" ... a man like us in all things but sin ..." -- not any more!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
I clearly remember being taught in my youth that Jesus was just like us in all things except sin. My understanding is that since sin is an offense against God and since Jesus is God, it would not even be possible for Jesus to sin.

Well, my daughter, who is preparing for her first confession and first communion this year came home yesterday and while reviewing what she had learned in school that day, I was shocked to hear that she was being taught that Jesus DID sin and that Mary was the only sinless person to walk the earth. According to the DRE, Jesus sinned when He threw the peddlers out of the temple.

Comments? Opinions? Suggestions? …
  1. *]Can anyone offer biblical or church references to show that the DRE is incorrect?

    *] Should I take any action with regards to the DRE’s incorrect teaching? Contact her? Contact the pastor? Just let it slide?
 
This must be countered. Identify the paragraphs in the *Catechism *and take them to the teacher. Ask her to correct her teaching materials. If she does not do this right away (many teachers will gladly correct their materials when the evidence is clear and presented in a non-challenging way), take it to the Pastor.
 
first talk to the teacher and find out exactly what she said, in what context, children sometimes don’t hear all that was said in class, or don’t remember all of it correctly. then take it to the DRE and the pastor, IN WRITING (because I suspect your daughter is reporting accurately) but you owe the teacher that benefit of the doubt first. I just suspended a catechist last year because students and parents reported to me something seriously wrong that was said in class, I went over the lessons in question with the catechist, we had a discussion, I formally dismissed her from the program, with the support of the pastor. We appointed two of the parents who complained to take over the class, using our set curriculum and texts. Turns out the catechist had started attending another church with a family member. There is always a story behind these things. This person is now receiving pastoral counselling from the pastor, it is out of my hands.
 
Sir Knight,

I agree with Mercygate and Puzzleannie, if you can try to let the instructor know that there has been a mistake. Leaving aside the prudential consideration of how you should go about this, here are some of the passages that might help:

Scripture:
1 John 3:5
And you know that he appeared to take away our sins: and in him there is no sin.
Catechism:
467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. . . consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”.
470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”. . In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:
“The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.”
475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.”
482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Universal Teaching:
Council of Ephesus (431):
  1. The divine scripture says Christ became “the high priest and apostle of our confession”; he offered himself to God the Father in an odour of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, therefore, says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice also for himself and not rather for us alone (for he who knew no sin needed no offering), let him be anathema.
VC
 
I clearly remember being taught in my youth that Jesus was just like us in all things except sin. My understanding is that since sin is an offense against God and since Jesus is God, it would not even be possible for Jesus to sin.
Just a point on this. Jesus could have sinned. He was tempted just as we are. Sinning is going against the will of God, disobeying God.

In his human nature Jesus had a rational soul, a human will. Therefore in his human nature he could have acted against the will of the Father.

“His state was divine,
yet he did not cling
to his equality with God
but empties himself
to assume the condition of a slave,
and became as men are”
(Phil 2:6-7)

In his human nature he assumed the same limitations we have. That is why, although Son of God, he “increased in wisdom, in stature, and in favour with God and men.” (Lk 2:52)
 
I clearly remember being taught in my youth that Jesus was just like us in all things except sin. My understanding is that since sin is an offense against God and since Jesus is God, it would not even be possible for Jesus to sin.

Well, my daughter, who is preparing for her first confession and first communion this year came home yesterday and while reviewing what she had learned in school that day, I was shocked to hear that she was being taught that Jesus DID sin and that Mary was the only sinless person to walk the earth. According to the DRE, Jesus sinned when He threw the peddlers out of the temple.

Comments?
The DRE is an incompetent heretic.
Opinions?
Incompetent heretics should not be DREs.
Suggestions?
Go to the pastor. There is nothing more fundamental to the Christian faith than that (a) God is perfect, without sin, and (b) Jesus is God. So your IH DRE is not teaching the Christian faith, but rather blatant heresy (which, by the way, completely invalidates Christ’s death on the cross as well). We have to fight these people wherever they pop up.
 
