The Impeccability of Christ

[steph_86]

The Catholic Church formally teaches that Christ never sinned. At the same time, it is stated that Christ as a possessor of the human Nature, had a True human Intellect, and a True human Will. In other words, Christ was truly Free, and as His numerous temptations evidently show, it was possible for our Lord to sin. It is partly for this reason that He merited Grace for us, by obeying the Father’s Will, and suffering for humanity the satisfaction for Sin.

However, how can this be reconciled with the Church’s teaching that from the moment of His Conception, Our Lord had the immediate.Vision of the Divine Essence? That is to say, that, Christ beheld His Father, Face to Face, and due to the Hypostatic Union between the Word and His human Nature, Jesus Christ knew in His human Intellect, that He was indeed a Divine Person.

According to Thomistic teaching, it is said that the Beatific vision, which is the immediate and intuitive vision of the Divine Essence, grants immunity to sin. The reason being that because God is man’s final supernatural end, and as well as the Supreme Good, the vision of His Essence grants rational creatures perfect happiness, invincibly attracts them to God, as well as perfectly unites them to Him in love.

As such, since Christ by virtue of being the Son of God, and the Word Incarnate, had the right and the continued possession of the Beatific Vision, that is, of seeing God Face to Face, how then, was there a possibility for Him of ever committing an act of sin?

 

[lmelahn]

The Catholic Church formally teaches that Christ never sinned. At the same time, it is stated that Christ as a possessor of the human Nature, had a True human Intellect, and a True human Will. In other words, Christ was truly Free, and as His numerous temptations evidently show, it was possible for our Lord to sin. It is partly for this reason that He merited Grace for us, by obeying the Father’s Will, and suffering for humanity the satisfaction for Sin.

As such, since Christ by virtue of being the Son of God, and the Word Incarnate, had the right and the continued possession of the Beatific Vision, that is, of seeing God Face to Face, how then, was there a possibility for Him of ever committing an act of sin?

Careful. Jesus was incapable of sinning. That would have been incompatible, not only with the Beatific Vision, but with being fully divine. Remember, the Person who is the subject of all of Jesus’ actions is the Second Person of the Trinity. If I ask, “Who was born of the Virgin Mary, performed miracles, died on the Cross, and so on?” the answer is, “The Second Person of the Trinity, or Divine Word.” The Second Person (who is God) cannot sin.

Of course, being able to sin is not an absolutely necessary property of human nature. In fact, once we have the Beatific Vision (in Heaven), we will be incapable of sinning, too. That does not take away from the fact that we have (and will continue to have) a true and free will, even in Heaven. It is just that our freedom to act will be employed entirely in things that are good. Jesus would have experienced something similar to that when he was on earth.

Keep in mind, too, that Jesus in his human nature did not have the stain of Original Sin, either, and so he did not have concupiscence. For that reason, sin would not even have been attractive to him, as it often is for us. Jesus merited salvation for us, not because he overcame the possibility of committing sin, but because he was perfectly obedient to the Father and also (in so doing) took upon himself the punishment due to sin, even though he did not deserve it in any way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Catholic Church formally teaches that Christ never sinned. At the same time, it is stated that Christ as a possessor of the human Nature, had a True human Intellect, and a True human Will. In other words, Christ was truly Free, and as His numerous temptations evidently show, it was possible for our Lord to sin. It is partly for this reason that He merited Grace for us, by obeying the Father’s Will, and suffering for humanity the satisfaction for Sin.

You are wrong here. The fact that Christ was tempted does not mean that he could have sinned. Sin was impossible for him because his human nature already enjoyed the Beatific Vision. You must remember, Christ really suffered under these temptations because of his human nature. But his intellect and will were already perfectly united to the Will of the Father. So actual sin was impossible.

Also remember, his temptations were not those of concupiscence. His passions were perfectly ordered to the Will of the Father. He suffered hunger, thirst, cold, illness, etc. But that is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is the tendency of the will to accede to or concent to a disorded act. This, Christ did not have. His will had no disordered tendency. Suffer yes, sin no, not even the possibility.

