I heard a question come up in an ordination council a while back. “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin?” At first I didn’t understand the difference in the two phrases “able not” and “not able.” Then it became clear. The issue concerned the impeccability of Christ – is Christ’s impeccability only practical in that Christ never committed a sin or was it fully actual in that it was impossible for Christ to even commit a sin.
Charles Hodge proposed the notion that though Christ could have sinned, He didn’t. He said, “This sinfulness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability…If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning.”[1] This ignores the fact that Christ did not have a sin nature nor a propensity to sin as the natural man has. The virgin birth made that possible. Though Christ was fully human, He was not born a sinful human.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ never committed a sin. Passages like 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, and 1 John 3:5 clearly teach that Christ never committed a sin. But since He was tempted, does that mean He could have sinned? Does temptability mean susceptibility? Is it more correct to say that He was able not to sin, or that He was not able to sin? Rationally speaking, if Christ was susceptible and able to sin, what does that say about His deity? Diminishing Christ’s full impeccability is to diminish His full deity. If Christ could have sinned, that would be the same as saying God could have sinned. Some try to separate the 2 natures of Christ and say that in His deity sin was not a possibility while in His humanity there was a possibility. But Christ is the God-man. One nature affects the other. You can’t separate His natures at will. At times, one nature might be emphasized over the other, but Christ is always the God-man.
A passage to consider is 1 John 3:5. There it does not specifically say that Christ committed no sin. Literally, it reads “sin is not in Him.” The fact that the word “sin” is without the definite article supports the idea of the sin nature as it does in 1 John 1:8. Christ does not have the sin nature that humans are born with. His nature was one where “sin is not in Him.” The context of the verse supports this. Verses 1-3 detail how we “will be like Him.” The entire context deals with the idea that when we receive glorified bodies, we will also no longer have a sin nature. Therefore, since Christ had no sin nature, there would be no compulsion towards sin.
John 8:29 sheds some light on the situation. Christ declares that He can only do things that please the Father. If the Father is not pleased with sin, then Christ was not able to commit a sin. How would it be possible for Christ to do something that is completely opposite to His holy nature and character? There is a song which says that Christ could have called thousands of angels down from heaven while He was on the cross. While that might be true concerning His authority, it is false since Christ will only do the Father’s will. Whatever is not the Father’s will is a sin. Therefore, Christ could not call thousands of angels down from Heaven.
The concept of temptability implying susceptibility is not supported by Scriptures either. The logic is based on the concept that since we are tempted and susceptible to sin, then it must stand to reason that the same is true of Christ. But Christ doesn’t have the same nature that humans have. He has a sinless nature whereas humans have a sinful nature. Walvoord writes, “It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for a rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”[2] To split hairs with Walvoord, resistance may not be the proper word since Christ’s nature does not even incline Him towards sin. Christ does not have to “resist” temptation if He was tempted to do something that is the opposite of His nature and that which He hates – sin. Christ never even considered sinning. He is not inclined to do that which is opposite of His nature. There was not a moral struggle. It was only natural for Christ to do what was holy. There was no real resistance to temptation.
In some eyes, that might seem to weaken the temptation of Christ. Yet the temptation was real. The tempter was real. The tempted was real. What makes the temptation of Christ (with full and actual impeccability) great was that though Satan tried to make Christ sin, Christ did what was only natural for Him to do, that which is right. Christ gives believers a model for combating temptation – use Scripture!
In conclusion, what does it say about orthodoxy when people believe that it was possible for Christ to sin? If holiness is the foremost attribute that God wishes to proclaim for Himself (just look at the 2 throne scenes in Isa. 6 and Rev. 4), then how could the God-man go contrary to that attribute? It just isn’t reasonable. To answer the question, “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin;” I answer resoundingly that Christ was not able to sin! Christ was neither susceptible to temptation nor able to even commit a sin.
Charles Hodge proposed the notion that though Christ could have sinned, He didn’t. He said, “This sinfulness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability…If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning.”[1] This ignores the fact that Christ did not have a sin nature nor a propensity to sin as the natural man has. The virgin birth made that possible. Though Christ was fully human, He was not born a sinful human.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ never committed a sin. Passages like 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, and 1 John 3:5 clearly teach that Christ never committed a sin. But since He was tempted, does that mean He could have sinned? Does temptability mean susceptibility? Is it more correct to say that He was able not to sin, or that He was not able to sin? Rationally speaking, if Christ was susceptible and able to sin, what does that say about His deity? Diminishing Christ’s full impeccability is to diminish His full deity. If Christ could have sinned, that would be the same as saying God could have sinned. Some try to separate the 2 natures of Christ and say that in His deity sin was not a possibility while in His humanity there was a possibility. But Christ is the God-man. One nature affects the other. You can’t separate His natures at will. At times, one nature might be emphasized over the other, but Christ is always the God-man.
A passage to consider is 1 John 3:5. There it does not specifically say that Christ committed no sin. Literally, it reads “sin is not in Him.” The fact that the word “sin” is without the definite article supports the idea of the sin nature as it does in 1 John 1:8. Christ does not have the sin nature that humans are born with. His nature was one where “sin is not in Him.” The context of the verse supports this. Verses 1-3 detail how we “will be like Him.” The entire context deals with the idea that when we receive glorified bodies, we will also no longer have a sin nature. Therefore, since Christ had no sin nature, there would be no compulsion towards sin.
John 8:29 sheds some light on the situation. Christ declares that He can only do things that please the Father. If the Father is not pleased with sin, then Christ was not able to commit a sin. How would it be possible for Christ to do something that is completely opposite to His holy nature and character? There is a song which says that Christ could have called thousands of angels down from heaven while He was on the cross. While that might be true concerning His authority, it is false since Christ will only do the Father’s will. Whatever is not the Father’s will is a sin. Therefore, Christ could not call thousands of angels down from Heaven.
The concept of temptability implying susceptibility is not supported by Scriptures either. The logic is based on the concept that since we are tempted and susceptible to sin, then it must stand to reason that the same is true of Christ. But Christ doesn’t have the same nature that humans have. He has a sinless nature whereas humans have a sinful nature. Walvoord writes, “It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for a rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”[2] To split hairs with Walvoord, resistance may not be the proper word since Christ’s nature does not even incline Him towards sin. Christ does not have to “resist” temptation if He was tempted to do something that is the opposite of His nature and that which He hates – sin. Christ never even considered sinning. He is not inclined to do that which is opposite of His nature. There was not a moral struggle. It was only natural for Christ to do what was holy. There was no real resistance to temptation.
In some eyes, that might seem to weaken the temptation of Christ. Yet the temptation was real. The tempter was real. The tempted was real. What makes the temptation of Christ (with full and actual impeccability) great was that though Satan tried to make Christ sin, Christ did what was only natural for Him to do, that which is right. Christ gives believers a model for combating temptation – use Scripture!
In conclusion, what does it say about orthodoxy when people believe that it was possible for Christ to sin? If holiness is the foremost attribute that God wishes to proclaim for Himself (just look at the 2 throne scenes in Isa. 6 and Rev. 4), then how could the God-man go contrary to that attribute? It just isn’t reasonable. To answer the question, “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin;” I answer resoundingly that Christ was not able to sin! Christ was neither susceptible to temptation nor able to even commit a sin.
Timothy L. Decker
[1] Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. Pg 457.
[2] Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Pg 147.
34 comments:
Excellent subject. I would be interested in the responses to this.
I think it is interesting that you bring up "temptability" and "susceptibility." It seems as though temptability carries the connotation of ability, whereas susceptibility carries the connotation of likelihood. I believe, as Hodge did, that Christ was posse non peccare (sp?), that is, able not to sin, rather than non posse peccare, or not able to sin. The reasons for believing this are mainly that Christ is the new Adam, sent into the world to fulfill sinlessness in mankind where Adam failed.
In the same way he is our High Priest. Hebrews 2:17-18 says, "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Now we cannot take "he had to be made like his brothers in every way" too far, but basically the point is that he had to overcome sin through overcoming temptation, a real test, thereby cutting-off sin's hold over man at the source.
