# Could Jesus have sinned? (since He was a man)



## cris (Apr 2, 2010)

I know it's nothing original here, but I recently had a discussion with a friend (he's also a baptist preacher)
He was arguing that Jesus could have sinned, I - that He couldn't have.
Actually, I am pretty sure that He couldn't have sinned, since He is God.
Maybe someone can help me here 

Now, I still cannot really explain why, but where I am coming from is that He did not have our sinful and human nature, even though He was human.
Yes, He was tempted, but without sin.
Some even say that it was needed for Him to become human, so that He can "understand" us, or what we are getting through (suffering, pain, etc). Of course I find this ridiculous, since He already knows everything, because He is God. It is not like He had to "gain" this knowledge. So that would be the second question.

RC Sproul says "Jesus was not fully human", but His human nature was fully human. I cannot tell the difference. 
Does this come down to the fact that He did not have our sinful nature?
Please help - number three 

Of course, some Bible verses would be terrific

Thank you so much
Cristian


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 2, 2010)

The fact that he didn't sin proves that he could not have. Perfection only comes from perfection; imperfection comes from imperfection. His perfection proved that his nature and heart were perfect. The only way he "could have" sinned is if he were not perfect, which is of course heresy. He fulfilled all righteousness.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## cris (Apr 2, 2010)

Thx for your reply, Andrew
I never thought about that.
I guess it was not only in the desert that Jesus was tempted, but there were other times too.
Many times we think in terms of "yes, Jesus was tempted back then, in the wilderness, but He passed the test, and He was never again to be tempted"
Is that what you are implying?
One instance when He was surely tempted was when Peter said "May God protect you from dying on a cross" (approximate quote)


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 2, 2010)

The fruit of a tree is what I mean. If a good tree bears good fruit, the only possibility of Jesus producing anything but good were if at root he was in any way not good.

Also, orthodox theology opposes the possibility of Jesus sinning because that would mean that he may not have been the lamb without blemish, and thus Old Testament prophecy could possibly be wrong. However, prophecy, if it is from the Lord, cannot be wrong lest the Lord be a liar. The Lord however is perfect and without falsehood. There is in fact no possibility of it being false. Thus, if there is a possibility of Jesus sinning and Old Testament prophecy being wrong, the so-called prophetic works of the Old Testament aren't at all the Words of God. One's entire theological system is ravaged if "Jesus _could_ have sinned." Was he tempted? Scripture says he was. Yet he was without sin. Perfection can only come from perfection; imperfection comes from imperfection. A tree will not produce what it is not.


----------



## cris (Apr 2, 2010)

I see, and it makes perfect sense.
Thx a lot. And for the reply on the other thread, about the Geneva Bible


----------



## JennyG (Apr 2, 2010)

The side of this conundrum which I've had trouble defending in debate is about Jesus' being tempted.
In what sense was he truly tempted unless it was actually possible for him to give in to temptation?


----------



## jrdnoland (Apr 2, 2010)

This site does a good job of explaining it.

Could Christ have sinned

Bottom line: No


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2010)

JennyG said:


> The side of this conundrum which I've had trouble defending in debate is about Jesus' being tempted.
> In what sense was he truly tempted unless it was actually possible for him to give in to temptation?



I have always heard the temptation was from without not withing. In other words, the devil tempted Jesus but there was no inclination for Jesus to cave in to him. This is an area that I think we do not ponder enough.


----------



## uberkermit (Apr 2, 2010)

As an aside, I would add that while I was reading this I was thinking of how glad I am that Jesus _didn't_ sin. Praise the Lord!


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 2, 2010)

no


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Apr 2, 2010)

James 1:13-14:

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.

Jesus is 'in very nature God', and thereby he cannot be tempted by evil. James tells us that one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own evil desires. You must ask yourself, was Jesus born with inherent evil desires that could cause him to sin? That would mean that he was less than the saviour that mankind required and also opens up the possibility that God's sovereign plan of redemption also had the possibility of failing. If, as your friend says, it was possible for Jesus to sin then it opens up a whole host of other issues that need to be addressed.


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2010)

Irish Presbyterian said:


> Jesus is 'in very nature God', and thereby he cannot be tempted by evil.



Christ was tempted though.