Of course the Devil, did not know for sure that this was the Christ. There was no temptation from a human perspective. To Christ it was nothing more than a human inconvenience, he was hungry and tired and this just stupid effort of Satan just made him suffer all the more. Rather it was an effort on the part of Satan to discover who this man was and that could be done only by holding before him " fruits " which he knew would make most men sin. It was an effort at temptation on Satan’s side, but not a temptation on Chrust’s side, just more suffering because it required him to exercise patience when he was bone weary tired, hungry and thirsty. But Christ answered him skillfully and probably Satan went away thinking he was dealing with just another powerful prophet, wise and strong, but still just a human.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

You are wrong here. The fact that Christ was tempted does not mean that he could have sinned. Sin was impossible for him because his human nature already enjoyed the Beatific Vision. You must remember, Christ really suffered under these temptations because of his human nature. But his intellect and will were already perfectly united to the Will of the Father. So actual sin was impossible.

Also remember, his temptations were not those of concupiscence. His passions were perfectly ordered to the Will of the Father. He suffered hunger, thirst, cold, illness, etc. But that is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is the tendency of the will to accede to or concent to a disorded act. This, Christ did not have. His will had no disordered tendency. Suffer yes, sin no, not even the possibility.

Of course the Devil, did not know for sure that this was the Christ. There was no temptation from a human perspective. To Christ it was nothing more than a human inconvenience, he was hungry and tired and this just stupid effort of Satan just made him suffer all the more. Rather it was an effort on the part of Satan to discover who this man was and that could be done only by holding before him " fruits " which he knew would make most men sin. It was an effort at temptation on Satan’s side, but not a temptation on Christ’s side, just more suffering because it required him to exercise patience when he was bone weary tired, hungry and thirsty. But Christ answered him skillfully and probably Satan went away thinking he was dealing with just another powerful prophet, wise and strong, but still just a human.

Linus2nd

I agree with you that the Son of God is impeccable but I don’t believe Satan is as stupid as you think!

 

[steph_86]

Careful. Jesus was incapable of sinning. That would have been incompatible, not only with the Beatific Vision, but with being fully divine. Remember, the Person who is the subject of all of Jesus’ actions is the Second Person of the Trinity. If I ask, “Who was born of the Virgin Mary, performed miracles, died on the Cross, and so on?” the answer is, “The Second Person of the Trinity, or Divine Word.” The Second Person (who is God) cannot sin.

Of course, being able to sin is not an absolutely necessary property of human nature. In fact, once we have the Beatific Vision (in Heaven), we will be incapable of sinning, too. That does not take away from the fact that we have (and will continue to have) a true and free will, even in Heaven. It is just that our freedom to act will be employed entirely in things that are good. Jesus would have experienced something similar to that when he was on earth.

Keep in mind, too, that Jesus in his human nature did not have the stain of Original Sin, either, and so he did not have concupiscence. For that reason, sin would not even have been attractive to him, as it often is for us. Jesus merited salvation for us, not because he overcame the possibility of committing sin, but because he was perfectly obedient to the Father and also (in so doing) took upon himself the punishment due to sin, even though he did not deserve it in any way.

I understand. The way I understand it, it was physically impossible for Christ to sin. As you have stated the Beatific Vision, His Divine Personality, as well as His Obedience to the Father made it impossible for Him to sin.

At the same time, it must be admitted that Christ waged a true battle against the Devil, as well as against the world. The Bible does state:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” ( Hebrews 4:15 )

As it must be admitted, it is not possible to tempt God, but it is possible, to tempt man. Thus, it was in His Human Nature, that Christ was tempted. As such, it must be asked how Christ could be tempted if He had no possibility of making free choices that would make Him turn towards Self, and thus, against God. It must be noted, however, that, in my estimation, true freedom, is the ability to do the Good. As Christ has stated:

“Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

This is why God is Supremely Free, and the saints also are more free than the ordinary people. But the question of the impeccability of Christ, is a serious matter. It is my contention, however, that the main temptation of Christ, was the temptation to reject His Mission. The instances of this temptation are seen, in the Temptation in the Desert, as well as in St Peter’s opposition to the Death of Christ on the Cross.

