The temptation in the desert: Could Jesus have sinned?

[bilop]

There’s still something I don’t understand. Why didn’t God create us in such a way that it is our nature to always be virtuous? Why didn’t God make sin as repulsive to us as it is to him? We wouldn’t be robots, in fact, we would apparently be even more free! The only reason I’ve recieved so far is that God wanted us to have a less than perfect nature so that he could send us a great redeemer. But that doesn’t make any sense. In effect, it means God wanted us to sin. God never wants us to sin. Sending us a redeemer was something God had to do to compensate for our sin.

Saying that we originally had perfect natures that were corrupted by the fall also doesn’t work, because That means we originally found sin to be just as repulsive as Jesus does. Which means Jesus was just as capable and as likely to sin as Adam and Eve were.

As creatures, we can’t be perfect like God. It is inherent to our nature. Only God is perfect, and he is eternal in all three persons. Nothing created can be perfect. Even the angels are not perfect, 1/3 of them rebelled against God.

Given that we can’t be perfect, in order to have free-will, we must be able to sin. Even Mary was able to sin. She didn’t, but she wasn’t perfect like God.

So God had two choices1) create robots whose love is meaningless, or 2) create beings with free will who can love Him, but some of them will choose not to.

God Bless

 

[zro_x]

Nothing created can be perfect.

Why not? Isn’t God capable of all things?

 

[PRmerger]

There’s still something I don’t understand. Why didn’t God create us in such a way that it is our nature to always be virtuous?

Because then we wouldn’t have free will if we were created to ALWAYS be virtuous.

Mary was not created to ALWAYS be virtuous. She simply chose never to sin. But she always had the free will to sin, should she have chosen to.

God did create Adam and Eve in this way also. Except that they chose to sin. And thus Original Sin was borne and its effects transmitted to us.

 

[PRmerger]

Why not? Isn’t God capable of all things?

God is omnipotent. But that does not equal “capable of all things”.

That is, God cannot make a square circle. He cannot make a married bachelor. He cannot make illogical things logical.

As CS Lewis said (paraphrasing): Putting “Can God” before nonsense does not cease to make it nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Saying that we originally had perfect natures that were corrupted by the fall also doesn’t work, because That means we originally found sin to be just as repulsive as Jesus does. Which means Jesus was just as capable and as likely to sin as Adam and Eve were.

No. We did not find sin repulsive. We found it attractive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When Jesus was being tempted by the devil in the desert, did he actually feel the desire to sin? If not, in what sense was Jesus tempted?

a related question:

*Could * Jesus have sinned, if he wanted to? If not, does that mean Jesus had no free will?

and if Jesus had sinned, what would be the consequences?

I really wouldn’t expect a Catholic to ask these questions. It means you don’t know your faith. Before engaging in debates you need to study the Catechism. It is available online.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

God is omnipotent. But that does not equal “capable of all things”.

That is, God cannot make a square circle. He cannot make a married bachelor. He cannot make illogical things logical.

As CS Lewis said (paraphrasing): Putting “Can God” before nonsense does not cease to make it nonsense.

He could, if He really wanted to. If He can be everywhere at one time, see everyone on the planet and know everyone on the planet and live in all time periods of the world at once, and make a virgin pregnant without sperm and have him come out as male, (all eggs are xx and it’s the sperm that determines the gender, ) and come down here and put on human flesh and walk and live as one of us, why couldn’t He make a square circle or a married bachelor or any other thing that would seem impossible? A married bachelor is the same as a pregnant virgin. He made the rules of the universe and the things we consider logical so He would know how to get around them if He had a reason to. He can make an unfertilized xx egg into an xy, then He can made a square circle.

 

[PRmerger]

He could, if He really wanted to. If He can be everywhere at one time, see everyone on the planet and know everyone on the planet and live in all time periods of the world at once, and make a virgin pregnant without sperm and have him come out as male, (all eggs are xx and it’s the sperm that determines the gender, ) and come down here and put on human flesh and walk and live as one of us, why couldn’t He make a square circle or a married bachelor or any other thing that would seem impossible? A married bachelor is the same as a pregnant virgin. He made the rules of the universe and the things we consider logical so He would know how to get around them if He had a reason to. He can make an unfertilized xx egg into an xy, then He can made a square circle.