As you stated in the blog post, Jesus is the God-man. We must not divorce his deity from his person. I think Dr. Ardel Caneday makes a rather convincing argument in his article titled Veiled Glory in the book Beyond the Bounds, edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth. The basic thrust is that in the physical person/ earthly ministry of the Christ, the glory of godhood was put away or "veiled." So that Christ performed miracles and resisted sin as a man endowed with the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that his deity was divorced from him, but it was not exposed. This was not God coming in glory, but God coming in grace. In this same vein, we can see Jesus fulfill the roles of the patriarchs perfectly. Jesus became the perfect Adam, the perfect Abraham, the perfect Moses, the perfect David. His time in Egypt, and the wilderness, have implications of the Jews' time in the desert. The sinless Son is called from Egypt to take the place for the rebellious son. And just as the rebellious son was tempted and succumbed in the desert, the sinless Son was tempted and was victorious.
How do we know if his nature was posse non peccare or non posse peccare? I think we can only make inferences from Scripture. But there is danger in some of this speculation, because if we divorce systematic theology from its Biblical Theology roots, we can find implications that are not always helpful or safe. What happens if Christ was non posse peccare? And what happens if he was posse non peccare? We should be safe either way as long as we do not stay too long on posse peccare.
My dear Mathaetaes,
The idea behind “temptability” was not the ability to sin but just the reality that Christ was actually tempted. The idea behind “susceptibility” was not the likelihood to sin but just the ability to sin. The issue is not one of probability but possibility.
If Christ was not able to sin, does that weaken His temptation? Hodge thought so. I would even speculate that this reasoning was what led him to the conclusion that Christ was able not to sin. I would say that Christ’s temptation was not weakened in the least little bit while saying Christ is not able to sin. The mere fact that Christ quotes Scripture and does not just ignore the devil leads one to believe that part of the purpose for His temptation was to give believers an example of how to combat temptation – use Scripture.
You ask, “How do we know if his nature was posse non peccare or non posse peccare? I think we can only make inferences from Scripture.” I agree and I do not believe I just speculated, but gave Biblical proof for Christ not able to sin. John 8:29, Christ says He can only do the things that please the Father. That means He cannot sin because that would not please the Father. Even logic can take precedent here. If Christ is the Son of God (even with His glory veiled as you put it), He still cannot contradict His holy nature. Christ cannot do what is exactly opposite to His nature.
Thank you for your comment.
Dear Mr. Decker,
Thanks for your response. Sorry I have been away for so long. I have not meant to be rude in not responding promptly.
I think we need to examine the language of the New Testament here. You brought up John 8:29, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." This does not bring ability or will into the equation. Jesus does not say that he will only do what the Father has taught him. Neither does it say that he can only do what the Father has taught him. This still leaves the question in the air. Is it by ability or will that Christ does not sin? To me it seems that it is by his will; that is he chooses to only do the will of the Father. This would also imply that the temptation Jesus underwent was also real (in that there was a possibility that he could have chosen to do things differently). I think there is something scary in this for some; that if Christ could have chosen differently, it somehow diminishes his deity, his goodness/holiness/righteousness, etc. I do not think this is the case. I agree that there is no way Christ would have sinned; that is if he were to have any temptation placed before him 100 times, he would remain sinless every time. This does not mean that the temptation is not real or that there is the possibility/potential for the sin to occur. I think we must examine what is meant by possible. If by possible we mean that Christ, given the right circumstances, would sin, I would agree that it is impossible. But if we mean by possible that Christ suffered true temptation in which he could have chosen to sin, but because of his will to obey and understanding of the necessity to refrain he would never give in, we may say that it is possible. Possibility, then, could mean slightly different things.
We certainly can agree on this; Christ would not, in any situation, ever sin. He did not and he will never sin. Yet the method of his temptation and the continual attack upon his character (which was specifically aimed at bringing out an either sinful or disobedient response such as revealing himself in glory) was deliberately focused. Why is there such a continuous theme unless there is a point?
Steven Douglas
Sorry I neglected to sign the last post.
Steven, I think you looked at the wrong Scripture passage. You quoted verse 28 but I cited verse 29.
If you can say that Christ would not sin, then why cannot you not admit that He could not sin. There is no difference. If He wouldn't sin, then He couldn't sin. Or is that He wouldn't sin because He couldn't? Due to Christ deity, Christ wouldn't sin because He couldn't sin. It is contrary to His holy nature.
Sorry about the wrong verse there. Here we go. "He one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." The language again is not I can or I will, but I do without philosophical explanation.
Again, you are using his nature as the deciding factor which works from a practical standpoint, but not a philosophical one. Practically speaking we may say that he could not sin in that he would not contradict his nature and we are in agreement. Yet what I am trying to tease-out is the philosophical difference between 'would not' and 'could not'. Again, philosophically speaking, there is a tremendous difference between these concepts.
The underlying question is what prevents Christ from sinning? Is it because he is God and his nature prevents him from any ability to sin, as if his flesh would rebel if he were to want to? Or is it because his will was so focused on obedience to God the Father that he would not ever sin. If the latter is the case (which we both have argued for), then we can say that while his flesh could have sinned if he chose to give-in, there was no way he would ever give-in. Therefore we must say (if this is the case) that Christ was able but unwilling to sin. The human part of Christ (although such a black and white distinction between human and divine is an artificial construction)while possibly not owning the original sin of Adam, still had the possibility of sin as the original Adam had.
Practically speaking, it still works out to a sinless Christ.
I disagree about the language of verse 29. I say this because Christ says that he ALWAYS does the things that please the Father. Since the language gives a blanket statement, then the language does deal with a I can, will, & do type of phrase. I would agree that without the word ALWAYS, then this would be a do statement, yet with the the word AWLAYS, Christ limited Himself to only doing the things that please the Father. Therefore, anything that does not please the Father (i.e. sin) Christ cannot do because He ALWAYS does what pleases the Father.
A side thought, you mentioned Adam's original sin. What are your thoughts on imputed sin and how that relates to Christ. Was Adam's original sin charged to Christ account (especially since Christ lineage was taken back to Adam in Luke)? If Christ was sinless, then how did he bypass the imputation of Adam's original sin?
You yourself say "he limited himself" which would intone choice and will influencing action rather than action caused, unwilled, by nature. So I think we need to be especially clear on what we mean. The word "always" can be viewed as only speaking to will and action and not necessarily to possibility - remember when I say possibility I am not taking Christ's will and action into account, only his uninfluenced nature as the new Adam. Practically speaking, though, I think we are pretty much on the same page. We can both affirm that Christ remained sinless and paid for our sins through an undeserved death on the cross.
As far as your latest question, to tell you the truth, I haven't the foggiest. I have thought about it long and hard but do not have an answer yet. I am sure that you are familiar with the main views out there. 1) Adam's sin was not reckoned to Christ because God protected him from it in the womb. 2) An inferrence on the last view, that because the baby's blood and the mother's blood do not mix in the womb, Christ was not tainted by his mother's sin. 3) Mary was also immaculately conceived (Catholic). 4)Sin is only reckoned through the headship of the father. Since Adam sinned (and each man since), their seed is tainted by sin. Since Christ was not begotten by seed, he was not affected by sin.
The last view holds a lot of merit. This has less to do with a biological connection with sin than with a spiritual one. It would be kind of silly if it was biological because women sin as well as men, so we could not say that they cannot pass on sin biologically. Mary, being sinful, would have to be able to pass on sin to Jesus biologically (unless the womb, blood barrier somehow prevented it.
I rather think that it has more to do with headship. Adam was the "federal" (or representational)head of humanity when he fell. Since he was God's first created human and charged with the maintenance of the world and the relationship with God, he bore the responsibility for the sin. This sin, rather than being inborn biologically, is reckoned to man by God due to Adam's headship. It is reckoned from Father to child as a spiritual reminder of Adam's headship when he fell. All humanity, in this way is covered, except for one man, the God-man, Jesus Christ, who was born to a virgin and by the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I like that view, because I think it fits the Scriptures and the nature of God best, but it is only theological conjecture.