*Hebrews 4:15*
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

*Matthew 4:1*
1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Could he have sinned? No. Because 1) He is God, 2) It was the will of God for Him to live a sinless and perfect life and we do believe in the sovereignty of God around here. His "human" nature was tempted though. Which is a good thing for us because He can sympathize with our weaknesses. He was not tempted by any evil desires of His own because He has no evil desires.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Apr 2, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Irish Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus is 'in very nature God', and thereby he cannot be tempted by evil.
> ...


 
John, I don't deny that Jesus was tempted. If you read the rest of what I wrote you'll see I was making reference to the rest of the verse where, in this context, James illuminates what type of temptation he is describing..."but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 2, 2010)

I would answer the question with a "no" and a "yes." Of course, possessing the divine nature, the person of Jesus could not have sinned. However, the human nature of Jesus was analogous to that of the First Adam, i.e., not yet perfected in the sense of _moral maturity_. And the Second Adam did what the First Adam failed to do--He learned obedience through the crucible of temptation and thus He attained the wisdom that leads to everlasting life.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Apr 2, 2010)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I would answer the question with a "no" and a "yes." Of course, possessing the divine nature, the person of Jesus could not have sinned. However, the human nature of Jesus was analogous to that of the First Adam, i.e., not yet perfected in the sense of _moral maturity_. And the Second Adam did what the First Adam failed to do--He learned obedience through the crucible of temptation and thus He attained the wisdom that leads to everlasting life.


 
Along the same lines, Hodge wrote: “This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” (Vol. 2.III.2)

As you say, of course, His divine nature would not have allowed Him to succumb to the temptations, but the temptations must be real in some sense, or they are meaningless.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 2, 2010)

The Lord Jesus could not have sinned. The issue is not whether or not His being tempted would not have been real temptation if it was impossible for Him to sin. Temptation is the attempt to bring about the breaking of God’s will. 

The council of Chalcedon answered this question long ago.


> “… one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis- not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.”



In the ONE Person of Jesus Christ there are TWO natures; the human nature and the divine nature. That which can be predicated of either nature can be predicated of the ONE Person.

If Christ had the potential, in His human nature, to sin then Christ, the God-man, the Person had the potential to sin. If, for example, Christ in His human nature had the real potential to lie, then Christ the Person had the potential to lie. God, however, cannot lie and Christ is and always shall be, God.



> Hebrews 6:18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.



The impeccability of Christ is not dependent, in the final analysis, upon the faithfulness of His human nature. It is dependent upon the inseparability of His human and divine natures from the one Person that Jesus Christ is.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 2, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> In the ONE Person of Jesus Christ there are TWO natures; the human nature and the divine nature. That which can be predicated of either nature can be predicated of the ONE Person.



Bob, I don't disagree that what can be predicated of either nature may be predicated of the one person. But theologians have commonly recognized that the Bible sometimes predicates attributes to Christ that clearly describe the limitations of his humanity and do not, therefore, apply to his divine nature. For instance, the person of Jesus is said to have grown in wisdom (Luke 2:52) and to have learned obedience (Heb. 5:8). Since it is not possible to predicate a transition from less to more ethical maturation in the divine nature, these Scriptural references must be limited to Jesus' human nature. 

For this reason, I'm not sure I can agree with you when you write,



rbcbob said:


> If Christ had the potential, in His human nature, to sin then Christ, the God-man, the Person had the potential to sin. If, for example, Christ in His human nature had the real potential to lie, then Christ the Person had the potential to lie. God, however, cannot lie and Christ is and always shall be, God.



It's one thing to say what is predicated of either nature can be attributed to the person. It's another thing to say what is predicated of either nature must be attributed to the other nature, which seems to be the line of reasoning represented in the last line of your assertion above. The _communicatio idiomatum_ in Reformed theology doesn't necessitate that the human nature share in divine attributes as it does in Lutheran thinking. 



rbcbob said:


> The impeccability of Christ is not dependent, in the final analysis, upon the faithfulness of His human nature. It is dependent upon the inseparability of His human and divine natures from the one Person that Jesus Christ is.



That's why I suggested above the the answer to the question be both "no" and "yes." Possessing the divine nature, the person of Jesus could not have sinned. This accords with your statement above. 