Just a point on this. Jesus could have sinned. He was tempted just as we are.
I have a question about this. Obviously Christ did not suffer from original sin as we do, so He did not have a fallen nature as we do. So when the bible mentions He was tempted I would think it was not exactly the same as when we are tempted.

By that I mean we may be drawn to the tempation and in the end hopefully do not give in. He must have just been exposed to the temptation without even even considering giving in?

Does that make sense?
 
I have a question about this. Obviously Christ did not suffer from original sin as we do, so He did not have a fallen nature as we do. So when the bible mentions He was tempted I would think it was not exactly the same as when we are tempted.

By that I mean we may be drawn to the tempation and in the end hopefully do not give in. He must have just been exposed to the temptation without even even considering giving in?

Does that make sense?
Why obviously? If he did not have a fallen nature where was the victory?

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:5)

If Jesus did not have a fallen nature he could not be tested in every respect as we are.
 
Why obviously? If he did not have a fallen nature where was the victory?

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.(Heb 4:5)

If Jesus did not have a fallen nature he could not be tested in every respect as we are.
Man was not created with a fallen nature. Eve and Adam were tempted “as we are” and they were not created with a fallen nature. Jesus is the “second Adam.”

Jesus could be *tempted *from without, as we see in the Gospels, but with his human will fully conformed to the will of the Father, he could not fall. “Thy will be done.”
 
Just a point on this. Jesus could have sinned. He was tempted just as we are. Sinning is going against the will of God, disobeying God.

In his human nature Jesus had a rational soul, a human will. Therefore in his human nature he could have acted against the will of the Father.

“His state was divine,
yet he did not cling
to his equality with God
but empties himself
to assume the condition of a slave,
and became as men are”
(Phil 2:6-7)

In his human nature he assumed the same limitations we have. That is why, although Son of God, he “increased in wisdom, in stature, and in favour with God and men.” (Lk 2:52)
Natures do not sin, persons do. The Church teaches that Christ had both a human and Divine nature, but He was most definately a Divine Person, and therefore could not sin without ceasing to be Himself since to sin is to go against the Divine, to go against God.

Peace and God bless!
 
Just a point on this. Jesus could have sinned. He was tempted just as we are.
Jesus never could have sinned. He was impeccable. His purpose in coming down was to be the pure, unblemished sacrificial lamb. If he had sinned this would have been impossible.
Sinning is going against the will of God, disobeying God.
Exactly, and how can God disobey himself? God cannot sin. Jesus was fully human, yes. But he was also fully God and therefore could not sin.
 
Natures do not sin, persons do. The Church teaches that Christ had both a human and Divine nature, but He was most definately a Divine Person, and therefore could not sin without ceasing to be Himself since to sin is to go against the Divine, to go against God.

Peace and God bless!
40.png
Verita:
Exactly, and how can God disobey himself? God cannot sin. Jesus was fully human, yes. But he was also fully God and therefore could not sin.
Let me say first of all that if anyone can demonstrate that I’m wrong I will gladly change my understanding of this. By demonstrate I mean from Church documents (e.g. the Cathechism) or from Scripture. In the meantime I continue.

As I said before Jesus was fully human with a human will. He was like us in all things but sin. He could not sin in his Divine nature but he could sin in his human nature.

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.(CCC 467)

Moreover scripture tells us

“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, (Heb 5:7-9).
Jesus never could have sinned. He was impeccable. His purpose in coming down was to be the pure, unblemished sacrificial lamb. If he had sinned this would have been impossible.
Jesus came to be the pure unblemished lamb, that it why he had to become perfect. He could have sinned, but he didn’t.

When we are baptized we are forgiven original sin. But as the Catechism says certain temporal consequences remain.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”(CCC 1264)

Jesus competed according to the rules – and won – and therefore received the crown.
 
Man was not created with a fallen nature. Eve and Adam were tempted “as we are” and they were not created with a fallen nature. Jesus is the “second Adam.”