I believe you are taking what I said out of context. I did not say that Christ chose to limit Himself. I do not believe that is the thrust of the passage in question. I am saying that Christ, by His own admission, revealed a restriction or limitation of what He is able to do. That is, He is only able to do what pleases the Father. Christ Himself revealed the restriction. That was my point. It wasn’t that Christ chose to have a restriction, because that is not present in this passage, it is only that Christ revealed the fact that there was a restriction present. Therefore, Christ was saying in essence that it was impossible for Him to sin.
Philosophically speaking, you might be looking at Christ’s temptations all wrong anyways. I believe that there were multiple purposes in Christ’s temptation, but one of them is widely agreed upon that Satan tempted Christ to get Him to sin. I believe God allowed this to happen not to prove that Christ could succumb to sin (though He didn’t), but rather the temptation came about to prove that it was impossible for Christ to sin (especially when He admits that He can only do what pleases the Father). This will give a new perspective on the issues of how real the temptations were if Christ could not sin. These temptations did exactly what they were meant to do, show that Christ could not sin. Therefore, the temptations were real. Even if I am wrong about this, Dr. Ryrie makes a good point when he says of this issue, “Nevertheless, they [the temptations] were real, for the reality of a test does not lie either in the moral nature of the one tested or in the ability to yield to it. And, of course, His ability to sympathize with us does not demand a one-to-one correspondence in the particulars of the tests” (A Survey of Basic Doctrines, pg. 60).
With regards to Christ’s dual natures, one must ponder the depth of Christ’s humanity. His human nature is liken to that of man’s, in that Christ was vulnerable to limitation within the realm of His flesh. These limitations may or may not include His temptation. Dr. Homer Kent writes, “none of His (Jesus Christ’s) temptations arose out of a sinful disposition, such as all fallen men have since Adam. All of Christ’s temptations came to Him from outside of Himself”. Here Dr. Kent notes the “unfallen” nature of Christ Jesus. One cannot separate His humanity from His deity. As God, Christ was unable to sin (James 1:13). If Christ had committed sin, would it not have permeated His divinity, thus changing His entire disposition?
Bishop, T
Kent, Homer Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews
I did not take anything out of context, I merely quoted you and asked you to be more careful so that it would not be misconstrued as something I know you did not mean. Also, I never said that the point of the passage was to prove the Christ could possibly sin. Neither did I mean to infer that that was the point. Rather I said that we could infer it from the temptation texts. I think you also miss the point about this passage as well as the temptation passages. Look at the overall Bible:you see Adam fall in the garden; you see humanity grow into something twisted and ugly; God intervenes and chooses a race to be his own; the race is tested and fails the test; they grow corrupt and are scattered to the wind; they are brought back and shown the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus as the new Adam, new Abraham, new Moses, and new Israel "passed" the test where all others had failed. The point is not that he could have or couldn't have passed the test, but that he did pass it. To limit this is to limit his role as high priest and limits his "earned" right to both advocacy and judgment over humanity. God never had to "earn" the right to advocacy and judgement, but he did so anyway,bringing us hope at the same time. If he did not do so, we would have the same God as the Hebrews, a similar God to the Muslims, and we could not utter his Holy name, given to men - Yahweh.
I am not trying to make Christ's "ability" to sin a central issue, but to deny this takes away any concept of obedience, no matter what Ryrie says. God could have sympathized with each one of us he rightly sent to hell, but Christ brought not sympathy, but empathy. He underwent what we do and he was obedient through it. That is the point and that is our hope of an advocate that understands us intimately, not just because he formed us, but because he's been through it too.
Look at Ryrie's statement: "for the reality of a test does not lie either in the moral nature of the one tested or in the ability to yield to it." This certainly works both ways. So if Christ was "able" to yield to sin but not predisposed to do so, and he passed the test, there's no problem is there?
Anonymous,
James 1:13 does not say that. Rather, it is speaking of humans who sin. It says,
"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; (14) but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."
We certainly should not apply v. 14 to God now should we? Now if we did apply v. 13 to Christ (as God), we make the gospel writers out to be liars when they say he was tempted. (Matt 4:1, Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2) Inability is not found in the text and is inferred upon the text, just like ability. That's why we're debating.
This is an interesting discussion. It might help if you stopped and took a good look at the fundamental issue involved. These debates most often end up as philosophy, which is based on human reason rather than theology that deals directly with the source issues. Using texts and assigning meaning to them is an interesting exercise but it normally goes in a circle. The real heart of every issue is a biblical hermeneutic. The question is not what we decide as an answer, it is how we got that answer.
Notice how quickly such discussions end up in complexity. We have learned that error rises from “complication to confuse”. Facts are ultimately found in the principle “simplify to clarify”. Much of our discussion is intended to be intellectual but often misses the point. Spinning our wheels with points rather than principles is like determining how many angels you can get on the head of a pin.
The basic fact here can be determined by a direct question about God even though we prefer to see things from mans point of view. Did Christ have the capacity to sin? That is the plain language that needs a plain answer and that is how the bible answers questions. Anyone who has the capacity to sin is flawed. If Christ had the capacity to sin he was a flawed savior and could have saved no one. If the God/Man had the capacity to sin he was not God. All the other texts fit perfectly if we begin and end with the nature and character of God.
Clay Nuttall
Thanks Clay,
I wonder, though, if you are not doing the same thing you warn against, inferring upon the text what a singular tradition has asserted through reason. You say that Christ could not be god if he had the capacity to sin, yet you do not define what constitutes that capacity. If you mean by capacity that there is something fallen within Christ's nature, then I agree, he did not have the capacity. If you mean that he did not have the ability to choose or the ability to sin due to some innate quality which would have prevented him from achieving a sinful goal, I disagree. I have said all of this already, of course. Truthfully, we don't have enough textual material to definitely back up either view without a doubt.
You say that if he had the capacity, he was not God. I say if he did not have the capacity, he was not man. That is, he could not stand as our High Priest and vetted judge.
You are right that we need this to come down to a point. What is that point? It seems we can agree that Christ is the sinless sacrifice for men, God and man, the second person of the Trinity, our High Priest, judge, and co-heir. How we get there is different, but neither of us has denied a tennant of Christian doctrine.
Let me ask everyone another question. Is this just semantics and unimportant? Does the doctrine of the extent of Christ's impeccability something that should just be glossed over? Of course not. I truly believe we have adequate Biblical data to arrive at a very clear and correct view of Christ's impeccability. The point is not to disagree, but to discuss the issue and help each other arrive at a more correct view of Christ's impeccability.
From a strictly Biblical basis, I can only legitamately arrive at the conclusion that Christ could not have sinned. It was contrary to His nature as the God-man. Christ cannot do what is the exact opposite of His nature. Christ also claims He is only able to do what pleases the Father (John 8:29). Therefore, Christ is limited and not able to sin. If Christ could sin, then He would contradict Himself. Was it the the fact that Christ was able to sin that enabled Him the position of High Priest or just the mere fact that the Word became flesh? I got the impression that that was your idea, Steven, but correct me if I am wrong. You also said that Christ could not be man if He did not have the capacity to sin. Then there is another contradiction, because how could the Son of God become man and take on the capacity to sin while still remaining fully God if God cannot sin? Do you see a contradiction or am I missing something?
By the way, I am really enjoying this discussion from everyone. Keep up the good posts.
Timothy,
I am glad to hear you are still enjoying this. I am.
I should really respond point by point. 1) Again you refer to the John 8:28-29 passage as using the term "able". I wonder if you are using a translation that translates the text this way, or if you are inferring onto the text? I quoted from the NIV, which uses the language of doing, rather than ability. I am not trying to play semantics, but trying to nail us down on exactly what is being said. It does make a difference. I only worry if we are making new doctrine that is not necessarily warranted by the text. As it now is, we are only speaking of our interpretations of the text. Let us make sure that we quote Scripture as accurately as possible. if you are using a particular version that uses that terminology, let's all look at something we can agree on.