But if we focus on Jesus' human nature alone, as the NT writers sometimes do, then I agree with Charles Hodge (whom Steve cited above): the man Christ Jesus was not born in the state of _non potest peccare_. He was born, rather, in the same state as the First Adam. But as a result of his faithful obedience, God conferred on his human nature the gift of _non posse peccare_ (Heb. 5:9). 

For this reason, I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Wayne Grudem when he writes,"The moral strength of [Jesus'] divine nature was there as a sort of 'backstop' that would have prevented Him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but He did not rely on the strength of His divine nature to make it easier for Him to face temptations...."(_Systematic Theology_, 539). ​I think Grudem's response to the question of Christ's impeccability resembles my "no" and "yes" response. It also, in my view, helps us appreciate the reality of Christ's temptations and gives full weight to the human dimension of his obedience to the will of God.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 2, 2010)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > In the ONE Person of Jesus Christ there are TWO natures; the human nature and the divine nature. That which can be predicated of either nature can be predicated of the ONE Person.
> ...



What is predicated of one or the other nature is predicated of the Person, not the other nature.


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 2, 2010)

How about a little help form AW Pink-

*The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability, or incapability of sinning*: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin's womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.

*The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability*. That the Lord Jesus, even during the days of His humiliation, was possessed of omnipotence, is clear from many passages of Scripture. "What things so ever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise....For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will" (John 5:19, 21). When we say that Christ possessed omnipotence during His earthly sojourn, we do not mean that He was so endowed by the Holy Spirit, but that He was essentially, inherently, personally, omnipotent. Now to speak of an omnipotent person yielding to sin, is a contradiction in terms. All temptation to sin must proceed from a created being, and hence it is a finite power; but impossible is it for a finite power to overcome omnipotency.

*The constitution of Christ's person proves His impeccability*. In Him were united (in a manner altogether incomprehensible to created intelligence) the Divine and the human natures. Now "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13); "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). And Christ was "God manifest in flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16); "Immanuel"—God with us (Matt. 1:23). Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been "made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.

It is objected to the truth of Christ's impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is argued, cannot be tempted to sin. As well might one reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked. "Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as His natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable" (W.G. Shedd, 1889).

Probably there were many reasons why God ordained that His incarnate Son should be tempted by men, by the Devil, by circumstances. One of these was to demonstrate His impeccability. Throw a lighted match into a barrel of gunpowder, and there will be an explosion; throw it into a barrel of water, and the match will be quenched. This, in a very crude way, may be taken to illustrate the difference between Satan's tempting us and his tempting of the God-man. In us, there is that which is susceptible to his "fiery darts"; but the Holy One could say, "The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me" (John 14:30). The Lord Jesus was exposed to a far more severe testing and trying than the first Adam was, in order to make manifest His mighty power of resistance.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 2, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> What is predicated of one or the other nature is predicated of the Person, not the other nature.



True enough. But doesn't this line of reason invalidate your argument above? When you assert, "God, however, cannot lie and Christ is and always shall be, God," it seems you want us to draw the conclusion that what is true about the divine nature, i.e., no possibility of sinning, must of necessity be true of the human nature, i.e., Jesus' human nature (in its state of humiliation) was incapable of sinning. 

Perhaps this is not your intention. Perhaps you simply intended to say the person of Christ (during his earthly ministry) could not sin by virtue of its inseparable connection to the divine nature. I don't disagree. But if I'm not mistaken, the brother who initiated this thread is wrestling with the question of Christ's impeccability, and I believe this question must be answered _both_ with respect to Christ's person _and also_ with respect to Christ's human nature, much like we might discuss Christ's ethical maturation _both_ with respect to his person _and also_ with respect to his human nature.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2010)

As the thread shows, you have to define impossibility. But here's the simple fact. It was _decretally impossible_ for Christ to sin, for God had from all eternity decreed that He would not sin. On that I think everyone here could agree. So questions about the intrinsic peccability or impeccability of Christ's human nature are all firmly committed into the realm of the theoretical. While they can be discussed in that realm, I think it should be kept in mind that it is only as a counterfactual hypothetical that they even arise; not only because Christ did never actually sin, but also because it was infallibly foreordained that He never would.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 2, 2010)

py3ak said:


> As the thread shows, you have to define impossibility. But here's the simple fact. It was _decretally impossible_ for Christ to sin, for in God had from all eternity decreed that He would not sin. On that I think everyone here could agree. So questions about the intrinsic peccability or impeccability of Christ's human nature are all firmly committed into the realm of the theoretical. While they can be discussed in that realm, I think it should be kept in mind that it is only as a counterfactual hypothetical that they even arise; not only because Christ did never actually sin, but also because it was infallibly foreordained that He never would.