No, Skye. God cannot make contradictions. God created the principle of non-contradiction, and, as such, a square circle is nonsense. God cannot make nonsense.

And a married bachelor is “the same as” a pregnant non-pregnant woman, not “the same as” a pregnant virgin.

The principle of non-contradictions means: it cannot be “x” and “not-x” at the same time.

 

[zro_x]

God is omnipotent. But that does not equal “capable of all things”.

That is, God cannot make a square circle. He cannot make a married bachelor. He cannot make illogical things logical.

As CS Lewis said (paraphrasing): Putting “Can God” before nonsense does not cease to make it nonsense.

I agree. God can’t do what is logically impossible. If I’m understanding you correctly though, you’re saying that it is logically impossible for God to create a creature as perfect in nature as he is, in the same way that it is impossible to make a married bachelor or a square circle. If that is what you’re saying, then why is it logically impossible? It certainly doesn’t seem so at first glance.

 

[zro_x]

I really wouldn’t expect a Catholic to ask these questions. It means you don’t know your faith. Before engaging in debates you need to study the Catechism. It is available online.

You’re right. I don’t know my faith. Some know Catholicism better than others, but I doubt that even the pope knows every detail of the church in its entirety. Of course, it is important to always grow in your faith, which is why I have actually just started reading a few chapters of the catechism every night, and why I have come to this forum whenever I have questions. Asking questions and finding answers is one of the best ways to learn about one’s faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. God can’t do what is logically impossible. If I’m understanding you correctly though, you’re saying that it is logically impossible for God to create a creature as perfect in nature as he is, in the same way that it is impossible to make a married bachelor or a square circle. If that is what you’re saying, then why is it logically impossible? It certainly doesn’t seem so at first glance.

Because that would mean there are 2 gods.

Logic dictates that there cannot exist 2 limitless eternal beings. That would be a logical contradiction because if two such beings exist, then there must be a limit to each before we could consider where one being ends and another begins. And therefore they are not infinite.

 

[zro_x]

Because that would mean there are 2 gods.

Logic dictates that there cannot exist 2 limitless eternal beings. That would be a logical contradiction because if two such beings exist, then there must be a limit to each before we could consider where one being ends and another begins. And therefore they are not infinite.

I agree that it seems illogical that 2 limitless, eternal beings can both exist. perhaps I should make s correction:

I agree. God can’t do what is logically impossible. If I’m understanding you correctly though, you’re saying that it is logically impossible for God to create a creature as morally perfect in nature as he is, in the same way that it is impossible to make a married bachelor or a square circle. If that is what you’re saying, then why is it logically impossible? It certainly doesn’t seem so at first glance.

Note that this doesn’t require that man be limitless or eternal, only morally perfect. The only reason that I can see for why it would be logically impossible for God to create such a creature is if it were somehow impossible to create someone with a morally perfect nature and free will without also giving him all the other atributes of God. (omnipotence, eternity, etc.) I see no reason why this would be the case.

Besides, apparently it is possible for there to be more than one limitless, eternal being, since God is a holy trinity of three persons.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;10109806]:extrahappy:

Just click on the icon below my signature that takes you to my blog, 3 Minute Apologetics, and then, I think, you just click on “join this site” on the right hand side.

Thanks,

Done *

God Bless,
Pat*

 

[PRmerger]

Besides, apparently it is possible for there to be more than one limitless, eternal being, since God is a holy trinity of three persons.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the Trinity, zro. No wonder JWs and other non-trinitarians have left Christianity. They think that what you say represents the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

There is not “more than one limitless, eternal beings”. There is only ONE GOD. That there are 3 persons in the Godhead does not equate to “more than one limitless, eternal being.”

 

[PRmerger]

Note that this doesn’t require that man be limitless or eternal, only morally perfect. The only reason that I can see for why it would be logically impossible for God to create such a creature is if it were somehow impossible to create someone with a morally perfect nature and free will without also giving him all the other atributes of God. (omnipotence, eternity, etc.) I see no reason why this would be the case.

You seem to be using the word “perfect” in two different ways.