2. You again bring up the nature thing. Christ cannot do what is opposite to his nature. You and Clay have said that Christ is God - showing no distinction. Christ is God, but not God the Father. Christ is God the Son, with some separate attributes. It is these attributes we must look at and determine whether this includes "necessary incorruptibility". What I mean by this term is that he could not, even if he wanted to, sin. The nature we are talking about here, though, is not Christ as God, but Christ as man. What human nature did he take on? Was it the nature of Adam? If so, we can positively say that he could sin but didn't, just as Adam could sin but didn't. In both cases the temptation was from without, rather than from within. The corruption did not start within Adam, but was brought to him by Satan and Eve. Was the nature Christ took on the same nature that we have, that is fallen? I should think we would both vehemently say no to that. Was the nature that Christ took on something different, some different kind of incorruptible humanity? I think this is what you have been advocating, but it is not warranted by the texts and would limit or destroy his advocacy for us and his place as human sacrifice in our stead (Rom 5:8-21; Hebr. 2:9-3:6.).
So Christ does not contradict himself, but the conception that has been placed upon him.
3. It is not because Christ was able to sin that makes him our High Priest, but his being able and not doing so which "earns" the right which he came to achieve. The right to destroy sin, advocate for humanity and destroy death/hell/Satan for his chosen.
4. If Christ had a necessarily incorruptible nature, some form of humanity that did not resemble Adam, he would not be truly human. He would only seem human, which is the error of the Docetists. If he was truly human, and given the posse non pecarre/posse pecarre nature of Adam, then he succeeded in the duty he was sent to do and has earned the right to advocate for and judge humanity.
5. You asked, "how could the Son of God become man and take on the capacity to sin while still remaining fully God if God cannot sin?" I certainly do see the contradiction. You are associating God the Father and God the Son too closely and confusing their attributes. The Father and the Son do share some attributes, but not all. Also the Son, in veiled glory, laid down some attributes while on earth that he took back up again after his death. This is clear from the text. For example, Jesus did not walk through walls, appear/disappear, or ascend while he was alive before his death on the cross. While he did know revealed things, he was not omniscient, he was not omnipresent, he did not rule in glory and power. These attributes and others were not present in the bodily Christ before his death.
Just as T Bishop used the James verse out of context, Not all of God the Father's attributes can be associated with Christ on earth.
Thanks for the good interaction
Sorry, in point #2, I meant just like Adam could sin AND DID.
Steven
1) I originally quoted John 8:29 from the NASB but it is an easy translation – “And the One sending Me is with Me; He did not leave me alone, because I always do the pleasing things to Him.” I understand that this verse is speaking of what Christ does, but again, the word “always” limits Christ’s ability of what He can do to that of only holy, righteous acts. Therefore, if Christ can only do righteousness, He cannot do sin. Therefore Christ cannot sin. It seems like basic logic to me. What am I missing or what are you seeing that I am not?
2) I am leery to respond to your second paragraph. I want to make sure I understand you correctly before I proceed. I am in full agreement that there is a distinction between the Son and the Father. I understand the Trinity to refer to 1 God in three persons, all persons are co-equal in essence and power yet distinct in personhood and position. With this being said, you claimed that Christ “is God the Son, with some separate attributes” from God the Father. This seems like it is steering away from orthodoxy and close to Arianism. I’ll come back to that. As far as Christ’s humanity, the issue does not deal just with that nature, but rather the issues deals with the entire person of Christ. You cannot just separate Christ’s 2 natures and say that His humanity would do something His deity would not. His 2 natures are joined to make 1 person – the God-man. I have been focusing on Christ as God, but Christ as Christ is the God-man and is still only does what pleases the Father (which means no sin). This is getting off course, but the human nature that Christ did take on, you say it was like that of Adam’s nature before the fall? I understand your logic of this and would tend to agree. My question is, what if Adam had not sinned (obviously very hypothetical). Would He go from a state of unconfirmed holiness to confirmed holiness? We can’t say, but it would seem so. Likewise with Christ, yet He was also fully God as well so things are never the same as it was in the Garden of Eden. Even if it were the same, Christ has been obedient to the Law long before He was tempted by the Devil to sin, therefore it seems logical that His holiness would have been confirmed (though since He is God it was already confirmed). This is a just a possibility that I propose. Personally, I think that Christ did receive a similar human nature to the one Adam had before the fall, yet His deity put Him in a place of confirmed holiness before even being tempted. This is more philosophical than I prefer so let’s get back to the text.
3) I am a little confused about your point in the 3rd paragraph. Tell me your view of what “earns” Christ the position of High Priest according to the Bible.
4) I understand what you are getting at in the 4th paragraph. That is the logic that leads me to think that Christ did have a similar human nature to that of Adam (pre-fall). The difference is that this sinless human nature was added onto His original nature of deity. Therefore, the person of Christ is a different case than Adam.
5) You say in your 5th paragraph that “The Father and the Son do share some attributes, but not all.” Are you saying that Christ does not display all the attributes of the Father or that He does not actually have them? Because if Christ did not have the attribute of omniscience or omnipresence then He is less than God. This is Arian thinking. This is the whole point of the article. You have reached the crux of the issue, I think. One’s view of Christ’s impeccability will lead one to emphasize one of Christ’s natures over the other. I have emphasized His deity while you have emphasized His humanity. In my opinion, I have not de-emphasized His humanity to a non-human like nature, whereas I believe you have de-emphasized His deity by saying that Christ does not have all the attribute of God when you said that “Also the Son, in veiled glory, laid down some attributes while on earth that he took back up again after his death.” Now I hope that you meant that Christ voluntarily gave up the independent use of certain attributes, but He did not give up certain attributes all together. How is Christ’s omnipresence any different before His death than after His death? I would say that Christ did extraordinary things with His body before death – i.e. walk on water & the transfiguration. You say that this is clear because Christ didn’t do things before His death that He did after His death. Well, Christ also did things before His death that He did not do after His death. As you said before, it is not a matter of ability, but rather one of doing. Just because Christ didn’t walk through walls before His death does not mean He did not have the ability. At times, Christ chose not to use His omniscience to make a point (see Mark 13:32, the point being that speculation of the timing of the 2nd Coming is ridiculous). But Christ never gave up that attribute, He just decided to not make use of it at the time. He was speaking from His human nature. But to say that Christ gave up certain attributes before His death is to say that Christ was not the God-man until after His death, because how can God not be perfect and not have all of His attributes? It seems like you are on a slippery slope towards liberalism. I am hoping I have misunderstood your point, but I can’t help but to think what your view on Christ is before His death.
Sorry for the length. But this discussion just took a turn I wasn’t expecting. Keep up the posts.
Sorry in advance, this is going to be long. I will send it in pieces.
1. Again, you use the word “can,” a word of ability, to speak of something that is shown as doing. I see this as a word of will. We know where each other stand on that, its not going to change without clearer evidence to prove it out. That is exactly what we are lacking. This is where I would say we can agree to disagree on this point and look to what we do agree on.
Here are appropriate sections from the Athenasian (Trinitarian)Creed. We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has… There are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being. Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty. Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being… Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other… That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.
2. You said, “I understand the Trinity to refer to 1 God in three persons, all persons are co-equal in essence and power yet distinct in personhood and position. With this being said, you claimed that Christ “is God the Son, with some separate attributes”. The Athenasian Creed implies that God the Father, Son, and Spirit are indeed co-equal in essence and glory (power is acceptable), and distinct in personhood. What do you mean by position? If you mean that Christ is begotten but equal, that is fine, but if you mean Christ is less, then you are not matching up to this creed. As far as my statement about separate attributes goes, I did not mean to imply Christ was less somehow, but that he has separate attributes (just as I said). He has a different role than God the Father. First, he has a body. That is a different Attribute than God the Father or God the Spirit. Next Christ is known as Prince of Peace, a term God the Father is not known by. I could go on.
To be continued...
