But what’s the fuss all about? Well, a question that was raised a few days ago (and early this week. Let me remind that it’s a closed group!) in one of the groups I’m in nearly had me commented on what I believe about it but because of some errands and unfinished business at work, I could not. I’ll make it simple so you won’t have to join the group if in case you’re just a random reader like I am.
 |
| Is there a problem here? |
The question is, “Could Jesus have sinned?” — My answer is both yes and no. Let me share with you why.
Most Christians, if not for the sake of a greater cause, tend to shelf this question for safekeeping unless it’s intentionally asked for the purpose of knowing if he/she affirms a sound Biblical doctrine and/or is not a heretic. But would it really be a heresy for a Christian to say yes to that question given a certain condition? Would affirming to it be considered a departure from what’s written if you are to say that “yes, He could’ve possibly sinned”?
 |
| Heh! Can’t beat me! |
So let me explain further why I’m standing in the middle:
Why answer “no”?
To answer “no” is to say that because He is completely Divine, He will never commit an unlawful act whether it be in His mind and/or actions. Being fully Divine, the Father’s divinity is at risk if we should say “yes” that Jesus could’ve sinned despite Him being in a glorified body after resurrection. Paul Himself went on further to justify this by saying, that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)
Therefore, my answer to the question above should be “no”.
Why answer “yes”?
To answer yes is to affirm that He is a complete Man, making Him the second Adam. The same perfection that was given unto the first Adam was embraced by the Messiah. That we can never doubt. As sinless as the first, He is the Son of Man who came and died for the atonment of our sins. Therefore (and only given such considerations that we’re talking about the fully Man in Him being present in the first Adam who caused us to die,) my answer to the question above will also be “yes”. May I remind you of the federalism?
 |
| Yes. Wait just simply say no. I don’t get it why I have to say yes. Oh I get it. It can be both! |
Premise 1: Christ is fully divine and fully Man
Premise 2: God divine cannot sin while Man can
Therefore Christ as fully divine cannot sin but as fully Man can
 |
| pew. pew. |
I believe that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity is the God-Man in the God-Head and being so, He is both divine and alive in flesh and blood. Thus, His sharing of the divine attributes that the Father has will and/or can never commit sin. This same divinity that Jesus has is shared also with the same perfection of Man that Adam had prior to the fall. Adam was just a man. He wasn’t divine. Jesus is God (and is one with the Father and the Spirit) who was also just-as-perfect-as-the-pre-fall Adam. Believing that the Fully- Man-Christ Himself could never sin is to question Adam’s fall. Why did Adam sin?
A Solemn Appeal
 |
| You don’t really have to punch me for real — and with gloves! |
Wrapping It Up
So, the next time you’ll ask me the question: could Jesus have sinned?, feel free to check back here to find out if I have made any changes. But until then, my answer would be both yes and no.
 |
| I’m a baptist, You’re Presbyterian. Now what? Maybe I’m a Charismatic! |
Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it? - Jerboy Magalang
Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it? - Jerboy Magalang
Okay then..but still i couldn't think for Him to possibly sin since the term use there is "possible to sin"..perhaps a definite meaning should be define for that term "possible"..not just simply quoted from known theologians but thru biblical verses .,thank you..
ReplyDeleteHello Gracielle! You are welcome. I'm new to RBNY and am pleased to respond to you regarding your query.
ReplyDeletePlease note that my response is not to convince you but to simply respond as the author of the blog that you just read. However, I must admit that I'm a bit confused as to how I should respond accordingly. But I shall try my best!
To start with, I believe that Christ was "impeccable" or was unable to sin (notice how I preferred using "will" over "could") since He's Divine. He did not let go of His deity and therefore since He is one with the Father (John 10:30), He, too "can never be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). I can never believe that He would have nor will I ever reconcile that foreign thought myself should there be a Bible translation that claims to have been the case. Let that translation and anyone involved in its creation be accursed (Galatians 1:8).
Secondly (and forgive me for accidentally causing this a bit longer than the former), I also believe that Christ was peccable or "could have sinned (notice how I preferred using "could have" this time over "would have") - but that, I believe to have been true if He was only a man. I found it hard to explain that on the blog that I wrote not because I might end up quoting from any of the Mr. Known Theologians that I admire (as I did not). I chose to simply shy away from it because my sole purpose in creating the blog was not to convince anyone in embracing my systematic theology, but to simply share what I believe each Christian's response to a fellow brethren should be especially when they have differing Christological views. (When I say "systematic theology", I mean my way of understanding the Bible and not any systematic theologies written by some of the well-known theologians today.)
As I continue, if Jesus will only be "a man", then the solution for Christ to be so is for the Lord God to form Him "from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). But the idea contradicts itself when you are a Trinitarian because, believing so would look like He (who is one with the Father and the Spirit (Genesis 1:26)) in forming Adam, will have to be involved in forming and this time, forming Himself again to be such (I have never believed for once that Jesus was created nor would have been). Also if that be the case, then the next thing to consider is Himself not being born of a virgin, and not being able to fulfill the many prophecies found in the Old Testament. One of which could have been; because He will be formed as "just man", He will not be considered as "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1). I went on to explain it this way because there will never be any other means for Him to sin other than not carrying His deity, which He would not do so because He is Divine. How could Jesus (if being just a Man) not sin when the perfect and sinless Adam (who was just a man) sinned? Thus, I went on to say that yes, Christ was peccable but only in a sense that He could have sinned if He's no Divine at all.
