The peccability or impeccability of Christ

antiskeptic

PDN wrote:

Just a point. Orthodox Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) does not believe that Christ dwelt in sinning flesh like we do

antiskeptic wrote:

I'd never much dwelt on this. Given he'd no sinful nature and dwelt not in sinful flesh, by what mechanism can Christ have been tempted. To what would the temptation be addressed (so to speak)

The above, extracted from another thread, raises a conundrum.

Either Christ was unable to sin - in which case the temptation and trials he faced which are said to permit him to empathize with our temptations and trials weren't actually temptations and trials. For example; if you know that you cannot yield to temptation then you cannot experience the suffering that comes from the fear that you might yield to a temptation you know you are capable of yielding to.

Or Christ was able to sin but didn't. In which case the question becomes at least that of above: how can one be tempted if one has a) no sin nature b) no sinful flesh. There is, as I suggest above, nowhere for the temptation to be addressed to, nowhere to it to take purchase on you.

PDN supplied the following link by way of introduction to the subject.

Jesus: impeccable or peccable

..the author suggests that Jesus is both peccable and impeccable, something about which he concludes:

3. Belief in the peccability and impeccability of Jesus can both be affirmed although not logically reconciled: it is a mystery (1 Tim 3.16).

What do folk here think? Is there a way of arriving at a logically/scripturally satisfying solution to this issue?

antiskeptic

Soulwinner wrote:

Which means He must have taken on human flesh. And human flesh is sinful. It would not have been necessary for Him to take on human flesh had the human flesh been perfect to begin with. If human flesh was sinless then there would have been no reason for Him to be born of a woman in the first place let alone to die for the sins of mankind. I cannot see any real meaning in Christianity if God did not truly take on human/sinning flesh. He must have or else what He did on the cross has no meaning for us.

Perhaps Soulwinner has a point. Jesus being born of a virgin would appear to indicate his not being born with a sinful nature (if we suppose that to travel down the male line). But if begotten by sinful flesh then it appears reasonable to suppose his flesh sinful to (unless citing an unknown interventionary miracle).

What problems would Christ in sinful flesh create? Such flesh would be open to the attack of temptation but such a person wouldn't be hindered by the urgings of a sinful nature in their deciding whether to yield to temptation or no. In a sense, such a person would, in effect, be returned to the position of Adam who had no sinful nature but was clearly open to temptation by some mechanism or other.

Or could we suppose that Christ was as Adam: without sinful nature/flesh but open to temptation and capable of sinning just as Adam was open and capable (by whatever mechanism of temptation that operated in Adams case).

Certainly big questions are raised if supposing that God made it possible for himself to sin. His doing so would certainly result in the (self) destruction of God - rendering the risk run quite enormous.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

What problems would Christ in sinful flesh create? Such flesh would be open to the attack of temptation but such a person wouldn't be hindered by the urgings of a sinful nature in their deciding whether to yield to temptation or no. In a sense, such a person would, in effect, be returned to the position of Adam who had no sinful nature but was clearly open to temptation by some mechanism or other.

What you are referring to is not IMHO 'sinful flesh'. It would be flesh that has the potential to sin, but would not be called 'sinful' and certainly not 'sinning' unless a decisiion to sin were made, thus turning the potential into actuality.

I think Soulwinner makes a mistake in equating humanity with sinfulness. I believe Jesus was born without original sin - in other words, without any inherent bias towards sin. This would indeed be similar to Adam.

The problem, of course, is that if He was impeccable (unable to sin) then the temptations were not real. But if was peccable (able to sin) then He could not be God, for a holy God cannot sin.

I don't pretend to have a definite answer to this conundrum. I suspect it could be something to do with the union of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. Would He have ceased to be God if He had sinned? I don't know.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

What you are referring to is not IMHO 'sinful flesh'. It would be flesh that has the potential to sin, but would not be called 'sinful' and certainly not 'sinning' unless a decisiion to sin were made, thus turning the potential into actuality.

True. Although I wonder if such a potential exists without the sinful nature having done the educating. Is it that the flesh experiences sin driven by the sinful nature. Meaning those of us for whom the sinful nature is dead, still struggle with the flesh (made sinful and sin-loving by exposure to sin). Without have being given a taste for it, the flesh would (perhaps?) not be open to temptation.

I think Soulwinner makes a mistake in equating humanity with sinfulness. I believe Jesus was born without original sin - in other words, without any inherent bias towards sin. This would indeed be similar to Adam.