Continued,
3. You asked, “Are you saying that Christ does not display all the attributes of the Father or that He does not actually have them? Because if Christ did not have the attribute of omniscience or omnipresence then He is less than God. This is Arian thinking. I am saying Christ does not possess all the attributes of the Father, although he does possess some (maybe most). This does not make him less than God the Father. It makes him different than the Father in person and in role. As far as Omniscience and omnipresence are concerned, let’s look at Scripture. In the gospels, we see Jesus in one place at one time. At no point was he in two places at once. Also, while one might argue that he displayed omniscience, I do not believe he did. Even when he saw future events (Matt 17:27, 21:2), or events in a different location (John 1:48), he did nothing different in this than a prophet with the Holy Spirit might do (1 Kings 14:5-17; Josh. 6:26/1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 17:12-15, 18:41-45). Jesus even says, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36 NIV) Whether this lack of omniscience was a temporary limitation or not, I do not know and will not speculate on. As for his omnipresence, while it is clear he was lacking this attribute on earth, it is not clear as to whether he has it or not now. The best clue I think we have is, “where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt 18:19 NIV) However, this is also a section where interpretation is not straightforward as Jesus was using figures of speech to make a point. As you can see I am not moving toward Arianism in the least. Arianism subordinates the Son to the Father and claims that he was not divine. I have done nothing of the sort.
4. As far as Christ’s nature goes, the blog post concerns itself with Christ’s ability to sin. Therefore we know that that cannot come from his divine nature. The question then must center on the human nature. Christ has one being or substance that he shares with the Father (homoousias), but he has two natures within his being, one wholly divine, one wholly human. Now technically, they cannot be separated, just as you affirm. Yet in order to even raise a question about sin or sinlessness, we must examine the state of his human nature. You said, “The difference is that this sinless human nature was added onto His original nature of deity.” I think that you are incorrect here, God didn’t step down into flesh, so-to-speak, he was pre-existing Son with a certain role and attributes knit together with humanity within the womb. He is both, not one plus one. So what of it? Was Christ capable of sin? It then depends on philosophical conceptions and definitions. What is meant by capable? What sort of humanity was he given? Is the language of doing meaning will or ability? And we fall back into our camps again.
5. You said, “Christ never gave up that attribute, He just decided to not make use of it at the time. He was speaking from His human nature. But to say that Christ gave up certain attributes before His death is to say that Christ was not the God-man until after His death, because how can God not be perfect and not have all of His attributes?” Again, while you say you are not, this statement seems to prove that you too closely conceptualize the persons of the Father and the Son. They are one, but they are separate as well, in person and role (as I have already said). The Father was not walking around with a “Jesus” suit on. The attributes that you speak of belong to God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and possibly the glorified Son. These were not evidenced by the incarnate Son. Again, if you read Veiled Glory by Ardel Caneday, you will see what I mean (even if you still don’t agree).
6. You said, “It seems like you are on a slippery slope towards liberalism.” I certainly am no Liberal. However, I am not willing to reject everything they have to say without examining it first either. I think you may have done this. There are many problems with Liberalism, but then (no offense) there are many problems with Dispensationalism. We should examine everything through the lens of Scripture, with Scripture as our authority. Yet we must also remember that English translations are flawed at best and that it is always better to go back to the original sources. ‘A text without context is a pretext.’
Before I respond to your post and display the next section of your comment, I want to correct you. I did not say Christ “is God the Son, with some separate attributes” but I quoted you saying that in my last comment. You wrote that and go directly in the face of orthodox Trinitology and Christology.
Yes I realize you are quoting me. If I did not show that clearly, I am sorry. Also, I do not know of a single respected theologian who has promoted the view that the Father and Son share all attributes equally. To infer that they do because one has identified the Father and Son too closely is a mistake and starts moving down some slippery slopes as well.
Timothy,
Where are we heading with this debate? It seems we have hit a wall of sorts. We have both shown that there are problems with looking at only one side of the equation (either Christ's divinity or his humanity). We can see that if one goes too far to one side or another, he will land in heresy. We have also not come to a point of agreement on whether the language of doing means Christ's will to not sin or that he is unable to sin. We come basically to the same point, but our ways of getting there are different and yet are both still solidly within the orthodox and evangelical constructions.
It seems you are unwilling to examine the article that I have suggested twice, by a well-known and respected conservative Biblical scholar. It also seems that you are maintaining a stance based on a rather narrow tradition and are unwilling to examine evidence to the contrary. So I guess I am not sure what the point is on contiuing, because we can both agree on the main tennants of the faith, we probably agree on a lot of other issues, and we probably might get along outside of the blogosphere. I think we should wrap this up before there is bad blood between us. After all, I think that this is a great site and would like to continue to be involved. Thanks.
Steve
We are getting sidetracked here, but this is important to flesh out. I understand more of where you are coming from now. Here are some respected theologians that would say that Christ was fully God and shared all the attributes of the Father at all times. The same is true of the Holy Spirit. Does not Christ Himself say that He and the Father are one (in essence not personhood)? The Bible never intimates that Christ gave up attributes that He previously had. As far as omniscience is concerned, it is said of Christ that “You know all things” (John 16:30). In the case of Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32, Christ willing gave up the independent use of that attribute to emphasize a point. But Christ choosing not to use that attribute is not the same as Christ not having that attribute at all. As far as omnipresence is concerned, this is probably impossible for us to rap our minds around anyways, much less Christ’s omnipresence. John 1:48, Christ speaks of seeing Nathanael even though Christ physical location was not actually there. This intimates omnipresence. If Christ is omnipresent after His resurrection, the Bible no more alludes to it than prior to His death. Scripture always speaks of Christ at the right hand of the Father. Not much seems to have changed, yet we have to understand that Christ is fully God and can be omnipresent when He is presiding at a specific location. When God dwelt locally around the arc of the covenant, was He not also omnipresent? It would seem the same with Christ, it is just more complex due to His humanity. I don’t claim to understand it, I only claim to believe it. I will respond to all 5 of your points at a later time. I am hoping others join in the discussion.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 226 – “The Biblical teaching on the Trinity tells us that all of God’s attributes are true of all three persons, for each is fully God. Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient, and so forth.”
J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, vol. 2, pg. 69 – “Our Lord Jesus Christ has, from eternity, and has never ceased to have, all the attributes of Deity.”
Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pg. 331 – “The undivided essence of the Godhead belongs equally to each of the persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each possesses all the substance and all the attributes of Deity.”
William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed., pg. 235-7 – “When it is said that there are three persons in one essence, it is not meant that the essence is a fourth thing, within which the three persons exist…The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each and simultaneously the whole divine essence; so that while there are three persons, there is but one essence…A Trinitarian person is not a fractional part of the essence…The whole undivided divine nature is in each divine person simultaneously and eternally.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pg. 460-461 – “The same divine essence with all its infinite perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no inferiority of one person to the other in the Trinity [speaking of essence not position].”
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pg. 88 – “The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. This means that the divine essence is not divided among the three persons, but is wholly with all its perfection in each one of the persons, so that they have a numerical unity of essence…the persons in the Godhead have a numerical unity of essence, that is, possess the identical essence…the divine nature is indivisible and therefore identical in the persons of the Godhead.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pg. 273 – “All the divine attributes as well as the properties of personality are ascribed to each Person of the Godhead with so much certainty and frequency, that the fact of a triune mode of existence cannot be doubted by an unprejudiced mind.”
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg. 301 – “The self-emptying permitted the addition of humanity and did not involve in any way the subtraction of Deity or canceling the use of the attributes of Deity. There was a change of form but not of content of the Divine Being. He did not give up Deity or the use of those attributes; He added humanity.”
A verse you might want to consider as well is John 5:19. Christ says that He “is not able to do” something unless the Father does it. This verse uses language of ability as well as doing. What are your thoughts?
Tim,
Was ADam created with a sin nature? If not,why was he "able" to sin? If he was, did God created evil or sin? Looking forward to your response.