ReplyDeleteI know this sounds tricky but I'm not trying to just write and/or convince someone out there (and may I repeat that convincing someone is not my purpose in writing, lest I end up writing a book and/or preaching the same matter in the pulpit for the sole purpose of feeding His sheep (John 21:17)). It's what I believe to have been what the Bible is saying about Him. That He is also Divine when He came in flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14). Because if He's no Divine, then the possibility that Jesus could have sinned is inevitable because He's in a sinful world. Consider how that could have been far more difficult than the first Adam who have sinned even when he's already in the Garden of Eden. But the fact that He didn't came down on Earth without His deity is something that I can rejoice of. I can say that it's one of the many things why I am fully convinced that He is both God and Man.
I believe that this never occurred to me until the exchanges over the weekend happened. When I say "this never occurred to me", I mean to say that I have never thought of writing an article regarding this but now. (You can see for yourself what are those that I'm busy writing about here (http://bit.ly/1Ca0AOr).)
ReplyDeleteAnother important note:
(It's not like those who adhere to the other view (That Christ was peccable) from the Facebook group (where this blog was inspired) were saying that Jesus would have sinned and bless Him for He didn't, are they?) I don't find them blaspheming in their minds for making a stand on it unless they had stated on a different note. I just didn't like the fact that a well-known theologian today is quoted to have said that just the thought of believing the other (That Christ was peccable) would be blasphemous. I will never cross that line. If you look back at what's written in the book of Acts, even Paul and Barnabas had a heated debate as to whether it's right to bring in John Mark in their journey (Acts 15:39). But never did I hear of Paul accusing Barnabas of something as heavy as such just because he wanted to take John Mark with them. Nevertheless, I appreciate the exchanges that happened there a lot.
Final note:
I hope that you're not suggesting that I would have quoted a theologian without citing them for me to expound further what I wrote - and this time not just simply quoting someone but through Biblical verses. Was it the case? Because I reread my blog and did not find any quotations from one except of course, quoting the 1689 Federalism or the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is only for the purpose of not citing what's written in it anymore with regard to His suffering and humiliation. I did refer to the exchanges found on The Reformed Bunch on Facebook though. I am crediting the exchanges that happened there, which led for me to writing the article that you and I are currently discussing with each other right now. Moreover, you can only see Biblical verses supporting each statement that I wrote.
I understand how you could not think of it to have been possible (for Jesus to sin). I would've answered the same way too, if I wouldn't consider how and in what case He could've sinned. He could've sinned if He was just a man and not Divine.
I shall end this here for now. Once again, I thank you for commenting. :)
Ang haba po hehe..may point lang po si ma define ung word na possible since un ung nasa post before..ska what does it mean to peccable
ReplyDelete..for me kasi possible is the likelihood to sin..and could would be the capacity to sin..?
sensya di ko na nabasa lahat..but tama He is both a God and Man..but would it make Jesus peccable if He has the capacity to sin?ska what does it mean to be peccable?does it refers to likelihood or probability to sin or the capacity to sin or pareho lang ? ^_^
thank you..
Sis, magkaiba ung "likelihood to sin" sa "possibility to sin." The first one connotes a positive expectation that Sin will eventually be committed unless someone/something hinders it. The second, on the other hand, merely pertains to the potential or capacity of an agent to commit Sin.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, you have the potential or capacity to kill your mother (it is possible that you will commit that), but you are not likely to do so because you are a God-fearing, loving daughter.
Thank you sa illustration Jeph..thus possibility refers to capacity...which is kakayahan ..
Deletedami kasing pwedeng pag gamitan nang term na possible at yang capacity lang pala ang keyword for me to grasp it..at perhaps sa iba?
Sis Gracielle, sinagot ko na po ang tanong ninyo sa mahaba kong comment. Sinagot ko po yung, "what does it mean [at least for me] to be peccable". Dun po naman sa likelihood or probability, ayan po yung kay sir Jeph mas maikli with illustration.
ReplyDeleteSensya na Sir Jerboy naka cp lang ako kagabi so hindi ko na mabasa lahat...basahin ko ulit mayang break time ko :)
ReplyDeleteTherefore when you say, peccable or possibility to sin, it refers to capacity?
and sensya din when i connote possibility to likelihood since pag ginagamit namin sa accounting yan, "possibility" it refers to likelihood, mga nasa 80% to 90%..
and perhaps sa iba, nung mabasa ang possible, they may think to likelihood, not the capacity?i think..
anyway, un lang like kong malaman ..salamat sa time at effort sa pag explain sakin ..
Godbless^_^
I see. No worries sis. Balikan nyo lang po yung illustration ni sir Jeph or yung reply ko if ever.
ReplyDeleteSalamat din po sa time nyo to comment on the matter.