 
Ruben,

Thanks for your helpful clarifying comments. I agree with you that it was decretally impossible for Christ to sin, and I think all on the discussion board would agree. I also agree that when we discuss "states of affairs" that _might have_ or _could have_ happened, we're in the realm of what is counter-factual or hypothetical. And here, we must be careful to avoid unwarranted dogmatism since we're often arguing from inference. We must also beware of positing a doctrine that would conflict with other self-evident truths of Scripture. Even so, as I think you'd agree, it's not necessarily wrong to discuss theologically what _might have_ or _could have_ or _would have_ been under certain circumstances. Jesus does this in the Gospels in order to make a point.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2010)

Indeed not. I was just trying to provide a simpler answer to the OP.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 2, 2010)

While appreciating Ruben’s helpful point about the decretal impossibility of Christ sinning, and in no way disagreeing with it, I think that there is profit in making some distinctions.

If we may aver that the elect angels will never sin, as did those who kept not their first estate, and thus they are by decree unable to sin, we must further observe that their inability to sin is not intrinsic. It is God who sovereignly keeps them.

Christ however, in addition to the Father’s decree, is intrinsically unable to sin. Satan approaches to tempt but has nothing in Him (Jn. 14:30). The Man Christ Jesus not only came forth from the womb sinless but He came forth from the womb as the Theanthropos. Jesus, the Person, having both divine and human natures, cannot Personally sin.

Even the redeemed in glory who, as theologians remind us, will then be non possee peccare, will be so not by intrinsic power but by the will and power of God.
With the God-man it is otherwise. He is self constitutionally unable to sin; He is God.


----------



## cris (Apr 5, 2010)

Thx all of you for your comments.
It was indeed very helpful for me
So far I talked to several brothers in baptist churches and it looks like this is what many of them believe (Jesus could have sinned)
I wonder whether anyone can come up with a pattern of thought, as of why this happens (in the baptist churches/SBC)
I knew I would agree with the reformed view on this topic, even though I never talked to anyone or read anything on this.
Small disclaimer 
Afterwards I noticed there was another thread on this subject. Before I posted the question I only searched for "could Jesus have sinned", not for "peccability", otherwise I would have found this other thread and not start another one.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 6, 2010)

The Baptist churches (some) are more infected with Arminian patterns of thought.

The view is "If Jesus couldn't sin, I can't understand how He could _really_ have been tempted. If I can't understand that, then He must have been able to sin."

They forget that there are things that are difficult to understand in God, Christ and Scripture. It's idolatry of human understanding.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Baptist churches (some) are more infected with Arminian patterns of thought.
> 
> The view is "If Jesus couldn't sin, I can't understand how He could _really_ have been tempted. If I can't understand that, then He must have been able to sin."
> 
> They forget that there are things that are difficult to understand in God, Christ and Scripture. It's idolatry of human understanding.



Richard and Cristian,

I'm not sure there's any correlation between affirming that Christ's human nature in its state of humiliation was like that of the First Adam--able to sin and able not to sin--and Baptist or even Arminian theology. Steve Curtis above (post ) already cited Charles Hodge who wrote,“This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a _non potest peccare_. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” (Vol. 2.III.2)​Is anyone prepared to suggest that Hodge had latent tendencies toward Baptist or Arminian theology? If I'm not mistaken, there have been Reformed writers and Arminian writers, Paedobaptist and Baptist, who have affirmed Christ's impeccability in an absolute sense. There have been others, like myself and Charles Hodge, who have affirmed Christ's impeccability relative to his deity but his peccability relative to his human nature in a state of humiliation. 