Jesus obeyed and perfectly conformed Himself to the Will of the Father, He fulfilled the prophecies in Scripture and taught the Perfect Doctrine, but above all He offered satisfaction for Sin and Original Sin, and died willingly on the Cross.

Since Jesus was not subject to concupiscence, He was nevertheless put to the Test by the Devil and the world. That is to say that, Christ’s temptations were not internal, but only external. But in my estimation, it must be admitted that, although Jesus was immune to Sin, He did have to wage a true and a real battle against the Devil, and the world. This is quite evident in His Agony in the Garden of Olives, where He prayed to the Father, asking:

“Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. When he arrived at the place he said to them, “Pray that you may not undergo the test. After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed,a saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done. And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.” (Luke 22: 39-44)

In this instance, Christ fought in order to conform His Human Will, to His Divine Will, or to the Will of the Father. But it must be asked where Christ’s merit actually resides. If Christ was invincibly immune to sin, then, in my understanding, He would have had no merit in resisting temptation. In other words, He would not have merited for Humanity.

My personal hypothesis is that, although Christ was invincibly immune to Sin, it was possible, or I think it would more appropriate to say conceivable for Him to sin, because of the presence of Evil on the Earth. In Heaven, there is no Evil, and there are no factors that might distract the Blessed from the contemplation of the Godhead. But at the same time, this explanation is not sufficient since, after His Resurrection it was absolutely impossible for Christ to sin since He had already accomplished His Mission, The Sacrifice, and He had already been Glorified.

Doesn’t Glorification free man from the weaknesses of the flesh, free him from the alterations in his freedom, and confirm him in Good?

I have been reading the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas, and I could not find a Question addressing the matter of Christ’s impeccability. Can someone help in this matter, or suggest some resources?

 

[lmelahn]

I have been reading the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas, and I could not find a Question addressing the matter of Christ’s impeccability. Can someone help in this matter, or suggest some resources?

Try question 15Summa. It does not directly answer the question of whether Christ could possibly or conceivably have sinned. However, I think we can deduce that St. Thomas would have argued that Jesus was absolutely incapable of sin, even on earth.

Jesus’ inability to sin stems from the fact that His human nature is perfectly united (or as the theologians say, hypostatically united) to His Divine Nature. To put it simply, Jesus is not a human person: He is a Divine Person, namely, the Son. That God the Son could will a sinful act is simply repugnant to reason (even if He did it with His human will).

Remember that the reason that we are incapable of sin in Heaven is not so much because there is no evil there. Rather, it is because we will be able to see the Supreme Good directly, and evil things (which can only attract us under the appearance of being good) will not attract us at all. Of course, there are no evil things in Heaven, but that is the effect, rather than the cause.

So even if we don’t consider Jesus’ Hypostatic Union, the fact that He possessed the Beatific Vision would have made sin impossible–absolutely impossible–because He was already in possession of the Supreme Good. To put it simply, sin (as a possible course of action for Himself) simply would not have interested Him or exerted any attraction whatsoever.

A sign of this is that he didn’t even have the fomes of sin (the “tinder for sin,” what today we usually call concupiscence, the inclination of fallen man to sinful behavior).

That doesn’t mean He couldn’t struggle or even permit Himself to be tempted by the Devil (which he obviously did). He could even experience the desire to escape from some aspects of his mission (as, for example, in the Agony in the Garden), but none of these desires was in any way sinful. (In fact, it would not even have been sinful for Jesus to give in to them. Returning to the Agony in the Garden, He was not obligated to undergo the Passion: after all, He was not obliged to save us at all, and He could have found an easier way.)