The problem, of course, is that if He was impeccable (unable to sin) then the temptations were not real. But if was peccable (able to sin) then He could not be God, for a holy God cannot sin.

I'm just wondering about this. God, it appears, can solve the sticky-toffee-paper problem of creating a will that is independent from his own. That will is said to be free (whereas we are supposing God's own will not free in the matter of sin). It strikes me as ludicrous to suggest that God could create a free will but be unable to be free himself. The created would have more potential for manouvre than the creator?

I don't pretend to have a definite answer to this conundrum. I suspect it could be something to do with the union of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. Would He have ceased to be God if He had sinned? I don't know.

That would strike me as being a conclusion to draw. That God would have self-destructed.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

I think Soulwinner makes a mistake in equating humanity with sinfulness. I believe Jesus was born without original sin - in other words, without any inherent bias towards sin. This would indeed be similar to Adam.

But from God's point of view, humanity is equated with sinfulness. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none that doeth good, no not one. In order for God to remove sin He must conquer it in the flesh Himself. We are imprisoned to sin and without God we are without the hope of salvation. God in His mercy and for His own sake, took it upon Himself to open the door of salvation for us.

But just because Jesus took on human sinful flesh that does not mean that He could sin. That which is born of the spirit cannot sin. But in order to satisfy God's justice, the price for sin still had to be paid - a perfect life willingly laid down. God had said; for sin comes death. God must deal with it and put it away, and the only way to do that was to conquer it in the flesh, fulfill the law and lay down that perfect life as a ransom to redeem His lost inheritance.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3


In the likeness of sinful flesh in this verse does not mean that His flesh was sinning when He was in it. The difference between Jesus and the rest of us is that Jesus did not give in to the sinful nature and urges of the flesh. He conquered it and overcame it. Yes He was indeed tempted but He did not yield to the temptation. Is is not a sin to be tempted, but it is a sin to yield to any temptation that will lead us off God's path for our lives. In Jesus' case that path was very restricted, His meat was to do the will of the Father who sent Him. The closer the cross loomed the narrower this path became. But He was faithful to what He was sent to do and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross.

The word sinful in this verse in the Greek is Harmatia. It simply means to fall short of the mark. God's law laid out a standard that nobody could keep. We all fall short of it in one way or another. If anybody could keep it then they would live by it. So to perpetually keep this law meant to perpetually live. We all die because we cannot keep it. But Jesus kept it, perpetually and perfectly and then voluntarily laid down His perfectly kept life so that by doing so He could open the door back to God for us, so that by simply trusting in Him is to attain eternal life.

The reason that we still die is because we still sin in the flesh. In order for God to raise up the new man, which is being built up by faith in Him, and sanctify us holy before Him, the old man must be laid down. In the same way that we take off our garments and lay them down before retiring to bed, we must do like wise with the garment of sinning flesh at death. Flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must put on immortality first, but in order to do that we must first die to self and live to God by faith, then by daily dying to self and living to God we put off the old nature of the flesh and build up the new nature of the spirit man, the new creation in Christ Jesus, then at the time of death (which Paul compares to a ship departing on a journey just getting started) we start our (unhindered by sinning flesh) eternal life with Him.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision (conformatiy to the law) availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision (non-conformatiy to the law), but a new creature." 2 Corinthians 5:17

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Galatians 6:15

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:9-10

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith;" Ephesians 3:17

So by reading all these verses together we see that in order to be in Christ, which means to be viewed as just like Him, blameless and perfect as He was, He must be in us. And in order for Him to be in us, we must have faith in Him. Which means for our simple faith in Him, He gives us everything else. But in order for any of this to have any meaning, we must recognize that Jesus conquered sin in the flesh and fulfilled the law so that it could pass away, no longer able to hold us in its impossible to live up to bondage.

The following verses are probably my favorite in the Bible:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phillipians 2:5-11

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

But from God's point of view, humanity is equated with sinfulness. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none that doeth good, no not one.

Yet Jesus was human and sinless. Therefore, obviously, humanity is not automatically equated with sinfulness.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3

He did not come in sinful flesh. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

philologos

Considering that Paul wrote that Jesus humbled Himself to human flesh (Philippians chapter 2) and that the author of Hebrews writes that Jesus endured temptation as we all did, this would imply that there was some difficulty involved in being in human form in comparison to divine form.

