Featured Grace of Reformed Theology/R.C. Sproul

While I can't point to any specific passages, it's a logical conclusion that Jesus was capable of sin when He was a man. I get the argument that God can't sin. God also doesn't get hungry or tired, but Jesus experienced everything that we humans do.

 

Jesus had NO sin nature in him, and was fully God also, so could not sin!

 

Lordship salvation is term coined to describe views of Dr MacArthur, whose view is that in order to be saved, but believe in Jesus, and also must evidence fruit of that saving relationship!

 

Being sinless in his humanity, there was nothing in him to respond to temptations....

 

Q, the games are played by free-will person's who make grace a work.
I take it you struggle for a definition. Here's an easy definition of both grace and mercy. See if you agree.

Grace is God giving to us that which we do not deserve.

Mercy is God not giving to us that which we do deserve.

 

Shouldn't we base our thinking on what God's word declares, and not "logical conclusions"?

 

We often draw logical conclusions when Scripture does not say explicitly say things - e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible doesn't explicitly say that Jesus was incapable of sin when He walked the earth. Some people (such as yourself) hold the view that He could not, but it is a conclusion you have drawn. When it comes down to it, I don't believe it has any affect on our salvation or any Christian doctrine which view we take on this question.

 

I agree.
Logically speaking, men sin and have the capability of it...therefore one would think that Christ, as a man, would have the capability for it.

But Jesus isn't "just" a man.
He is God.

I agree here as well.
But the problem is, we're going beyond what Scripture says in that, it never says He was capable of it or incapable of it.

It says He is God, it says He is man, and it says He did no sin.

 

Once again, I agree.
I do believe that it is a conclusion ( understanding ) born out by Scripture, however...

But that is as far as I can currently take it.

Yet again I tend to agree.
But to me there's another issue that pops up...

Should we, as believers, be taking on the question?
Is it profitable and does it lead to edification ( building one another up in the faith ), or does it lead to a "dead-end" and take us off-track from what is really important...
Christ crucified for sinners, and His saving us from ourselves.

To me, it is enough that Scripture tells us that He did no sin ( Hebrews 4:15 ).
Anything past what Scripture declares is speculation and I don't think it's worth speculating on, IMO.

 

Agreed, Brother. The question is not whether He did sin, but whether He was capable of sin. Scripture is not explicit on this point.

 

You make an excellent point, sir. It is enough that He did not sin. This type of discussion is a distraction, along the lines of asking how many angels could dance on the point of a pin. Besides, I'm not 100% sure about that conclusion.

 

Since theologians have been debating this question for centuries, we are not likely to solve it here except in our own minds. It is enough that Jesus did not sin.

 

While you do make a good point, there is more to consider. When Satan tempted Jesus, he was tempting His human nature, not His divine nature. This would have been an exercise in futility if it had not been possible for Jesus to fall just as Adam fell. Jesus was not born with the sinful nature that we inherited as a result of Adam's fall. Then again, Adam was not created with a sinful nature either. God called all of His creation "very good". We are not likely to agree on this question, and that's okay. We do agree that He did not sin.

 

Agree!

 

Can God sin?