Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[benstenson]

This video addresses Original Sin and Jesus' relationship to Adam through Mary.

Jesus was a son of Adam

[benstenson]

This video addresses Original Sin and Jesus' relationship to Adam through Mary.

Jesus was a son of Adam

This video does not deny Jesus' divinity. I thought I should mention that in case the title gave a wrong impression.

[Paidion]

I think that children sinning before they know better is proof of the concept of original sin. I have to disagree here, because IMO even if Jesus sinned as a child before He knew better then He still could not be considered perfect.

In the light of your view that Jesus was perfect (even as a child), I just wondered how you would interpret the following sentence:

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. ESV

[Jeff]

I think that children sinning before they know better is proof of the concept of original sin. I have to disagree here, because IMO even if Jesus sinned as a child before He knew better then He still could not be considered perfect.

In the light of your view that Jesus was perfect (even as a child), I just wondered how you would interpret the following sentence:

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. ESV

I would say that term perfect there refers to a completeness, not a state of sinlessness. It also is in light of His role described (founder of their salvation) - as the founder of our salvation, His role as savior was made perfect/complete through His suffering. He could only be our savior by dying.

[Paidion]

I agree with you. Indeed I think the word translated as "perfect" is always used in the sense of "completeness" in the New Testament. But if Jesus was not yet complete then in His incomplete stage, was it not possible for Him to sin, even though He always chose not to do so?

[Candlepower]

But if Jesus was not yet complete then in His incomplete stage, was it not possible for Him to sin, even though He always chose not to do so?

There seems to be some overlapping between this thread and the one labeled "Jesus: Truly God in the Gospels." I'm not sure where to place this post of mine, because it seems to straddle both. But I decided to hook it to Paidion's question, quoted above.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Does scripture require us to acknowledge that Jesus was able to sin, or is that a requirement some theologians and philosophers have placed on Him? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall a passage that requires us to accept the notion that He was been able to sin.

There are passages that tell us He was tempted, and passages that tell us He was without sin. There are verses that tell us he was made in the fashion of a human. We know that He was born and that He died, as humans do. It seems fair to assume that in every way biological He was like us. But are we anywhere told He was able to sin?

I find in Scripture no requirement for me to sin. Though I was born with a proclivity to sin, my performance of sin is always my choice. Otherwise, it is someone else’s fault, not mine. And if it’s someone else’s fault, then that person or thing should be punished, not I.

I find in Scripture a way of escape from sin (I Cor. 13:10). Therefore, I see the possibility of living without sinning. It may seem a contradiction that while no one is mandated to sin, still all do, except Jesus. But is seems to me, though it is contrary to the powerful influence of my fallen nature, that the opportunity exists for me to choose consistently not to sin. I believe this kind of behavior can be accomplished by total submission to the Heavenly Father, by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, and by a sincere dedication to righteous living. Take my word, I have not accomplished such a lifestyle. Not by a long shot. But that does not cause me to conclude that such a lifestyle is impossible. In Scripture, I see the remedy for sin as well as the prescription for righteous living.

Temptation is not sin. If it were, then Jesus sinned, because He was clearly tempted. It is a mistake to confuse sin with the temptation to sin. They are related, but they are not the same. Jesus was tempted and did not sin. I can be tempted and not sin. Jesus submitted to the Father and followed the Spirit; I can submit to the same Father and follow the same Spirit. The time I spend sinning is inversely proportional to the time I am submitted to the Father and led by the Spirit. I must conclude that if I were submitted to the Father and led by the Spirit 100% of the time, I would spend zero time sinning. Theoretically, I could live my life in such a state.

Jesus did live His life in such a state. He always chose to submit to the Heavenly Father and to be led by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, He never sinned, though He experienced the pressures of temptations to sin.

If Jesus was unable to sin, I don’t think that would have made Him somehow un-human. The ability to sin does not seem to me to be an intrinsic part of the definition of human. At least, I don’t see such a definition described in Scripture. If our intrinsic nature is that we are created in the image of sinless God, then sin does not seem intrinsic to man. Therefore, the ability to sin does not seem to be required in order for Jesus to have been fully human.

One may say, “For a man to be genuinely tempted, he must actually be able to sin. Otherwise temptation is meaningless.” That speculation may be true — or not. How can one know for sure that it is true? The Bible doesn’t tell us so. If the statement is true, then Jesus (depending on whether He was or was not able to sin) experienced either genuine or artificial temptation. The assertion seems unprovable to me.

With all that said, here is my best guess, for what it’s worth: I cannot find where Scripture teaches that a man must be able to sin in order to be genuinely tempted. Therefore, I have no problem concluding that though Jesus (the man) was not able to sin, He was, nevertheless, able to experience genuine temptation. I find no requirement, either logically or Scripturally, to assume that for Jesus to be fully human He must have been able to sin in order to experience genuine temptation. Jesus was like us, and yet He was so unlike us. The Second Adam is so much better than the First. The Passover lamb provides a fitting picture of Jesus, I think. It was used because it was spot free. The lamb could not be otherwise.

One final point (I hope). We are told, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). If Jesus was able to sin when He was Emmanuel (God with us), is He able to sin today? And forever? Is sinning an ever-present possibility for Jesus? God forbid! I speak as a man.