Moreover, this is not an attempt to solve a mystery with human reasoning. Indeed, it only adds to the mystery! How can attributes such as weariness, thirst, finite knowledge, and a lack of perfect wisdom, etc., be ascribed to the Second Person of the Godhead?! Similarly, it's a mystery to say that Jesus by virtue of his divine nature could not sin but by virtue of his not-yet-perfected human nature could sin. Yet he never did sin but resisted every temptation not relying on the strength of his divinity (which was insusceptible to temptation) but by the moral fortitude of a not-yet-perfected humanity that was, nevertheless, full of the Spirit and faith. 

As to the reason why more Baptists, particularly SBCers, might be more open to viewing Christ as peccable with reference to his humanity (assuming for the sake of argument that that's an accurate conclusion), it may owe to the fact that James Boyce, one of the influential founders of the SBC, was a student of Hodge.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 6, 2010)

Interesting quote from Hodge. I didn't know that some of the Reformed divines didn't hold to Christ's impeccability. 

I agree that as to his human nature, Christ was like Adam, capable of sinning.

But that is hypothetical, since Christ was always a divine person and His human nature was always united to His divine nature from the beginning.

He was tempted in all points like as we are, but because He had no sin and was divine, although the temptations were trying, in some ways more trying than for us, his spiritual and psychological response to temptation was different to us.

We sometimes start sinning in certain ways in mind and soul, attitude, feeling and motive, _before_ the point that we would say that we've given in to a temptation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I agree that as to his human nature, Christ was like Adam, capable of sinning.



In my opinion, this is really the crux of the debate. All sides acknowledge that it would be impossible for Christ's divine nature to sin. All sides acknowledge that Christ in fact never committed sin in thought or deed. And all sides--at least those who hold to a Reformed view of God's sovereignty--hold that God decreed that the Christ should successfully resist temptation and fulfill all righteousness. But God also decreed that Adam should partake of the forbidden fruit. Yet theologians still speak (rightly so, I think) of Adam's condition as including _posse non peccare_ (able not to sin). 

The point of debate is, I think, _what was the state of the humanity with which Christ was clothed in his state of humility._ Certainly, it was neither _a fallen human nature_ nor _a fallen-then-redeemed human nature_ that the Second Person took up. That only leaves two other states: the state of _moral innocence yet immaturity_, which was Adam's condition before the fall; or the state of _moral perfection and maturity_, which will be the state of the redeemed in heaven. Since the Second Adam came to accomplish what the First Adam failed to accomplish and since the NT seems to describe Christ's human ethical character not as static but as moving from lesser to greater moral maturity (which is different than moving from sinfulness to holiness), I'm inclined to agree with Hodge that Christ's human nature in his state of humiliation was _posse peccare, posse non peccare_ (able to sin; able not to sin). 



Richard Tallach said:


> But that is hypothetical, since Christ was always a divine person and His human nature was always united to His divine nature from the beginning.



I'm not sure, Richard, that "hypothetical" is the best word. Perhaps "mysterious" is better. The fact that there's an inseparable relation between the Person and the two natures (human and divine) doesn't render Christ's "thirst" (John 19:28), for example, "hypothetical." It was, after all, genuine thirst. And that thirst is predicated not merely of the nature but of the Person. Of course, we must resist drawing the conclusion that Christ's divine nature experienced thirst or any kind of human inadequacy or suffering. But the real Jesus did experience real thirst. Moreover, as you note below, the real Jesus did not experience merely "hypothetical" temptation but real temptation. 



Richard Tallach said:


> He was tempted in all points like as we are, but because He had no sin and was divine, although the temptations were trying, in some ways more trying than for us, his spiritual and psychological response to temptation was different to us. We sometimes start sinning in certain ways in mind and soul, attitude, feeling and motive, _before_ the point that we would say that we've given in to a temptation.



I do agree with you that no matter how we slice the pie (that is, no matter what our precise position on the question of Christ's impeccability/peccability), Christ's spiritual and psychological experience of and response to temptation was different from ours for at least two important reasons: 

(1) Jesus did not carry the weight of either reigning or remaining sin. I think this is what he alludes to when he speaks of Satan "having nothing in [Him]" (John 14:30). I don't think Jesus was saying, "I'm divine and, therefore, cannot be tempted." Rather, I think he was saying something like, "Satan doesn't have an ally [reigning or remaining sin] in my heart as he does in the hearts of all other men." 