Admittedly, it isn't something that I've thought about too much. In the Gospels themselves, it shows that Jesus had difficulty in enduring the Crucifixion, and prayed to His Father out of desperation in the Garden of Gethsemane to see if He had any other plan for Him, if not He was willing to endure to the end. This to me is a sign of His temptation to escape the situation.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

The above, extracted from another thread, raises a conundrum.

Either Christ was unable to sin - in which case the temptation and trials he faced which are said to permit him to empathize with our temptations and trials weren't actually temptations and trials. For example; if you know that you cannot yield to temptation then you cannot experience the suffering that comes from the fear that you might yield to a temptation you know you are capable of yielding to.

Or Christ was able to sin but didn't. In which case the question becomes at least that of above: how can one be tempted if one has a) no sin nature b) no sinful flesh. There is, as I suggest above, nowhere for the temptation to be addressed to, nowhere to it to take purchase on you.

PDN supplied the following link by way of introduction to the subject.

Jesus: impeccable or peccable

..the author suggests that Jesus is both peccable and impeccable, something about which he concludes:

What do folk here think? Is there a way of arriving at a logically/scripturally satisfying solution to this issue?

I think the author is cheating a little there. If Jesus is both peccable and impeccable then there's something ill-defined in those two words. But I don't see what the huge issue is. From my limited experience with the Bible, Sin is not presented as something tangible. Sin is just not living up to God's expectations. Living up to God's expectations is hard. Everyone botched it, but Jesus managed to pull it off, which would make him impeccable, as he never "missed the mark".

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

I think the author is cheating a little there. If Jesus is both peccable and impeccable then there's something ill-defined in those two words. But I don't see what the huge issue is. From my limited experience with the Bible, Sin is not presented as something tangible. Sin is just not living up to God's expectations. Living up to God's expectations is hard. Everyone botched it, but Jesus managed to pull it off, which would make him impeccable, as he never "missed the mark".

The issue of impeccability is not whether Jesus actually did live a sinless life (something on which all Christians are agreed) but whether he was capable of sinning. So its a bit hypothetical.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Yet Jesus was human and sinless. Therefore, obviously, humanity is not automatically equated with sinfulness.

Obviously not when it comes to Jesus but apart from Him it is. Hence the whole point of Christianity. Christ dying for the unGodly - i.e. all of mankind.

PDN wrote: »

He did not come in sinful flesh. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

When it came time for God to take up His abode in flesh and blood it was when mankind was in a fallen state. He took this condition on to Himself and carried it in a way that we cannot. Think of it like somebody putting on a really heavy coat and being the only one able to complete a particular obstacle course with that coat on, that everyone else had failed to complete. He completed it for us. That's how I make sense of what He did. The coat was heavy because of everyone else's failure to complete the course. The nature that He took on was not His own nature but our nature. It still had all its desires and urges when He took it on but He did not submit to them as we do. You could say that He chose to be reduced to this struggling state for a time in order to bring about a certain end.

He was both man and God at the same time and all the time. Mankind was in a fallen state when He took up His abode in flesh and blood. This flesh and blood container was weak from the fall and was a very real drag on Him. That He did not yield to its drag does not take away the fact that it was a drag on Him. He came from His eternal glory and took up abode in this house of weakened clay and overcame its weaknesses by total submission to the will of the Father and completing what the Father sent Him to complete.

We have no choice but to have flesh and blood, but He had. We are driven by our fleshly urges constantly and are always been taken over by deceiving desires which corrupt us. Jesus suffered the same things, but what made Him sinless as the God/Man was that He did not yield to these urges and overcame the power of the world and the flesh through total submission to the will of the Father.

postcynical

Lots of mention of 'sinful flesh'. Surely it is only the spirit that can sin since a sin is something we choose to do. Without free will we cannot sin?

To be tempted by the flesh is not sinful and surely Jesus was tempted, just as we are. His responses to temptation did not seem beyond human power either IMO (I mean of course a spirited human). He avoided tricky situations where He would be cornered into a lesser of two evils scenario; He treated sinners firmly, but with compassion; He used appropriate anger in the temple or when rebuking Peter and it was His holy disposition which allowed Him to see through Satan's promises. I'm not there yet, but my suspicion is that as a Christian becomes more holy, Satan's offers become less attractive. So what might be an irresistible temptation to us would be rightly seen as an evil by Christ, and thus not as appealing.