Firstly, you use the term to refer to ontological perfection, that is, the perfection of the Perfect (for lack of a better term, God). As such, anyone (or anything) that is the perfection of the Perfect is, by definition, God. So God could not “have made” another perfection of the Perfect. For that would mean that this is a creature, not a god.

Secondly, you use the word “perfect” to refer to the perfection of things according to their nature. They are the ideal examples of their thing-hood.

Thus, ontological perfection is of a different order than the type of perfection we ascribe to created things.

People can only be “perfect” if they are fully human and unblemished in that.

And, as already discussed, God can (and did) create a perfect creature. 3 perfect creatures, actually. Mary, Adam and Eve. Mary chose to follow her nature and never sinned. Adam and Eve chose to destroy their perfect nature (and thus ours.)

 

[zro_x]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the Trinity, zro. No wonder JWs and other non-trinitarians have left Christianity. They think that what you say represents the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

There is not “more than one limitless, eternal beings”. There is only ONE GOD. That there are 3 persons in the Godhead does not equate to “more than one limitless, eternal being.”

A good point. Sorry for the misrepresentation. However, though there can only be one limitless, eternal being, There is no limit to the number of possible limitless, eternal Persons. Right?

 

[PRmerger]

A good point. Sorry for the misrepresentation. However, though there can only be one limitless, eternal being, There is no limit to the number of possible limitless, eternal Persons. Right?

Theoretically, I suppose, the Godhead could have more than 3 Persons, but then that would make that person part of the Godhead, and therefore divine.

And, again, there can only be One God.

 

[zro_x]

You seem to be using the word “perfect” in two different ways.

Firstly, you use the term to refer to ontological perfection, that is, the perfection of the Perfect (for lack of a better term, God). As such, anyone (or anything) that is the perfection of the Perfect is, by definition, God. So God could not “have made” another perfection of the Perfect. For that would mean that this is a creature, not a god.

Secondly, you use the word “perfect” to refer to the perfection of things according to their nature. They are the ideal examples of their thing-hood.

Thus, ontological perfection is of a different order than the type of perfection we ascribe to created things.

People can only be “perfect” if they are fully human and unblemished in that.

And, as already discussed, God can (and did) create a perfect creature. 3 perfect creatures, actually. Mary, Adam and Eve. Mary chose to follow her nature and never sinned. Adam and Eve chose to destroy their perfect nature (and thus ours.)

But why couldn’t God make us ontologically perfect in morality only? You have said that Adam and Eve found sin attractive, but you have also said that they were perfect people. It seems to me that an example of a perfect person would be more like who you make Jesus out to be. Some one who technically could sin, but is not attracted to sin. Then we still wouldn’t be God, but we wouldn’t be sinners either.

 

[PRmerger]

But why couldn’t God make us ontologically perfect in morality only?

He did. He did this 3 times, and perhaps a multitude of times, if you look at all the righteous people in the Bible.

You have said that Adam and Eve found sin attractive, but you have also said that they were perfect people. It seems to me that an example of a perfect person would be more like who you make Jesus out to be. Some one who technically could sin, but is not attracted to sin. Then we still wouldn’t be God, but we wouldn’t be sinners either.

That is because you are creating your own definition of what a perfect human being would be.

Perfection in Christ is ontological perfection in his divinity.

If there were another person who was True God and True Man, then in his (or her) humanity she would be perfect as well.

But there is only One Eternal Logos, And, as such, no other creature who is perfect ontologically in his human nature as well as divine nature, except for Jesus.

 

[zro_x]

He did. He did this 3 times, and perhaps a multitude of times, if you look at all the righteous people in the Bible.

These people were not like Jesus, though. according to you, Jesus has no inclination or attraction like the rest of these people did.

That is because you are creating your own definition of what a perfect human being would be.

perhaps I am, but it seems logical enough that a perfect human being would find sin repulsive, not attractive.

Perfection in Christ is ontological perfection in his divinity.

If there were another person who was True God and True Man, then in his (or her) humanity she would be perfect as well.

But there is only One Eternal Logos, And, as such, no other creature who is perfect ontologically in his human nature as well as divine nature, except for Jesus.

You just said that God created three people, and perhaps more, ontologically morally perfect.