Dexter-Acts 20:24
Ti,
On the subject of Christ's impeccability, I like to think of it this way; If you try to put diesel fuel in a car that was design to work with gasoline, what would happen? Well... its the same with the nature of christ. Its a question of ability. He was not able to sin. Thats why "no sin" was found in him.
Dexter
Timothy,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have not meant to be rude. I have been so busy over the last few weeks, I simply haven't had time to respond.
Thank you for including those theologians, I am surprised so many share that view. Most that I have been exposed to take a different stance. i notice most (all?) of them are dispensational in their stance, might that make a difference?
As for "I and the Father are one," there is still debate on that phrase. Many feel that Christ, as the natural, begotten but not born son of God and representative of the Father on earth, fully God of fully God, is speaking not of his Godhood here, per se, but of his relation to the Father as Son. As God the Father's representative, he carries with him the authority and "image" of God on earth.
The reason it is so important that Christ is fully man (that we cannot deny this) is that if he was not, he could not fulfill the O.T. prophecies concerning himself. He is the Son of God, a title belonging to the king alone. No one but the king of Israel can claim to be the son of God. it is a role that he fulfills. The role of king is not merely to rule the people, but to lead them in worship at the temple. He must know god better than anyone, do his will perectly, and know the Torah perfectly, putting it into right practice. Every king failed, except for the one true king, the king who wore a crown of thorns. He had to be fully man.
Again, he had to be fully man in order to be our sacrifice. Blood had to be shed for blood. Human blood for human blood, the perfect sacrifice. Righteous blood to break the curse. The king, as head of his people, had to die. In him was all Israel atoned for. Also, because he was a man, and shared in our temptation, he could stand as our High Priest, cleansing our sin, bringing us before the Father as clean. He also can be our advocate. Without true humanness, these things are not possible.
Lsatly, if he were not fully human, he could not be a prophet, as he certainly was rightly called in Scripture (both O.T. and N.T.) He, as man, had prophetic function through the Holy Spirit. His miracles and his amazing "feats" were done as man with the Holy Spirit, just like Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, etc. He spoke of things to come, he spoke the truth, he rightly spoke of Scripture, and he spoke for God.
Christ is certainly and truly King, Prophet, and Priest. If we say that he was God only and just put on some sort of human suit to walk around in, he cannot rightly fulfill these functions and we, by affirming it, would become some sort of Docetists. We must be careful not to start down that slippery slope.
At the same time, we must affirm that Jesus, the Christ, is fully God in the flesh who came in the authority of God the Father. He sits presently at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Whether or not he is omnipresent now (and Scripture never affirms that he is) is really an area that can only be speculated at. Scripture certainly does not affirm his omnipresence, or omniscience on earth.
I brought this debate up to a friend at Dallas Sem recently and he made a good observation. He said that I was looking at things from a biblical theological, anthropomorphic sense. Whereas you were looking at things more from a Systematic theological sense. Both are present in Scripture. There are the things as they are said outright, and then there are those themes that are underneath the texts that run throughout and weave them all together. I certainly have been operating from that viewpoint. As he said, however, both are present. If we lean too heavily one way or another we will run into problems.
I certainly hope we can come to agreement. There is more to this than just a few blatant statements. Also, we must examine the statements to see what exaclty is meant by them in their context.
Steve
Actually, I only listed 2 Dispensationalists out of the 8 theologians mentioned (The others range from Covenant Amill's, Premill's, and Postmill's). I do not believe that has any bearing on the issue. As far as John 10:30 is concerned, the debate is irrelavent. The context is key. The next verse, the Jews take up stones to stone Christ for blasphemy. They knew what Jesus was saying. Jesus meant to claim deity there. It is hard to avoid that by looking at the context. I agree that Christ's humanity is major in Christology. The main difference is that you seem to make Christ's humanity predicated on the fact that he has to be exactly like Adam to be a genuine human. The problem is, Christ wasn't and couldn't ever be exactly like Adam due to His deity. I believe He had the same sinless nature as Adam, but He also had what Adam did not - deity. That means that one cannot compare Adam's temptations to Christ's. They are not equal in relation. I also disagree with your statement about Christ's omniscience on earth. The disciples certainly believed it when they said to Christ, "You know all things." I know the exceptions in Matthew and Mark, and those must be dealt with in context and the emphasis must be remembered. But that is another issue for another time.
I am glad that you agree that Christ's humanity is important in Christology, although I would say it more strongly. It is essential to it. That is in no way minimizing his deity. You seem to be implying that I have been, but I have been focusing on Christ's humanity throughout this discussion because it is this topic that determines our thinking on impeccability. If I felt that you were somehow minimizing Christ's deity, I would focus on that.
I do not believe that Christ was exactly alike Adam, but that his human nature was like that of Adam, just as you have affirmed. "I believe He had the same sinless nature as Adam." After all, Romans 5:12-21 says, "...[J]ust as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Christ is above Adam, of course, but he is the new Adam, the obedient Adam. His redemption brings humanity back into right standing with God, as Colossians 1:15-20 says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to RECONCILE to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (emphasis mine)" This is the Biblical theological thread I am talking about. By becoming the new Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc., he exemplifies their functions and perfects their actions. So yes, Jesus is God. But the man-Jesus perfectly obeyed, and understanding perectly what his role was and not having sin or temptation WITHIN him, he succeeded in redeeming man where no one else (as all man had been given over to inherent sin) could. Our God-man earned salvation for us all.
Also, while I did not say Adam's temptations were equal to Christ's in any way, they are certainly compared by Scripture. It is the whole point - Christ replaces Adam as the Christian's federal head. Those who are not in Christ retain Adam alone as federal head.
As for the issue of omniscience and omnipresence, you certainly don't have to agree with me, but (no offense) I think you should more closely look at the entirety of Scriptures. The only passage I have found that could be construed to mean that Christ is omnipresent or omniscient is the Matt. 18:20 passage that was brought up earlier. Yet if we look at the context surrounding this, we see that it has to do with God granting power to testimony. It has nothing to do with omnipresence. Granting omnipresence to the incarnate (earthly) Christ is not traditionally affirmed (it is relatively recent) and has mainly been used to try to garner support for a defense of Christ's by fundamentalists reacting to liberals. It is not a very supportable argument, however (and I am not a liberal, so either it needs to be proved or dropped from the conversation.
I don't mean to be so pointed or pick a fight, but we are rehashing things here. Are we trying to find common ground or just be "right"? I would like to find common ground based on right exposition and interpretation of Scripture, through Scripture, rather than just express the opinion of a certain group. Unfortunately, I don't find you willing to look at my evidence for what I have said. I hope you are willing to consider it.
Steven Douglas
I know you have been focusing on Christ’s humanity, but I would argue that you have minimized His deity by saying He was able to sin, He is not omniscient, & He is not omnipresent. You refer Christ as the new Adam. It seems that you are now using a Systematic Theological conclusion since Christ is never said to be the “federal head” of the human race. For that matter neither is Adam. You say that Christ’s temptations were compared to Adam’s in Scripture yet you offer none to support that. You also accuse me of holding to a narrow view of Christ’s deity which is only a recent theological trend held by fundy’s. It seems that you might need to study church history and their view of Christ’s deity from the first century. Even the council of Nicea affirmed that Christ was the same substance as the Father. I have considered your evidence and weighed your proof. The problem is, I am the one offering Scriptural proof as answers where you offer your philosophical opinions. After all, you were the one who took the philosophical approach at the beginning of this discussion. I feel I am justified in accusing you of the very thing you accused me of. I am not trying to pick a fight, but I want to be clear that looking at the Bible in its entirety, I come to my conclusions not based on a theological tradition. I asked you to consider John 5:19 where Christ speaks of His ability. Even the Greek word used is defined as ability. Christ is only “able” to do what the Father does. That seems pretty clear to me. I quoted John 21:17 speaking that “Lord, You know all things.” To that Jesus did not dispute. The same is said in John 16:30. John 2:24 speaks of Christ knowing all men. Matthew 12:21 Christ speaks not only of actual knowledge of what actually happened, but also He mentions possible knowledge of what could have happened if the circumstances were different. All this implies that the Word is God and is omniscient. Otherwise, the Word is not God. I also mentioned that John 1:41, Christ speaks of seeing Nathanael even though Christ physical location was not actually there. This intimates omnipresence. If Christ is omnipresent after His resurrection, the Bible no more alludes to it than prior to His death. Scripture always speaks of Christ at the right hand of the Father. Not much seems to have changed, yet we have to understand that Christ is fully God and can be omnipresent when He is presiding at a specific location. When God dwelt locally around the arc of the covenant, was He not also omnipresent? It would seem the same with Christ, it is just more complex due to His humanity. I don’t claim to understand it, I only claim to believe it. Just because there are no direct statements claiming that Christ is omnipresent or omniscient, that does not mean it cannot be implied. Theological truth can be gained without a clear statement in Scripture. The Trinity is not defined or even mentioned in Scripture yet that theological truth is clearly seen in the Bible. Can you offer any Biblical evidence that would say Christ could sin? This is getting good! I am loving this.
