Could Jesus have sinned?

[trumpet152]

I was in my doctrines class the other day (I attend a Baptist college) and the question was asked about Christ’s nature. Was it possible for him to sin? I said no, but the entire class (with the exception of one student next to me) said that his human nature could sin, but his divinee nature could not. This seems a little off to me. What do you guys think?

 

[RyanL]

trumpet152:

… his human nature could sin, but his divinee nature could not…

This is potentially heretical, depending on which way this is taken - be very careful, 'cuz it gets tricky.

Regarding the hypostatic union of Christ, at the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, the Church declared that Christ’s two natures are joined “in one person and one hypostasis."

The phrase hypostatic union was adopted by the fifth general council at Constantinople, 533 AD. That council declared that the union of two natures is real (against Arius), not a mere indwelling of God in a man (against Nestorius), with a rational soul (against Apollinaris), and that in Christ’s divine nature remains unchanged (against Eutyches).

Christ’s divine will is separate from His human will.(LK 22:42) “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” However, both wills are always in perfect harmony because His human will always aligns itself with His divine will.

Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that Christ did not have Original Sin, and thus possessed Original Justice and lacked concupiscence. Basically, He could see sin for what it was, and detested it. It is unlikely that possessing the beatific vision, Christ would be able to sin, as the saints in heaven possess same and cannot sin.
Ref:
LAMENTABILI SANE

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed…

1. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.

Ref:

%between%

Benedict XII (1336):
We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530–old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).
…
To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403)
…
The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purest love of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical.

At least, this is the case as far as I can tell…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Aaron_I]

The belief that Jesus’ human and divine natures are separate is a heresy. Protestants open themselves up to this heresy by denying that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is obviously the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God; so for Protestants to deny that Mary is the mother of God, they have to pretend that Mary was only the mother of Jesus’ human nature and not of his divine nature. This ridiculous assertion comes about in an attempt to give greater glory to God (by eliminating attention to Mary) but only succeeds in distorting the truth about Christ. Remember, every Marian doctrine points towards our Savior and reaffirms a truth about Him.

 

[john_doran]

Aaron I.:

The belief that Jesus’ human and divine natures are separate is a heresy.

you’ve got this backwards: the doctrine that jesus’ divine and human wills are the same is heretical - it’s the doctrine of monotheletism, which was condemned by the third council of constantinople.

however, while the two wills are distinct in christ, they always act in harmony.

EDIT: oops - i see now that you said “natures” and not “wills”. still, though, depending on what you mean by “separate”, you’re still a little off: monophysitism is the heretical doctrine that there was only one nature in christ.

the catholic doctrine is that there are two distinct natures in christ - one divine and one human - but that they are united in one hypostasis in one person.

 

[Lazerlike42]

john doran:

you’ve got this backwards: the doctrine that jesus’ divine and human wills are the same is heretical - it’s the doctrine of monotheletism, which was condemned by the third council of constantinople.

however, while the two wills are distinct in christ, they always act in harmony.

You’re confusing two heresies here.

doctrine that Jesus’ human and divine natures are seperate = Nestorianism.

doctrine that Jesus’ human and divine wills are the same = monotheletism

will is not the same thing as nature

 

[john_doran]

Lazerlike42:

You’re confusing two heresies here.

doctrine that Jesus’ human and divine natures are seperate = Nestorianism.

this is not exactly right: nestorianism is the heresy that jesus was two persons. there are also some related marian heresies that he taught.

Lazerlike42:

doctrine that Jesus’ human and divine wills are the same = monotheletism

will is not the same thing as nature

yup - see my edit of my original post.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Look up peccability impeccability Jesus sin

Here is a google search on those terms:

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=peccability+or+impeccability++Jesus+sin&btnG=Search

 

[quijote]

Quick question related to this subject:

Is it correct to say that Christ’s natures are “100% divine and 100%human” since his human nature did not have original sin? I’m having a hard time understanding how his human nature can be “fully” human if he does not have Original Sin (like we do).

Thanks.

 

[LRThunder]

quijote:

Quick question related to this subject:

Is it correct to say that Christ’s natures are “100% divine and 100%human” since his human nature did not have original sin? I’m having a hard time understanding how his human nature can be “fully” human if he does not have Original Sin (like we do).

Thanks.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Original Sin passed down through human fathers? If so, since he didn’t have a human father, he could not have Original Sin within his human nature.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

trumpet152:

I was in my doctrines class the other day (I attend a Baptist college) and the question was asked about Christ’s nature. Was it possible for him to sin? I said no, but the entire class (with the exception of one student next to me) said that his human nature could sin, but his divinee nature could not. This seems a little off to me. What do you guys think?