As one who is seeking more truth, I welcome any corrections.

Candlepower

[benstenson]

Hi Candlepower,

The ability to sin is a good ability. Using this ability to sin is bad, but the ability itself is good. That is because the ability to sin and the ability to love are the same ability - not two separate abilities. Every opportunity to sin is really an opportunity to be morally good, righteous, holy, loving.

Earlier today I sent this via PM to someone I'm conversing with:

no effect can be greater than its cause. The cause [God] must be greater than or equal to its effect [man].
...
Nature or "general revelation" teaches us that to do good freely is greater than to do good out of necessity. The things which have power over themselves ... are greater than those things which lack power over themselves. Man has power over himself, therefore God must have power over himself.

I have a lot more I could say about this but I have not organized it well yet. I think the fact that we have free will is proof that God has free will. Maybe there should just be a thread titled "God's Free Will".

My conscience commends me for doing good because I know I could have chosen either way, the choice was within my own power. But my conscience never commends me for my skin color because I know that it was not my own choice.

The fact that Jesus was tempted would not mean anything if He was not able to sin. If Jesus did not have the ability to sin then He could not deny himself and take up his cross. Then how could He be righteous to require this of us?

[Candlepower]

Hello Ben,

The ability to sin is a good ability.

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean here. If I do, then I agree with you, though I might express the idea a little differently. I feel more comfortable saying, the ability to choose is a good ability. Just a matter of preference, I suppose. Both expressions focus on ability, liberty, and responsibility. Your statement (and my variation) enjoy tons of Scriptural support, hyperbolically speaking.

The fact that Jesus was tempted would not mean anything if He was not able to sin. If Jesus did not have the ability to sin then He could not deny himself and take up his cross. Then how could He be righteous to require this of us?

You may be right. Your statement has the ring of logic to it, which makes me prone to agree with it. But I just have not found Scriptural support for the idea that Jesus had to have been able to sin in order for His temptation to be valid. Until I see clear Scriptural support, I see your statement as a supposition without support. I remain comfortable believing that His sinlessness included inability to sin. I am very interested in whatever Scriptural support you can provide.

Temptation is testing. Perhaps God the Father allowed Jesus to be tempted in order to prove that He could not sin, instead of to find out if He would sin. Perhaps the story of Job illustrates my point of view. God may have allowed Job's multiple testings in order to display that the man would remain faithful, not to discover if he would remain faithful. It seems from the text that God knew in advance that Job would succeed and used Satan's temptations to prove it. I'm sure Job's tests (temptations) were real, but I'm not sure Job could have failed. Perhaps Job's communion with God was so close that it made failure impossible, and God proved it by allowing Satan to test him to the extreme. That's how I presently see Jesus' testings. I know they were real; I don't know that He could have failed, though I suspect that (being greater than Job -- or Solomon, or Jonah) He could not have failed. To me, that does not detract at all from the validity of the testings. In fact, it seems to validate them. God was right. His Son could not fail.

One other illustration -- perhaps you've heard it. Somewhere I heard that back in the old days whenever a railroad company completed constructing a bridge, it would test the bridge's ability to bear the weight of a locomotive by parking a locomotive atop the bridge. Surely the railroad company was not willing to risk the cost (not to mention the embarrassment) of losing an expensive locomotive just to find out if they had properly constructed their bridge. Apparently, their purpose was not to test the bridge in hopes that it would not collapse, but to prove to everyone (potential riders) that it would not collapse. The test proved that the bridge had been constructed so that it could not fail the test.

I don't know if it's true that railroad companies actually conducted such tests. I heard someone once give this illustration as if it were true. Even if it is true, analogies are rarely perfect. This one isn't, I'm sure, but you get my point. If the story isn't true, I still like it.

Candlepower

[Jeff]

The idea of the ability of Jesus to sin is something I've struggled with. It seems that the Bible speaks about Jesus having the ability to sin, but as candepower has pointed out that's really an assumption on our part. I've heard some theologians explain it this way - the temptation of Jesus was not to prove He could sin but to prove that He COULD NOT. Then one would ask what was the point then. I guess the argument would then be that the temptation wasn't to prove the worthiness of Jesus to the Father, but rather to prove His worthiness to us. An example I've heard used goes something like this - when engineers complete a new bridge, they stress-test it not to see if it will collapse but to prove that it will not collapse (based on their confidence in the engineering plans for the bridge). It's not to prove to themselves that the bridge is worthy, but rather to prove to the public (or state/local governments, etc.) that it is worthy.

[Jeff]

I have a lot more I could say about this but I have not organized it well yet. I think the fact that we have free will is proof that God has free will. Maybe there should just be a thread titled "God's Free Will".

This brings up a whole other discussion (a good one though). I think I have to disagree slightly. I don't believe God has a free will in the sense that we do. If we do good, we are still human. If we do bad, we are still human. I don't think God can choose evil, because He would essentially no longer be God. That doesn't mean that a universal morality is all-powerful, even over God. The connection would be more like God is morality, it's an essential part of who He is. I've heard Steve Gregg explain his similar view on this very well, I believe in his teaching on calvinism found on his website. He explained it something like this - God didn't just arbitarily label activities as "sins", those activities were deemed sins because they are in direction opposition to the very nature of God.