(I hope I didn’t misunderstand your answer : I am not exactly sure what you meant by “physically” impossible, and how that is different from “absolutely” impossible.)

 

[tonyrey]

I understand. The way I understand it, it was physically impossible for Christ to sin. As you have stated the Beatific Vision, His Divine Personality, as well as His Obedience to the Father made it impossible for Him to sin.

At the same time, it must be admitted that Christ waged a true battle against the Devil, as well as against the world. The Bible does state:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” ( Hebrews 4:15 )

As it must be admitted, it is not possible to tempt God, but it is possible, to tempt man. Thus, it was in His Human Nature, that Christ was tempted. As such, it must be asked how Christ could be tempted if He had no possibility of making free choices that would make Him turn towards Self, and thus, against God. It must be noted, however, that, in my estimation, true freedom, is the ability to do the Good. As Christ has stated:

“Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

This is why God is Supremely Free, and the saints also are more free than the ordinary people. But the question of the impeccability of Christ, is a serious matter. It is my contention, however, that the main temptation of Christ, was the temptation to reject His Mission. The instances of this temptation are seen, in the Temptation in the Desert, as well as in St Peter’s opposition to the Death of Christ on the Cross.

Jesus obeyed and perfectly conformed Himself to the Will of the Father, He fulfilled the prophecies in Scripture and taught the Perfect Doctrine, but above all He offered satisfaction for Sin and Original Sin, and died willingly on the Cross.

Since Jesus was not subject to concupiscence, He was nevertheless put to the Test by the Devil and the world. That is to say that, Christ’s temptations were not internal, but only external. But in my estimation, it must be admitted that, although Jesus was immune to Sin, He did have to wage a true and a real battle against the Devil, and the world. This is quite evident in His Agony in the Garden of Olives, where He prayed to the Father, asking:

“Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. When he arrived at the place he said to them, “Pray that you may not undergo the test. After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed,a saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done. And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.” (Luke 22: 39-44)

In this instance, Christ fought in order to conform His Human Will, to His Divine Will, or to the Will of the Father. But it must be asked where Christ’s merit actually resides. If Christ was invincibly immune to sin, then, in my understanding, He would have had no merit in resisting temptation. In other words, He would not have merited for Humanity.

My personal hypothesis is that, although Christ was invincibly immune to Sin, it was possible, or I think it would more appropriate to say conceivable for Him to sin, because of the presence of Evil on the Earth. In Heaven, there is no Evil, and there are no factors that might distract the Blessed from the contemplation of the Godhead. But at the same time, this explanation is not sufficient since, after His Resurrection it was absolutely impossible for Christ to sin since He had already accomplished His Mission, The Sacrifice, and He had already been Glorified.

Doesn’t Glorification free man from the weaknesses of the flesh, free him from the alterations in his freedom, and confirm him in Good?

I have been reading the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas, and I could not find a Question addressing the matter of Christ’s impeccability. Can someone help in this matter, or suggest some resources?

Impeccable… logic! I don’t think you need any resources.

 

[tonyrey]

I have been reading the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas, and I could not find a Question addressing the matter of Christ’s impeccability. Can someone help in this matter, or suggest some resources?

There is a fascinating account of his views online:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=1GvL3eKhoM8C&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=aquinas+impeccability&source=bl&ots=mq4zYsd_lB&sig=xu38vKIKb8MSvvxvaEOJ7zs-gXM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=743ZUrykNYSThQeR7IHgBw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=aquinas%20impeccability&f=false

 

[steph_86]

Try Part III of the Summa question 15. It does not directly answer the question of whether Christ could possibly or conceivably have sinned. However, I think we can deduce that St. Thomas would have argued that Jesus was absolutely incapable of sin, even on earth.

Jesus’ inability to sin stems from the fact that His human nature is perfectly united (or as the theologians say, hypostatically united) to His Divine Nature. To put it simply, Jesus is not a human person: He is a Divine Person, namely, the Son. That God the Son could will a sinful act is simply repugnant to reason (even if He did it with His human will).