It's also important that Jesus enjoyed the good things in life. God became one of us and showed us how to enjoy His creation. Jesus enjoyed life, but never to excess. He compared His treatment by His contemporaries (scorned for hanging with prostitutes and tax collectors and lepers and for drinking wine) with the treatment of John the Baptist (scorned for being too ascetic). He was a real man.

IMHO - Of course He could sin, but He chose not to. And showed us the path to avoiding sin and converting to God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The problem, of course, is that if He was impeccable (unable to sin) then the temptations were not real. But if was peccable (able to sin) then He could not be God, for a holy God cannot sin.

Isn't the whole point thought that he was a limited version of God, God made man, rather than God the all powerful?

Sinning is disobeying God. God cannot disobey himself obviously, but it stands to reason that if Jesus was send by God the Father to Earth as a man that while in man form he had the ability to disobey God, in the same way he had the ability to feel pain, or hunger, or not see all and a whole host of other non god like abilities. And thus he could sin because he could disobey God if for some reason he wanted to.

God of course would have known he wasn't going to sin, so there was no risk on God's part in sending Jesus, but Jesus in human form having lost some of his god like abilities would not have known this at the time so the temptation was real for him.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't the whole point thought that he was a limited version of God, God made man, rather than God the all powerful?

Sinning is disobeying God. God cannot disobey himself obviously, but it stands to reason that if Jesus was send by God the Father to Earth as a man that while in man form he had the ability to disobey God, in the same way he had the ability to feel pain, or hunger, or not see all and a whole host of other non god like abilities. And thus he could sin because he could disobey God if for some reason he wanted to.

God of course would have known he wasn't going to sin, so there was no risk on God's part in sending Jesus, but Jesus in human form having lost some of his god like abilities would not have known this at the time so the temptation was real for him.

I will start by saying that I agree with you, atheist. :eek: It probably helps that I have my doubts about "true" free will.

I do think you make a good point, although it cleverly includes your belief that omniscience removes the possiblity of free will. I must admit, it was stated in the best way possible, and it's hard to find fault with it, whether one agrees or disagrees with that type of free will.

Perhaps it also brings to light the fact that this was a different scenario than that of Adam, with God having foreknowledge of Himself as a man, and/or the fact that Jesus came with a mission all ready set for Him. He wasn't just born with an open book before Him. He had to live His life in a very specific way, or else God's will would not be done, which is impossible.

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

Admittedly, it isn't something that I've thought about too much. In the Gospels themselves, it shows that Jesus had difficulty in enduring the Crucifixion, and prayed to His Father out of desperation in the Garden of Gethsemane to see if He had any other plan for Him, if not He was willing to endure to the end. This to me is a sign of His temptation to escape the situation.

Something has just sprung to mind and I haven't worked it out. Perhaps someone might comment?

My longstanding inclination is to suppose the choice faced by Adam one of consequence only - it wasn't a choce involving a sense of morality from his perspective at the pre-Fall time.

- there is no record/indication of him being a moral agent prior to the Fall. The indications of a moral awareness arise straight after the Fall and beyond.

- both the temptation and the prohibition posed were couched in the terminology of consequence. IF x THEN y. There was no moral element included in the wording.

- "a knowledge of good and evil" is about as clear a way of describing conscience as I can possibly think of. And Adam was equipped with it at the point of falling. (I see this as God equipping man with the means whereby he might be saved .. or damned.)

Adam not a moral agent yet Adam subject to temptation/prohibition via the route of negative/positive consequences. It occurs to me that Christ, though a moral agent, was tempted via the route of consequences (negative in the case of the impending crucifixion for example, positive in being offered the world by Satan, if he would just bow) without the need for either a sin nature, or sinful flesh.

In this he would be just like Adam.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

And thus he could sin because he could disobey God if for some reason he wanted to.

One of the questions that arise is the mechanism whereby he could sin. In our case we've a sinful nature which tends towards sin which is restrained in check by the conscience. An act of our sinful will (responding to temptation by satan/the sin-educated/liking flesh) cuts that restraint at times and into sin we plunge.

But how does the sin mechanism work (in potential at least) in Christ. He'd no sin nature nor sinful flesh. And so the question becomes "how can Sin get a purchase on Christ so as to cause him to sin".

God of course would have known he wasn't going to sin, so there was no risk on God's part in sending Jesus,

Not necessarily so. You're assuming that God knowing what will occurs determines the future. But that need not be the case. If God is present at the future now, observing what is occuring then he knows now by observation then - not by determining it to be.

You'd be correct in saying there was no risk at the point of sending because Christ had already died on the cross