Could Christ sin?

[distinctiveministry]

Was Christ fully and truly capable of sin?

 

[notIbutChrist]

He certainly was capable of sinning. However He always chose not to

 

[distinctiveministry]

He certainly was capable of sinning. However He always chose not to

So it is possible for man to be sinless?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Was Christ fully and truly capable of sin?

Yes, Like adam he was born without a nature to sin. Unlike adam he chose to obey his father, and not fulfill hjs own desires.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So it is possible for man to be sinless?

God did not remove our old nature. Paul makes it clear in Romans 7 our two natures (spirit and flesh) are always waring with each other. it is foolish to think your nature would never win out and be totally defeated 100 % of the time. Even Paul claimed he was not sinless, and called himself a wretched man, and asked who would free him. His answer. look to the ressurection. When we will all be sinless forever more. Until then. look to Christ.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Yes, Like adam he was born without a nature to sin. Unlike adam he chose to obey his father, and not fulfill hjs own desires.

Christ did not have a nature to sin, and yet the rest of us do, and still we can say in all honesty that he was "a man just like us" and that he was "tempted in every way just like us" and he "sympathizes with us in our weakness"?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Christ did not have a nature to sin, and yet the rest of us do, and still we can say in all honesty that he was "a man just like us" and that he was "tempted in every way just like us" and he "sympathizes with us in our weakness"?

he might not have a nature. but it does not mean he never had a desire (a temptation is dead without a desire) . they are two different things.

Adam had the same, he chose to fulfill his desire. where christ did not.

 

[distinctiveministry]

You are trying to argue that he was not inclined toward sin like we are, and yet he was tempted "just like us". A temptation reflects the nature of the person tempted- I assume that I can say that you are not tempted to commit beastiality, and yet the oppoortunity is probably there every day. Should I say every time that you pass an animal that you are tempted? Surely not! Temptation reflects the desires of a specific individual. Otherwise we would all be tempted by everything all the time, which obviously isn't the case. To be tempted reveals that presence of desire, which suggests inclination toward something. Of course, Jesus never gave in to temptation, but he was tempted "just like us", which means he had an inclination, which implies he had the "nature" to sin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You are trying to argue that he was not inclined toward sin like we are, and yet he was tempted "just like us". A temptation reflects the nature of the person tempted- I assume that I can say that you are not tempted to commit beastiality, and yet the oppoortunity is probably there every day.

I can't be tempted by beastiality, because I would never think or have a desire to do it. One must have an inclination, or think of doing something before they can be tempted.

Should I say every time that you pass an animal that you are tempted?

No because I can only be tempted if I have a desire

Surely not! Temptation reflects the desires of a specific individual. Otherwise we would all be tempted by everything all the time, which obviously isn't the case. To be tempted reveals that presence of desire, which suggests inclination toward something. Of course, Jesus never gave in to temptation, but he was tempted "just like us", which means he had an inclination, which implies he had the "nature" to sin.

Our nature is to rebell against God. How many times have we done something we know is dangerous, and may hurt us, only so we can rebell. or say "How dare you tell me no" That is our nature. Not all sin comes from the nature. some comes from a passion and desire. a blindness to the consequences.

Jesus nature was to do his fathers will.

This nature of rebelion we were born with. Jesus was not born with this nature.

you are right. jesus had to have some inclination, or temptation to be tempted as we are. But that does not mean he had a rebellious nature. which was contrary to God.

 

[Abiding]

You are trying to argue that he was not inclined toward sin like we are, and yet he was tempted "just like us". A temptation reflects the nature of the person tempted- I assume that I can say that you are not tempted to commit beastiality, and yet the oppoortunity is probably there every day. Should I say every time that you pass an animal that you are tempted? Surely not! Temptation reflects the desires of a specific individual. Otherwise we would all be tempted by everything all the time, which obviously isn't the case. To be tempted reveals that presence of desire, which suggests inclination toward something. Of course, Jesus never gave in to temptation, but he was tempted "just like us", which means he had an inclination, which implies he had the "nature" to sin.

He had the capacity to sin but He didnt sin. He had the nature and desire to please the Father.

Some men have desired to fly like a bird...it didnt work out...like you, they thought
the desire reflected their nature...tragic logic.

 

[distinctiveministry]

I can't be tempted by beastiality, because I would never think or have a desire to do it. One must have an inclination, or think of doing something before they can be tempted.

No because I can only be tempted if I have a desire

THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!! Jesus could only be tempted if he had a desire!!!

