't know anything about her, that wouldn't make sense, now, would it?

ALSO, AGAIN---for the record, Barnabas SAID he was "on the fence" about whether or not Christ is capable of sin.

I didn't just assume he was on the fence based on the OP.

Here's the quote, with the relevant parts bolded:

Why is it bad if he's on the fence?

Life is about learning, about questioning what you know. Why is it wrong for him to have discourse to learn and understand his own beliefs?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Why is it bad if he's on the fence?

Life is about learning, about questioning what you know. Why is it wrong for him to have discourse to learn and understand his own beliefs?

As I said before, if someone is on the fence about something like "Is Christ sinless or not?", then that person is lost, and under the wrath and condemnation of God, and must come to a knowledge of Christ to be saved.

And not only is that person lost, but he should not be preaching to congregations, as Barnabas claims that he does.

That's the very definition of a "false prophet."

Furthermore, Barnabas thinks God loves everyone, and tells people God loves everyone, which completely denies the need of salvation in the first place.

That is extremely dangerous to people's souls. That gives them a false hope, and sends them to Hell.

That is why it needs to be pointed out. Whether or not people will listen is a whole other story.

 

[the]

It's not a matter of how much one knows--it's whom one knows.

Do you know Christ? --That's the question.

Do you know Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, and not just a "Christ" of your own imagination?

And I'm not saying that just knowing Biblical facts about Christ is knowing him either. Let's get that straight.
But if someone doesn't even know the basic facts about Christ, then it's absurd to say they "know" Christ.

I can't know someone's heart, so if they say they believe that Christ is the sinless Son of God who died on the cross as their substitute, then I take their word for it.

But if someone doesn't even know that Christ is sinless, or that he died to save his people from their sins, by the shedding of his own precious blood, or that he saves his people from God's holy wrath against sin.....

Well, it's obvious that person doesn't know who Christ is or what he's done, or why he had to die in the first place, so it's absurd for that person to say that he knows Christ.

If I told you I know your aunt Sally, but I don't know anything about her, that wouldn't make sense, now, would it?

ALSO, AGAIN---for the record, Barnabas SAID he was "on the fence" about whether or not Christ is capable of sin.

I didn't just assume he was on the fence based on the OP.

Here's the quote, with the relevant parts bolded:

Yes but barnabus knows a lot about god, and according to you it is just this debatable point that he supposedly doesnt know.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes but barnabus knows a lot about god, and according to you it is just this debatable point that he supposedly doesnt know.

It's not debatable. It's clear in the Scriptures.

Nor is it a minor issue, for that matter. The whole entire message of Scripture depends on it, and therefore, the salvation of sinners and the honor of God depend on it.

 

[knight in battle]

I dont believe Jesus could possibly have sinned, that is a little like asking could a dog transform into a horse, of course it cant and wouldnt, a dog born in a stable is still a dog and not a horse.

i suppose it would be difficult for a dog to become a horse or for a camel to worm itself through a needle's eye or for an incorruptible human to become imperfect. he is rather special in that sense.

 

[the]

It's not debatable. It's clear in the Scriptures.

Nor is it a minor issue, for that matter. The whole entire message of Scripture depends on it, and therefore, the salvation of sinners and the honor of God depend on it.

This is not clear. Thats why there is disagreement. Thats all your opinion or an opinion you've adapted.