Jesus could be *tempted *from without, as we see in the Gospels, but with his human will fully conformed to the will of the Father, he could not fall. “Thy will be done.”
Yes, that is what I was looking for.
…Like Adam, Christ (the second Adam) endured temptation only from without, inasmuch as His human nature was free from all concupiscence; but unlike Adam, He withstood the assaults of the Tempter on all points, thereby affording His mystical members a perfect model of resistance to their spiritual enemy, and a permanent source of victorious help (Hebrews 4:15-16).
 
464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed “that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.”[89] Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.”[93] Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.”[94]
I’m at work right now so I don’t have alot of time or resources. But if you afirm that Jesus was fully God, than you have to admit that he could not sin because God cannot sin.
 
Let me say first of all that if anyone can demonstrate that I’m wrong I will gladly change my understanding of this.
Hi Steve,

It is admirable that you have this disposition, and it shows your character and sincerity.

I have a few resources that might help:

The Second Council of Constantinople condems this position:
  1. If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that. . . Christ. . … became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin.
By implication, this would mean that Christ was immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin before the resurrection. “Immutable in his thoughts” would be a statement of His impeccability (incapable of sin).

Regarding Christ’s impeccability in general, and the various approaches to explain that, please see the old Catholic Encyclopedia: The Incarnation (scroll down to the section on the human soul of Christ)

Interestingly, Fr. McBrien’s tome Catholicism takes the erroneous position that Christ could have sinned. The National Council of Catholic Bishops, upon reviewing the work, points out that Fr. McBrien misses the mark in denying Christ’s impeccability. See the review here: Review of Fr. McBrien’s Catholicism

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
 
Yes, that is what I was looking for.
New Advent web site is not an official Church document.

You quote from Hebrews (below) does not substantiate the point you quote. He was tempted in all things like we are, without sin.

4:15. For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.
4:16. Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.

518 Christ’s whole life is a mystery of recapitulation. All Jesus did, said and suffered had for its aim restoring fallen man to his original vocation:
When Christ became incarnate and was made man, he recapitulated in himself the long history of mankind and procured for us a “short cut” to salvation, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus.For this reason Christ experienced all the stages of life, thereby giving communion with God to all men. (CCC518)
 
I’m at work right now so I don’t have alot of time or resources. But if you afirm that Jesus was fully God, than you have to admit that he could not sin because God cannot sin.
But he was fully man. And in his human nature there was the possibility to sin. He could be, and was, tempted but did not sin.
 
Hi Steve,

It is admirable that you have this disposition, and it shows your character and sincerity.

I have a few resources that might help:

The Second Council of Constantinople condems this position:

By implication, this would mean that Christ was immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin before the resurrection. “Immutable in his thoughts” would be a statement of His impeccability (incapable of sin).

Regarding Christ’s impeccability in general, and the various approaches to explain that, please see the old Catholic Encyclopedia: The Incarnation (scroll down to the section on the human soul of Christ)

Interestingly, Fr. McBrien’s tome Catholicism takes the erroneous position that Christ could have sinned. The National Council of Catholic Bishops, upon reviewing the work, points out that Fr. McBrien misses the mark in denying Christ’s impeccability. See the review here: Review of Fr. McBrien’s Catholicism

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
Posts are coming in faster than I can keep up, and I have to go now. However I will look into the points you raise above.

Thanks

Steve
 
I remember hearing that Jesus did not sin in this situation because he had ‘righteous anger’ toward those who were defiling the temple and thus, Jesus was right in throwing them out and therefore it was not a sin…

any thoughts?
 
But he was fully man. And in his human nature there was the possibility to sin. He could be, and was, tempted but did not sin.
Yes, indeed. But the quotes I posted above from the CCC show that his human nature was subject to his divine person. The Son of God, the Word, the divine person took on a human nature. And that human nature was in perfect cooperation with the divine person. Hence, it could not sin. If he could have sinned, his human nature would not have been in complete unity with his divine nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top