(2) Jesus experienced the fullness of the Spirit without measure (John 3:34) and exercised unwavering faith in God (Heb. 12:2). The most Spirit- and faith-filled justified saint who's ever lived has never known the Spirit's power as Jesus knew it or exercised faith in God's word as Jesus did. 

Nevertheless, I do believe that by viewing Christ's state of humiliation as analogous to that of Adam and by interpreting his resistance to Satan's onslaught of temptations not as a relying on his divine nature, in which case Satan's attacks would amount to little more than a boy trying to bring down Mount Everest with a water squirt-gun, but rather as a straining of every nerve of his humanity in sweat, blood, and tears, crying and looking unto God as the source of his strength we can identify with him more closely as our sympathetic Savior who's not untouched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15). 

Thanks for the stimulating interaction!


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 6, 2010)

From post #24


> If we may aver that the elect angels will never sin, as did those who kept not their first estate, and thus they are by decree unable to sin, we must further observe that their inability to sin is not intrinsic. It is God who sovereignly keeps them.
> 
> Christ however, in addition to the Father’s decree, is intrinsically unable to sin. Satan approaches to tempt but has nothing in Him (Jn. 14:30). The Man Christ Jesus not only came forth from the womb sinless but He came forth from the womb as the Theanthropos. Jesus, the *Person*, having both divine and human natures, cannot Personally sin.
> 
> ...



It seems to be getting lost in the discussion that, as has been conceded, what may be predicated of either nature is predicated of the *Person*. If you insist that the human nature of Christ could have sinned, then it is inescapable that His *Person* was capable of sin. You are left with the result that under such a hypothesis that the Son of God could have *Personally* sinned.

I trust that such a supposition is reprehensible to all.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> It seems to be getting lost in the discussion that, as has been conceded, what may be predicated of either nature is predicated of the *Person*. If you insist that the human nature of Christ could have sinned, then it is inescapable that His *Person* was capable of sin. You are left with the result that under such a hypothesis that the Son of God could have *Personally* sinned. I trust that such a supposition is reprehensible to all.



Bob,

I fail to see how the supposition that the Person of Christ *vis-a-vis his human nature in the state of humiliation* could have sinned BUT DID NOT SIN (yea, courageously and gloriously resisted temptation and triumphed over sin!) could be reprehensible. Apparently, it didn't appear reprehensible to Charles Hodge. 

Above, you write, "The Man Christ Jesus not only came forth from the womb sinless but He came forth from the womb as the Theanthropos. Jesus, the *Person*, having both divine and human natures, cannot Personally sin." I'm not certain I follow your logic. You don't deny Christ's humanity. But you seem hesitant to ascribe certain aspects of Christ's humanness to his person. 

When the Theanthropic Christ "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52), did _the person_ grow in wisdom or just the nature? When Jesus "learned obedience through the things he suffered" (Heb. 5:8), did _his person_ learn or just his nature? If you answer both questions in terms of the latter alone, how can growth in wisdom and holiness be _impersonal_? Doesn't morality assume personality? If you concede that *the Theanthropic person* _vis-a-vis his human nature_ matured ethically (my position), then why would you find it hard to conceive of _the person vis-a-vis his human nature_ having the capacity to sin but remaining perfectly sinless? 

I realize that we may have to agree to disagree on this point and that's okay with me. I'm just trying to understand better your concern.


----------



## Philip (Apr 6, 2010)

The question depends on what you mean by "could"--that is, what kind of ability we are talking:

*Natural ability:* this is the ability to have a real option before you. Anything that you could conceivably go and do right now is within your natural ability. If I wanted to walk around the room right now, I could. I could not, however, choose to fly around the room right now, since I am physically incapable of flying. In terms of natural ability, Jesus was capable of sin, otherwise his temptation would not have been real.