Our nature is to rebell against God. How many times have we done something we know is dangerous, and may hurt us, only so we can rebell. or say "How dare you tell me no" That is our nature. Not all sin comes from the nature. some comes from a passion and desire. a blindness to the consequences.

Jesus nature was to do his fathers will. I strongly disagree! Jesus' was tempted, which means he was inclined, which means he had the nature to sin. He perfectly resisted temptation and perfectly obeyed God's will, but it was not his nature or he is NOT "like us"!

This nature of rebelion we were born with. Jesus was not born with this nature. Where in scripture does it say that?

you are right. jesus had to have some inclination, or temptation to be tempted as we are. But that does not mean he had a rebellious nature. which was contrary to God.
So he had the inclination that comes explicitly from the nature, but he did not have the nature? This doesn't make sense.

 

[distinctiveministry]

He had the capacity to sin but He didnt sin. He had the nature and desire to please the Father.

Some men have desired to fly like a bird...it didnt work out...like you, they thought
the desire reflected their nature...tragic logic.

There is no such thing as tragic logic- just logic or non-logic. There is a difference between delusion (I can fly) and logic.

He had the capacity to sin but not the nature? How is he just like us, then?

 

[Abiding]

There is no such thing as tragic logic- just logic or non-logic. There is a difference between delusion (I can fly) and logic.

He had the capacity to sin but not the nature? How is he just like us, then?

ok you were delusional then. To say in order to be tested or tempted like we
are He had to have a desire to sin.

Tempted like as we are...is not the same as saying He was just like us.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Does beastiality tempt you? Crack cocaine? Abortion?

 

[tribesman]

He had the capacity to sin but He didnt sin. He had the nature and desire to please the Father.

Some men have desired to fly like a bird...it didnt work out...like you, they thought
the desire reflected their nature...tragic logic.

Man, this is too good!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!! Jesus could only be tempted if he had a desire!!!

This is exactly my point. Scripture states Jesus WAS tempted. So what should be our conclusion?

I strongly disagree! Jesus' was tempted, which means he was inclined, which means he had the nature to sin. He perfectly resisted temptation and perfectly obeyed God's will, but it was not his nature or he is NOT "like us"!

I disagree. Jesus was sent as Adam was. Adam did not gain his nature to sin until after the fall. Where he failed. Christ won. That is why he is called the second adam. where the first failed, the second won.

You and I on the other hand were born in sin, Born with the nature to sin. Christ was not

Where in scripture does it say that?

Where does it say it was not true?

So he had the inclination that comes explicitly from the nature, but he did not have the nature? This doesn't make sense.

Once again. Our nature is to rebell. Jesus nature was to do the fathers will. Those are his words. And since he never sinned. We can take his words to be true.

He did not have the nature of fallen man. He was born as Adam was created. Perfect. Sinless. without the nature (or flesh as Scripture calls it)

PS. Why are you arguing this point anyway? I do not understand your point. I was arguing against those who claim we can be sinless here on earth. which is contrary to Scripture.

 

[distinctiveministry]

My point is about the nature of Christ. I find that people who argue either than Jesus could not sin, or that he could but that his nature was essentially different from ours, to be denying the true humanity of Christ.

Since you are separating Christ from the rest of humanity by arguing that he was born with a different nature, I think the burden of scriptural proof falls on you. This is true anytime someone tries to argue that one case is different from all the others- the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim of differentiation, not the one who argues that the one is the same as the others.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

My point is about the nature of Christ. I find that people who argue either than Jesus could not sin, or that he could but that his nature was essentially different from ours, to be denying the true humanity of Christ.

Since you are separating Christ from the rest of humanity by arguing that he was born with a different nature, I think the burden of scriptural proof falls on you. This is true anytime someone tries to argue that one case is different from all the others- the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim of differentiation, not the one who argues that the one is the same as the others.

1. If Christ was born with the nature to sin. Christ WOULD have sinned. That is why we are unable to be sinless. Because the nature to sin was NOT TAKEN away when we sinned. It will not be taken away until the day of redemption. Then and only then can we be sinless.

2. As for burden of proof. You opened up this can or worms. Thus it is your responsibility to prove it. I have seen no proof yet. Only mere speculation.

 

[Crossfire]

He had the capacity to sin but He didnt sin. He had the nature and desire to please the Father.

Wow, we actually agree on something for once.

 

[distinctiveministry]

1. Then Christ was and is not like us.

2. We both have an argument from silence, but my argument assumes no outliers, while yours assumes one. Mine is the logical assumption in the absense of proof, yours is the illogical assumption that necessitates proof.