Remember that the reason that we are incapable of sin in Heaven is not so much because there is no evil there. Rather, it is because we will be able to see the Supreme Good directly, and evil things (which can only attract us under the appearance of being good) will not attract us at all. Of course, there are no evil things in Heaven, but that is the effect, rather than the cause.

So even if we don’t consider Jesus’ Hypostatic Union, the fact that He possessed the Beatific Vision would have made sin impossible–absolutely impossible–because He was already in possession of the Supreme Good. To put it simply, sin (as a possible course of action for Himself) simply would not have interested Him or exerted any attraction whatsoever.

A sign of this is that he didn’t even have the fomes of sin (the “tinder for sin,” what today we usually call concupiscence, the inclination of fallen man to sinful behavior).

I understand your points.

That doesn’t mean He couldn’t struggle or even permit Himself to be tempted by the Devil (which he obviously did). He could even experience the desire to escape from some aspects of his mission (as, for example, in the Agony in the Garden), but none of these desires was in any way sinful. (In fact, it would not even have been sinful for Jesus to give in to them. Returning to the Agony in the Garden, He was not obligated to undergo the Passion

However, I do not agree with the statement that In fact, it would not even have been sinful for Jesus to give in to them. I think that the Gospels repeatedly make it clearly known that it was the Will of the Father that Jesus “lay down His Life” and die on the Cross."

"This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father.” - John 10: 17-18

Also, in the Bible Jesus rebukes St. Peter when the latter affirms that he will not allow Jesus to die. In fact, He calls St. Peter Satan, and says that Peter’s statement opposes the Will of the Father that He die.

'From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you. He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

• Matthew 16: 21-23

after all, He was not obliged to save us at all, and He could have found an easier way.)

I sort of agree with this statement. It is the consensus of the theologians that God could have found another way in other to work out Salvation.

(I hope I didn’t misunderstand your answer : I am not exactly sure what you meant by “physically” impossible, and how that is different from “absolutely” impossible.)

Thank you for your response. I meant “physically impossible” due to the Hypostatic Union, that is, the unity of the Divine and of the Human natures in the Person of the Christ, the Incarnate Word.

By “absolutely” impossible I meant that it was both impossible and inconceivable for Christ to be able to sin, I suppose primarily due to the impassibility of His Human Nature. I mean by that statement that He was now immune from temptation, freed from the limitations of His Body due to now being endowed with a Glorified Body, and having now been established in Heaven as the Christ, with Power, Glory, and the authority to Judge as the God-Man.

 

[lmelahn]

However, I do not agree with the statement that In fact, it would not even have been sinful for Jesus to give in to them. I think that the Gospels repeatedly make it clearly known that it was the Will of the Father that Jesus “lay down His Life” and die on the Cross."

Well, it was certainly the will of the Father for Jesus to suffer and die (His permissive will, of course), but does it follow that Jesus was obliged under pain of sin to follow it? It seems to me a choice between “good” (saving his life) and “better” (laying down his life for our sake) not between good and evil.

That doesn’t mean I think that Jesus ever seriously considered escaping from his Passion. (In fact, I don’t; Jesus would always have desired to choose the better way.) I simply think that doing so wouldn’t have been sinful, per se.

It is the consensus of the theologians that God could have found another way in other to work out Salvation.

This problem is amply dealt with in Question 46 of the Third Part of the Summa. As a sheer metaphysical possibility, so to speak, God could simply have said, “You are saved,” and we would have been saved. There are a number of reasons why such a course of action would have been unfitting, but that is a different question. (See Article 2 in particular and also the body of Article 1 which describes the different types of necessity.) And anyway, God was not obliged to save us at all (much as this, too, would have been unfitting).

I meant “physically impossible” due to the Hypostatic Union, that is, the unity of the Divine and of the Human natures in the Person of the Christ, the Incarnate Word.