Steven, there must have been a glitch because if you tried to post a comment, I never got it. This isn't the first time this has happened. If you could try to remember it and post it again I will publish it immediately. Sorry for the inconvenience.
So much to respond to but not much time. I am not minimizing Christ's deity. I have affirmed over and over again that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, he is fully God of fully God, and he is the image of the invisible God. That being said, he is not the Father. The passage you referred to, "I and the Father are one,” confers upon Christ deity, authority, and similarity, and not by necessity “sameness.” He is of the same substance as the Father, just as I affirmed by bringing up the creeds in the first place, but he is not the Father.
By too closely connecting the Father and the Son, we run into problems. I don't want to get into who said what, but to nail us down on what we are to believe doctrinally. By saying that Christ is the new Adam, I am not saying he is a "creature"; that is, I am not saying he is a created man. I am saying he is not only fully God but fully man, which in the end you seem to minimize. AS FULLY MAN, he has a certain nature (that is part of his overall nature) which you have admitted is the same as Adam's. By saying that, you must admit that he has the physical possibility to sin, even if his nature as God and his lack of inherent temptation informs his actions, preventing him from sinning. Specifically how this comes about is what we have been debating.
My Main argument has been and remains that Jesus Christ lived his life on earth as a man imbued with the Holy Spirit, in the role of king (partially), priest, prophet and Messiah. Thereby the denial of sin came not from his definite and necessary superiority over sin simply by his being God, but by his choice of obedience in the face of outward temptation, keeping his role and purpose in mind.
I do not and have not denied his deity. I do not and have not equated him with Adam. I do not and have not said that he did or ever would sin.
Scripture clearly compares (not equates) Christ with Adam in the passage I provided: Romans 5:12-21. Also see 1 Cor. 15:20-25 and 1 Cor. 15:45, the latter Paul derives from Gen. 2:7.
Christ is the new "representational" Adam, through who true obedience and therefore eternal life springs. As far as federal headship goes, yes, it is a Systematic Theological term. We started talking about Adam earlier, under the thread of how sin is transmitted through humanity. It seems to me that the biblical explanation is that original sin is transmitted (still) to all by Adam's spiritual headship and not by actual blood. Christ, therefore is not tainted by original sin. That headship is reckoned through the father and his seed physically. This is why the virgin birth is so important. Christ had no earthly father. Adam, then, becomes the "federal" head over mankind, he sinned and it was on behalf of all men. Likewise, Christ's work of redemption breaks Adam's curse and Christ becomes the new "federal" head of all who believe in him. This headship is not physically propagated, but spiritually through faith in God. Hence Paul's references to Abraham. Romans 4:1-5:2, and Galatians 3.
I also never said that it was bad to use Systematic Theology. It certainly serves its purpose. I was merely saying that we have been using two modes, generally, to come at this issue. You seem to have been using Systematic Theology, and I have mainly been using Biblical Theology. The Systematic take snippets of Scripture and says, "this must mean that," whereas Biblical theology takes stories, passages, and sometimes snippets, and says, "Look at this theme that runs through it." We are looking at this issue with two different lenses.
I freely admit that in the end, Christ "could not" sin, practically speaking. But how we get there is by two different means. I still have not been convinced of the rightness of your view on that topic.
Lastly, by "same substance" you seem to mean sameness, period. That is not what is meant by the language of the creeds. The creed is making a distinction for the average person so that they do not wind up in heresy. The Son is not separate from God or only a man. He is God. Yet the Son is not God the Father, so that the Father stepped down to earth in a Jesus suit. The language is saying that he is God and Man, he is same but distinct. He is himself but yet we have one God and not three. You are taking it to mean something it does not say or imply - that The Father and the Son are One, and indistinct. That is wrong. The Son is the Son, the Father is the Father. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that The Son shares all attributes with the Father, just because he shares deity. He has a different role and SOME (not all) different attributes. We cannot know that Jesus is omniscient or omnipresent and by saying he is, you play into the "fundy's" trap. They rather err on the side of caution than to examine things too closely. I do not think that is a good error, because it redefines theological truth.
I have attempted to explain why Christ was able to do what he did without sharing the attributes of omniscience or omnipresence, and maybe I have failed, but I suppose we can agree to disagree on this issue and move on to another. Unless you have more evidence to share, I think I will end my side of debate with this. I do want you to know that I hold no animosity, but I find the purpose of debate to convince someone else of one’s position or come to some form of agreement, and that is not happening on this thread.
Blessings through our fully God and fully man, risen Christ, who has broken our chains of sin and set us both free!
Steven Douglas
I know you have confirmed Christ’s deity, yet you have minimized it by saying He did not possess all the attribute of deity while He was on the earth before His death. I also would agree that there is a major distinction between the Father and the Son. I never said they were the same person, however I did say that Christ is of the same substance being God. If I gave you the wrong impression, I am sorry. I take a hard line on the distinction between persons of the Trinity. My last article on prayer will show that. By Christ saying that He is one (one in essence not personhood especially since “one” is neuter) He is affirming that He and the Father share the same attributes and are of the same substance.
I never accused you of saying that Christ was a creature. I am not sure how that got thrown into the mix. I do not minimize Christ’s humanity. Again, Christ is fully human. Even though Christ had Adam’s pre-fall nature, that does not mean He had the capacity to sin. I see what you are saying – since Adam could sin and Christ has Adam’s pre-fall nature therefore Christ could sin. But Christ and Adam are not the same. That is my major point. Adam was only man. Therefore his humanity dictated his ability. Christ was the God-man. His deity as well as His humanity dictates His ability. It is not an equal comparison to say that what Adam could do before the fall was true of Christ.
You are correct, that Scripture compares Adam to Christ. The question is, does Scripture compare Christ humanity to Adam’s? Does Scripture compare Christ ability to Adam’s? I don’t think so in those passages you listed. Those passages deal with the comparison that Adam brought death where Christ has brought about life. So there is a comparison, but to use this to equally compare the two in all aspects of their life would be more than the Biblical writers warranted.
You stated your main argument in your 3rd paragraph. You say that “the denial of sin came not from his definite and necessary superiority over sin simply by his being God, but by his choice of obedience in the face of outward temptation, keeping his role and purpose in mind.” Before I go any further, one thing you failed to do is offer Scriptural support. What Scripture says that Christ chose not to sin? As I see it, I see Scripture teaching that Christ didn’t have to choose because He could not sin.
To clarify again, sameness to me does not mean same in personhood. I don’t recall ever saying that the Father and the Son are the same in personhood. In fact, my definition of the Trinity is that the persons are distinct in personhood and position. Could you quote where I intimated that idea? I don’t want to make that mistake again. I would like to correct my language if I did say something to that effect.