From a Catholic perspective, Jesus was impeccable (could not sin) by virtue of the hypostatic union.

Ask your Baptist friend if they believe man can sin in heaven? If no, ask why? If our union with God in heaven is perfecting enough for sinners like us, sufficient enough to make us impeccable in heaven, then the hypostatic union for Jesus throughout his Incarnation likewise made it impossible for Jesus to sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m having a hard time understanding how his human nature can be “fully” human if he does not have Original Sin (like we do).

Original sin is not part of human nature. Think about it… Adam was human without Original Sin, right?

In the beginning, God made man with three kinds of gifts:

1. human nature or “natural gifts”
2. Supernatural gifts
3. Preternatural gifts

Because of Adam’s sin, he lost all but gift #1 (human nature). His human nature did not substantially change. What changed was the lack of other gifts which served to intrisically “elevate” his human nature. Nonetheless, he only lost gifts #2 & #3, but retained his original human nature (gift #1).

We inherit gift #1–human nature–by virtue of natural generation. Jesus inhereted this gift too, as he was born of Mary. We did not inherit gifts #2 nor gift #3 by natural generation. Neither did Mary or Jesus inhereit these gifts by natural generation.

Gift #2 includes sanctifying grace. That we lack gift #2 when we are made is called “original sin,” because we lack the original justice that Adam had been given when they were made.

Although Mary did not receive gift #2 by natural generation, she did received it by Divine supernatural intervention. She was “born from above” at conception.

Jesus did not receive gfit #2 by natural generation. Why? Because He is the Gift-giver. He is Divine and required no such gift. Thus, he was indeed without original sin as he did not lack sanctifying grace.

And yet, Jesus and Mary differed in the manner in which they possessed sanctifying grace. Mary possessed it in such a way that she was not impeccable. She could have sinned, yet didn’t. Mary, like all the saints, was made impeccable when she came into the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Jesus, on the other hand, ALWAYS possessed the Beatific Vision in its perfection. Thus, Jesus was impeccable.

 

[Douay-Rheims]

If Christ had sinned then He could not be God, could He? Then if that were the case then Christianity would be a farce, wouldn’t it? This is heresy! It never ceases to amaze me on how easy some of these “so-called” Christians are willing call their Redeemer a sinner, no better than mere man.

 

[quijote]

LRThunder:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Original Sin passed down through human fathers? If so, since he didn’t have a human father, he could not have Original Sin within his human nature.

I agree with what you say. I’m having a conversation with an atheist/agnostic on another site and I could not coherently answer the question of how Christ can be “fully” human w/out the human attribute of sinning.

 

[quijote]

itsjustdave1988:

Original sin is not part of human nature. Think about it… Adam was human without Original Sin, right?

In the beginning, God made man with three kinds of gifts:

1. human nature or “natural gifts”
2. Supernatural gifts
3. Preternatural gifts

Because of Adam’s sin, he lost all but gift #1 (human nature). His human nature did not substantially change. What changed was the lack of other gifts which served to intrisically “elevate” his human nature. Nonetheless, he only lost gifts #2 & #3, but retained his original human nature (gift #1).

We inherit gift #1–human nature–by virtue of natural generation. Jesus inhereted this gift too, as he was born of Mary. We did not inherit gifts #2 nor gift #3 by natural generation. Neither did Mary or Jesus inhereit these gifts by natural generation.

Gift #2 includes sanctifying grace. That we lack gift #2 when we are made is called “original sin,” because we lack the original justice that Adam had been given when they were made.

Although Mary did not receive gift #2 by natural generation, she did received it by Divine supernatural intervention. She was “born from above” at conception.

Jesus did not receive gfit #2 by natural generation. Why? Because He is the Gift-giver. He is Divine and required no such gift. Thus, he was indeed without original sin as he did not lack sanctifying grace.

And yet, Jesus and Mary differed in the manner in which they possessed sanctifying grace. Mary possessed it in such a way that she was not impeccable. She could have sinned, yet didn’t. Mary, like all the saints, was made impeccable when she came into the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Jesus, on the other hand, ALWAYS possessed the Beatific Vision in its perfection. Thus, Jesus was impeccable.

Thank you for your response

I kinda guessed something like that, but could not phrase it coherently. I’m having a conversation w/an atheist/agnostic on another site and this question came up and I could not answer it.