By “absolutely” impossible I meant that it was both impossible and inconceivable for Christ to be able to sin, I suppose primarily due to the impassibility of His Human Nature. I mean by that statement that He was now immune from temptation, freed from the limitations of His Body due to now being endowed with a Glorified Body, and having now been established in Heaven as the Christ, with Power, Glory, and the authority to Judge as the God-Man.

Basically, even though Jesus was voluntarily in statu viatoris (that is, in the condition of those of us who have not yet reached heaven), I think that his Beatific Vision would have made any type of sin completely unattractive. He was already in possession of the Supreme Good, so lesser goods (or evils posing as lesser goods) would not have been capable of moving him. So, for example, when we say that Christ was tempted, we don’t mean that he experienced the concupiscence of the flesh, but that the Devil was attempting to provoke Him to do sinful actions. In other words, the temptations were strictly external (thought not, for that reason, less difficult to overcome). (Again, see the Summa, III, Article 41.) Therefore, I would tend to think that Jesus was absolutely incapable of sin, according to your definition: that is, I can’t conceive of any way he could have committed sin.

Even if we grant that avoiding the Passion would have been sinful, I think that would still hold. (We would have to account for the Agony in the Garden, but even so, we have to conclude that Jesus was always deeply committed to fulfilling the Father’s will, while understandably experiencing a strong desire to preserve his own life. Accepting the Passion required an effort on his part to make his human will conform to the Divine Will, but he made that effort, and in that way won our redemption.)

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Who says Jesus could have sinned? Being 100% God Jesus was not capable of sinning. Your mistake is in thinking that we’re saying He was capable of sinning. Jesus’ mission was to become man and die for our sins. Period. Jesus was 100% man but without the sin nature or fallen nature of man which is what Made Him the perfect sinless sacrifice.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Of course the Devil, did not know for sure that this was the Christ. There was no temptation from a human perspective. To Christ it was nothing more than a human inconvenience, he was hungry and tired and this just stupid effort of Satan just made him suffer all the more. Rather it was an effort on the part of Satan to discover who this man was and that could be done only by holding before him " fruits " which he knew would make most men sin. It was an effort at temptation on Satan’s side, but not a temptation on Chrust’s side, just more suffering because it required him to exercise patience when he was bone weary tired, hungry and thirsty. But Christ answered him skillfully and probably Satan went away thinking he was dealing with just another powerful prophet, wise and strong, but still just a human.

Linus2nd

Well said, I totally agree!

I agree with you that the Son of God is impeccable but I don’t believe Satan is as stupid as you think!

Yes he is that stupid, he was dumb enough to waste his time trying to tempt God and he was dumb enough to NOT know that dying was all a part of the plan. He thought he was accomplishing something when he got the people to crucify Jesus. The devil is NOT all knowing and NOT all seeing.

 

[steph_86]

Well, it was certainly the will of the Father for Jesus to suffer and die (His permissive will, of course), but does it follow that Jesus was obliged under pain of sin to follow it? It seems to me a choice between “good” (saving his life) and “better” (laying down his life for our sake) not between good and evil.

That doesn’t mean I think that Jesus ever seriously considered escaping from his Passion. (In fact, I don’t; Jesus would always have desired to choose the better way.) I simply think that doing so wouldn’t have been sinful, per se.

As a poster stated above earlier, Jesus’ merit consisted in obeying with His Human Will the Will of His Father. Each act of obedience, or of mortification that Christ posed was in the Person of the Son, or the Word incarnate.

Yes, even though Christ was impeccable, He was still free, that is, free in Human Nature. As such, His acts of obedience in His Human Nature were meritorious, but primarily meritorious for Humanity, since Christ acted as Head of Humanity.

Since the death of Christ was the Will and the command of God, if Christ had resisted and not fulfilled that command, He would have formally sinned with His Human Will. Indeed, the opposite of obedience is disobedience, which in reality, is a defect or a privation of Good in liberty. And disobedience, is a sin.

