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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
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.
 
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.

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 physicalcapacity.

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?
 
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.
 
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.

"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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top