I did offer Scriptural evidence for Christ’s omniscience and omnipresence and you still have not mentioned them or disputed them. Logically, I just don’t understand how Christ could be fully God if He could not do what God can do. Therefore, if Christ is God, then He possesses all the attributes of deity including omniscience and omnipresence. This is the orthodox teachings in most theological circles – including Reformed & Dispensational circles. In fact, the orthodox teaching throughout church history is that Christ possessed all the attributes of the Father. Now I think we might have different ideas of the word “attribute.” I do not mean “function” with the word “attribute.” I mean the characteristics of deity like the 4 omni’s and immutability, transcendence, and eternality. Christ shares all the same characteristics of deity that the Father and the Spirit has. Each person in the Trinity has a different function in different aspects of the world (salvation, creation, & even prayer). The persons are distinct in their functions as well as personhood. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. And so on. Also, the persons are distinct in position. Doxologically speaking, all the glory ends up with the Father (Phil. 2:10-11). Christ even came to glorify the Father (John 17:1-5). The Spirit came to glorify the Son which in turn glorifies the Father (John 16:14). Also, Chris says that the Father is greater than He positionally speaking (John 15:28). 1 Cor. 11:3 says that the Father is the head of Christ. This is a position statement. They are equal in essence, but distinct in personhood and position. The Father is where the buck stops. Everything that Christ did on the cross and setting up His kingdom in the future is not for His own glory, but that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:20-28). This explains my position on the Trinity. I hope that you understand it more clearly and see that I in no way I would willfully admit that Christ and the Father are the same person.
Of course there is no animosity. Even though I have never met you in person, I have come to greatly respect you. I have enjoyed this discussion thoroughly. I hope it doesn’t have to stop here. We can continue if you are up for it. Also, sorry for the length.
I must say, I think you have articultaed yourself very well. I think that was your clearest argument (I am not trying to sound condescending). Sometimes I don't like to blog/e-mail, because things can be taken differently than when face-to-face.
I still think that we may not accomplish much more on this thread and it may not be healthy for us to continue much further. But you said something that caught my attention. You said (summarizing my position), "He did not possess all the attribute of deity." I finally see what your issue with my statements is. You link Christ's attributes with God the Father's attributes because you see them as one being. God. If the Deity is one then all persons of the deity share all the attributes of the deity in equal measure. This may be the case, and I do not want to come right out and deny it. But what I am saying is that this is an inference upon the text, and not taken DIRECTLY, but indirectly, from the text. (I am not talking substance, here, but attribute.)
Could it be that the role of the person within the Godhead informs his attributes; that is that distinct attributes may be particular to that role? We see Christ having a physical body, even now. He was in a certain location while he performed his work on earth, and he is in a certain location now(at the right hand of the Father). We do not pray directly to Jesus, but to the Father in Jesus' name. Meaning it is not Christ who is listening to all of our prayers (necessarily), but The Father. We do not see Jesus, at any point, showing evidence of omnipresence. Instead he performed extroardinary feats in single locals as a man imbued with the Holy Spirit. This in no way diminishes his attribute of being God. Rather, he still possesses the attribute of being God. His person may not require omnipresence to be God or to perform the functions of his role. Even more pointedly, could it be a mistake to say that omnipresence is necessary to each person in the Trinity in order for them to be God?
I want to say these things carefully because I am not sure of them. I am drawing out conclusions from the text and must be able to say that, in the end, I don't know. Yet I am not going against traditional or creedal statements. Only recently have theologians spoken more in-depth on the topic. It seems to me that they may be trying to err on the side of caution rather than deny something that may be important. Maybe they're right. But what if they're wrong? These are things that must be carefully examined because souls are on the line. This particular strand of reasoning may not endanger them, but what are the implications of this strand, and the next, and the next. I am certainly glad that in your last post you affirmed what you did. It relieves me.
Does Christ's deity dictate 100% attribute similitude with the Father and Spirit? We certainly may infer that it does. There are certainly enough (unclear) texts to use that may warrant that inferrence. Yet, they may not mean what they have been taken to mean because of their contexts. Therefore, we have need to interpret Scripture by Scripture. Meaning, rather than just saying that this passage says this, we must look at what all the passages say and the greater overview.
I, in no way, want to deny or minimize Christ's deity. I don't think my view does unless you are right that all attributes must be shared 100%. If this is the case, I would be on dangerous ground. But, if 100% similitude in attribute is not required to affirm deity and glorify God, however, my argument may certainly stand.
So then the question becomes do I place my understanding upon the texts or do I let the texts inform my understanding? I certainly hope it is the latter and not the former. If Colossians says, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," what are we to take that to mean. Is it a direct statement that pertains to this discussion necessarily, is it speaking of something else, or is it using fullness in another fashion? If I were to let my concept speak for the text, I might say that fullness can only mean fullness of authority and not of attribute. Another way of looking at it is it most certainly means attribute and not only authority. Yet we must look at the context. The context shows that Paul is talking about the laws of the Jews and its influence on Jewish and, by extension, Greek believers. The written code stands against humanity, but Christ has authority over it due to his work on the Cross. His authority over the law is given to his followers through their faith in Him. The context tells us that we are speaking of full authority over the law given to men through Christ's obedience.
Yes, I use philosophy, and I use theology. These are not bad things. But they do have their limits. I have not peppered my arguments with Scripture, but that does not mean that I am not using it. Generally I look at it and use it to inform and refine a thought. Then I put the refined thought down. If it is accepted, great, if it isn't, then I get into the nitty-gritty of how I arrived at my position. Even with Scripture, though, there comes a point at which we must say, "I don't know." This is o.k. and is preferable to going too far one direction or another.
I am at the point where I am growing uncomfortable. I have been thinking on this topic constantly, not just recently, although this blog has helped immensely. I think that I should take some time away from it and focus on prayer and Scriptural study. While I don't believe I am wrong, I do have many question marks that I would like answered. They may never be, but if I am wrestling with them, I know others will too.
Thank you, Timothy, for your graciousness and willingness to continue. I would like you to respond to this, but I really must be done with this for now. Maybe, after some time, we can pick it up again and wrestle with it a little more.
Blessings to you, my brother in Christ.
Steven Douglas
P.S. I am still willing to interact on other subjects. :)
Well Steven, I am glad we are finally understanding each other. It seems that most debates are due to misunderstanding the opposing view. I apologize for not making it as clear earlier.
It seems almost ironic that you would mention Col. 2:9. I am currently preaching through the book of Colossians at my church (highly recommended by the way). And wouldn't you know it, but I disagree with your conclusion on Colossians. This is an interesting debate - the Colossian heresy. The popular view is that Paul is militating aginst early forms of Gnosticism and its heresy on Christology. I do see elements of Judiazers and similar Galatian heresies as well. There are also mystical and pagan heresies that Paul deals with in Chapter 2. This leads me to believe that the Colossian heresy is not one specific doctrine but rather syncretism. The people would take truth from all different sources and fuse them together to make a "new truth." Specifically speaking of Col. 2:9, I see the immediate context dealing more with the Gnostic notion of Christ. "Fullness" (plaroma) was used by the Gnostics to refer to the attributes that the supreme high god obtained. This supreme high god was the one who created Christ according to Gnostic teaching. Paul militates against this idea saying that in Christ dwelt all the "fullness" (or attributes of deity) even in bodily form. The body was mentioned because the Gnostic idea was that the flesh/material world was evil. Therefore Christ couldn't be God in the flesh because flesh is evil. Paul says that Christ was fully God and fully man. Christ was so fully God that He obtained all the attributes of deity. That is my interpretation of Col. 2:9 as well as the similar phrase in Col. 1:19. The context of 1:19 is not dealing with the Jewish idea but the Gnostic heresy. That leads me to believe that Christ has all the attributes of deity. Also, in Col. 2:8, Paul is dealing with the philosophy of man and the traditions of the world. Since Gnosticism is based on the gnosis or knowledge to gain salvation, it seems that verse 9 deals more with the Gnostic heresy than Jewish ideas. What are your thoughts?
I agree, we've been around and around. I have enjoyed this. It has made me study even more depth than when I wrote the article. I hope you take advantage of discussion in other articles. It seems you and I are the only ones who do. I am working to advertise a bit more to get more interaction. Give me an email some time so I can talk to you on a more personal basis w/out other viewers reading. Take care, brother.
Post a Comment