Although Christ was God, and a Divine Person, He acted and suffered as Man, and He taught (and performed miracles) as the Man-God. But as Man, He remained inferior to the Father, to Whom He submitted His Intellect and His Will. Had Christ rejected the Divine Will, He would have acted against Justice, by presuming that because He was a Divine Person, He had not the obligation in His Human Nature to subject Himself to the Father. And this is what St. Paul states in the “Epistle to the Philippians”.

“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.” - Philippians 2: 5-8

This problem is amply dealt with in Question 46 of the Third Part of the Summa. As a sheer metaphysical possibility, so to speak, God could simply have said, “You are saved,” and we would have been saved. There are a number of reasons why such a course of action would have been unfitting, but that is a different question. (See Article 2 in particular and also the body of Article 1 which describes the different types of necessity.) And anyway, God was not obliged to save us at all (much as this, too, would have been unfitting).

I need to read that section. But I do agree, God was not obliged to save humanity. At the same time, I am not sure that God could have just said “you are saved” and we would have been saved. I think that such a statement is a bit leaning towards a sort of voluntarism on God’s part. The question in this instance, is whether God’s decrees are merely arbitrary, or whether they are in accordance with Reason (that is, God’s Reason) and binding upon God Himself. I think that in order to understand God’s decision and manner working out Salvation, it is proper to ask whether His decision and manner were Just and whether they were Fitting.

Just on the part of God and on the part of Man. On the part of God because the Honor of God was wounded by Original Sin. On the part of Man because Man was in a fallen state, and the Promise of his Redemption demanded satisfaction for Sin.

Whether the means of Redemption were fitting, that is, whether they would be able to satisfy the demands of Divine Justice perfectly, and whether they would effect the greatest Good for Man.

But yes, in matters of these mysteries, all that can be stated is that God is eminently and supremely Free to act, and to act as He wishes, that is, to act in accordance with His Love.

Nevertheless, I would like to know if I you can reconcile this notion that God can will (or act) as He wills, the Redemption of Man, without implying a tendency that God’s acts and decrees are voluntaristic, (and thus, perhaps, arbitrary).

Basically, even though Jesus was voluntarily in statu viatoris (that is, in the condition of those of us who have not yet reached heaven), I think that his Beatific Vision would have made any type of sin completely unattractive. He was already in possession of the Supreme Good, so lesser goods (or evils posing as lesser goods) would not have been capable of moving him. So, for example, when we say that Christ was tempted, we don’t mean that he experienced the concupiscence of the flesh, but that the Devil was attempting to provoke Him to do sinful actions. In other words, the temptations were strictly external (thought not, for that reason, less difficult to overcome). (Again, see the Summa, III, Article 41.) Therefore, I would tend to think that Jesus was absolutely incapable of sin, according to your definition: that is, I can’t conceive of any way he could have committed sin.

I agree with what you have said. I am still musing as to whether it was impossible but conceivable for Christ to sin. If forced to have a position, I probably side with the theological consensus: that Jesus was impeccable, and that thus, it was absolutely impossible for Him to sin.

 

[steph_86]

Even if we grant that avoiding the Passion would have been sinful, I think that would still hold. (We would have to account for the Agony in the Garden, but even so, we have to conclude that Jesus was always deeply committed to fulfilling the Father’s will, while understandably experiencing a strong desire to preserve his own life. Accepting the Passion required an effort on his part to make his human will conform to the Divine Will, but he made that effort, and in that way won our redemption.)

I agree. Christ did wage a real battle against the world and the Devil. His Agony in the Garden caused Him such distress that, He sweated “drops of blood”. His Intellect understood the necessity and the propriety of the Passion and the Sacrifice. His Spirit and His Will sought to conform to the Divine Will, but His Flesh was naturally repulsed at the thought and the contemplation of Suffering and above all, of Death.

“After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, saying, Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done. And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.”

• Luke 22: 41-44