*Moral ability:* this is the ability to do what you want within your natural ability. So if I wanted to go and murder my roommate, I could. However, given that I have no such desire, I am, for all practical purposes, incapable of such (my roommate and I get along quite well). Jesus had no desire to sin and therefore was _morally incapable_ of sinning.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The question depends on what you mean by "could"--that is, what kind of ability we are talking:
> 
> *Natural ability:* this is the ability to have a real option before you. Anything that you could conceivably go and do right now is within your natural ability. If I wanted to walk around the room right now, I could. I could not, however, choose to fly around the room right now, since I am physically incapable of flying. In terms of natural ability, Jesus was capable of sin, otherwise his temptation would not have been real.
> 
> *Moral ability:* this is the ability to do what you want within your natural ability. So if I wanted to go and murder my roommate, I could. However, given that I have no such desire, I am, for all practical purposes, incapable of such (my roommate and I get along quite well). Jesus had no desire to sin and therefore was _morally incapable_ of sinning.



Philip,

Thanks for highlighting the importance of defining terms. Admittedly, the term "could" by itself might denote a kind of non-moral capacity. However, isn't the question of whether Christ's human nature during his state of humiliation was characterized as _posse peccare et posse non peccare_ (able to sin and able not to sin) by its very nature a question of _moral _ability since it contemplates a moral being engaging in behavior that's either morally right or morally wrong?

Of course, I recognize that the phraseology "natural ability" versus "moral ability" is used by theologians to distinguish the kind of spiritual inability that characterizes the sinner _apart from God's saving grace_. The unregenerate man, theologians tell us, has the natural or ontological ability to do God's will but not the moral ability (since he's totally depraved). While I basically agree with the theology behind this distinction, I find the terminology potentially confusing. As noted above, whenever we're talking about man's ability or inability to conform to God's law, we're talking about a capacity that is moral by its very nature. 

Accordingly, I think what theologians mean by "natural ability" is _man's moral capacity viewed relative to his being God's created image_. Viewed from the perspective of being the _imago Dei,_ humans have been endowed with the "natural" ability to conform morally to God's revealed will. On the other hand, "moral ability" is _man's moral capacity viewed relative to his being God's fallen image_. Viewed from the perspective of being the fractured _imago Dei_, all humans have lost their "natural" ability to conform morally to God's revealed will. 

Orthodox theology has taught that Adam as the _imago Dei _was created in a state of moral innocence yet moral immaturity. In such a state, he possessed the God-given or "natural" capacity to obey God (_posse non peccare_). But his human nature was not yet perfected and confirmed in indefectible holiness. Accordingly, Adam had the moral capacity to sin but not a moral necessity (as in the case of fallen sinners). 

So I'm not sure the "natural ability" versus "moral ability" helps us here because it's normally used in reference to humans' ability _to obey God's will_ not to their ability to sin. But I'm open to further input. 

Your servant,


----------



## Philip (Apr 6, 2010)

> So I'm not sure the "natural ability" versus "moral ability" helps us here because it's normally used in reference to humans' ability to obey God's will not to their ability to sin. But I'm open to further input.



Since sin is, by definition, non-obedience to God's will, the distinction is quite pertinent.



> On the other hand, "moral ability" is man's moral capacity viewed relative to his being God's fallen image. Viewed from the perspective of being the fractured imago Dei, all humans have lost their "natural" ability to conform morally to God's revealed will.



But Christ, as the non-fallen Son of God would not have the moral ability to sin, even though he had the natural ability.



> As noted above, whenever we're talking about man's ability or inability to conform to God's law, we're talking about a capacity that is moral by its very nature.



Ability may, as I have indicated, be talked of in two different senses. Natural ability, if you will, refers to what you are capable of, physically, where moral ability refers to what you want--what's in your heart.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > So I'm not sure the "natural ability" versus "moral ability" helps us here because it's normally used in reference to humans' ability to obey God's will not to their ability to sin. But I'm open to further input.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Philip,

Forgive me, but I'm still having problems understanding your point. Are you saying Christ had the _physical _ability to sin but not the _moral_ ability? How can one physically sin and that not be a moral act? 

According to Charles Hodge, Christ's human nature in the state of his humiliation was the same as or analogous to the First Adam's. Do you believe the first Adam, who in the prelapsarian state was God's "non-fallen son," had the _physical _ability to sin but not the _moral _ability? I've always thought the description of Adam's created state as _posse peccare et posse non peccare_ (able to sin and able not to sin) predicated his _moral _capacity, not simply his _physical_capacity. 

I guess my question is Are you disagreeing with Hodge or agreeing with Hodge? Of which of the Four States of Human Nature did Christs humanity _in its state of humiliation _correspond? As I noted above, we all agree Christ's humanity was neither that of _the fallen sinner_ nor that of _the regenerate sinner_. That only leaves two states: 

(1) Christ assumed the same state as the First Adam but, in contrast with the First Adam, he resisted temptation and willingly chose God's will thereby "learning obedience through what he suffered" and, as a result, was made perfect, i.e., passed to the state of glorification or indefectible holiness _with reference to his humanity_ (Heb 5:8-9). 

(2) Christ assumed the state of glorified humanity in his state of humiliation, possessing at birth indefectible holiness so that his human nature was impervious to sin, as will be the glorified saints in heaven.​
My question is which of these two states, in your view, characterized Christ's human nature in the state of his humiliation? I think Hodge is arguing for the first view, and that's the view I presently affirm. Is that what you affirm too?


----------



## Philip (Apr 6, 2010)

If I have the moral ability to do something, that indicates that at the moment, I have a desire to do it such that I actually do it. To have the natural ability to do something only indicates that, at the moment, if I so chose, I could do it. 

Example: I have the natural ability to go to the campus cafe and get a smoothie. However, I have no compelling desire to do so and therefore have no moral ability to do so.



> (1) Christ assumed the same state as the First Adam but, in contrast with the First Adam, he resisted temptation and willingly chose God's will thereby "learning obedience through what he suffered" and, as a result, was made perfect, i.e., passed to the state of glorification or indefectible holiness with reference to his humanity (Heb 5:8-9).
> 
> (2) Christ assumed the state of glorified humanity in his state of humiliation, possessing at birth indefectible holiness so that his human nature was impervious to sin, as will be the glorified saints in heaven.



No.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 6, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> If I have the moral ability to do something, that indicates that at the moment, I have a desire to do it such that I actually do it. To have the natural ability to do something only indicates that, at the moment, if I so chose, I could do it.
> 
> Example: I have the natural ability to go to the campus cafe and get a smoothie. However, I have no compelling desire to do so and therefore have no moral ability to do so.
> 
> ...



"No" to what? Are you disagreeing with Charles Hodge? Are you disagreeing with both options? What third alternative do you propose?

You also seem to confuse moral _ability_ with moral _necessity_. You define moral ability as follows: "If I have the moral ability to do something, that indicates that at the moment, _I have a desire to do it such that I actually do it_" (emphasis added). But no one is arguing that Christ has a desire to commit sin such that he actually commits it. Indeed, that would not even be true of Adam (at least in his pristine state). We're only addressing the issue of moral _capacity_ not moral _necessity_. 

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your illustration. You speak of having the natural (or physical) ability to go to the campus cafe in order to get a smoothie. This natural ability is entire distinct from moral ability, which you seem to define as "desire." But according to Scripture, whether we eat, drink, or do anything else (whether mentally or physically), we're to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Hence, the choice to get a smoothie or not get a smoothie does not just entail physical ability; it entails _moral ability_. Whether or not you desire the smoothie is irrelevant. The fact remains you have _the capacity_ to desire the smoothie or not desire the smoothie. It is possible to have the capacity to desire sin but never desire or engage in sin. Adam had this capacity. Unfortunately, he succumbed (a mystery in itself). Christ, however, had the capacity to sin _but never desired to sin,_ which itself is sin.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 7, 2010)

Jesus in his human nature could have sinned because he was the second Adam. In his divine nature he could not. The question is that whether or not and HOW the attributes of the divine nature communicate with his human. Clearly there is some communication for lake of better words when we read the gospels, as to the extent I'm not sure. Clearly when Jesus was born he was NOT omniscient in his human nature but as he got older he had knowledge that was superhuman-though not perfect. He learned things as a human. And I bet if they had spelling tests, Jesus would not have received 100% on each one. Jesus grew in wisdom though at an accelerated rate but I imagine that is because of his sinlessness not the communication of the attributes of the divine nature. We must say that Jesus in his human nature was exactly like adam in every way except one: The inclination to sin never suppressed his desire for holiness and his Father's will. But if we say that Jesus couldn't have sinned in his human nature (in terms of natural ability as opposed to moral ability) then we loose the entire structure of the Covenant Theology and that through Christ, God is redeeming a new humanity out of shear grace out of a fallen and wicked one.


----------

