Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[Paidion]

I believe Christ was a complete human being ---- that He was fully human, mortal, and could have sinned, had He chosen to do so. As I see it, in the self-emptying mentioned in Hebrews, He divested Himself of all His divine attributes. He could do no miracles apart from trusting in His Father.

In becoming human, the Son of God retained only one thing ----- His identity as the Son of God. Hence the reason for the virgin birth. If He had had a human father as well as mother, He would have been somebody other than the Son of God.

[BrotherAlan]

If Christ retained His identity as Son of God when He became Man (which He did), then that means that Christ is the Son of God. But the Son of God is a Divine Person. Thus, Christ is a Divine Person. But, Divine Persons cannot sin. Therefore, Christ could not have sinned.

This does not mean that Christ was not also perfectly human. For it is not essential to human nature that the subject possessing that nature be capable of sinning (in fact, since sin is "de-humanizing", the inability to sin makes Christ more of a perfect man, not less so).

-BrotherAlan

P.S.
Ben, I haven't forgotten about your previous post responding to me (I'll try to get back to you later on that)....

[darinhouston]

I don't mean to be merely semantically argumentative, but "divinity" is a pretty ambiguous concept to me -- what scriptural authority do you have to say that divinity = incapability to sin? For that matter, I don't equate divinity with "God-ness" per se.

We partake of the divine nature now and will presumably fully in the future, but I believe it's the lack of temptation and the measure in which we are walking in the Spirit (and not our measure of divinity) that "allows" us (not compels us) to avoid sin.

[Paidion]

If Christ retained His identity as Son of God when He became Man (which He did), then that means that Christ is the Son of God. But the Son of God is a Divine Person. Thus, Christ is a Divine Person. But, Divine Persons cannot sin. Therefore, Christ could not have sinned.

Where your argument breaks down is the second sentence: "But the Son of God is a Divine Person". The Son of God became totally human. He divested Himself of His divine attributes. He wasn't a "Divine Person" while He lived on earth. He was a human being. Again --- He retained only His identity. He retained no other characteristic of Deity.

... though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:6,7

[benstenson]

Divine Persons cannot sin

If it was true then God would lack the power of choice.

[Paidion]

Paul wrote that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2). I think that statements that God cannot commit moral evil does not necessitate a lack of free will or lack of ability on the part of God, but rather indicates that it is contrary to His nature. Perhaps "cannot lie" is used of God in the same way that George Washington supposedly used it when after his father asked him whether he had cut down the cherry tree, answered, "Father. I cannot lie."

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings,

Paidion, I think that last comment of yours (about God not being able to lie) is right (and I enjoyed the reference to the story about George Washington!). There are a number of other Scriptural references which teach (either directly, or implicitly) that God cannot seen. For example, "The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4). Furthermore, we can reason to the sinlessness of God by the fact that God is the sovereign good, the source of all good, and, in fact, He is Goodness Itself (and, it is not possible for Goodness Itself to have any mixture with evil, which sin is).

Furthermore, I might add that the notion of "freedom" is, unfortunately, mistakenly associated with the notion of "the ability to do whatever I please". A better notion of "freedom" is the ability to do what I ought; or, even better, the ability to act in accord with one's nature (and, so, as Paidion correctly said, it is not in accord with God's nature to lie, and so He cannot lie; this is not only not an imperfection in God, but, rather, it is a sign of His great perfection).

Now, with regard to Christ's divinity.....darinhouston does bring up a good point that "divinity" can be used in various ways (shoot, sometimes, even real good-tasting food is called, "divine"!) In one of the Psalms, it is said to mere men, "I have said to you, 'You are gods, and all of you, sons of the Most High....'". In both of these examples, there is an expression of an extraordinary greatness and nobility in the thing referred to as "divine" or "god" (though, in the case of the food, it's a bit exagerrated....usually!) So, it is obvious that "divine" and "god" can be used in different ways in different contexts. Thus, we need to clarify what we mean when we use this word in speaking of Christ.

What is traditionally believed in the Church-- as expounded in, for example, the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the Councils at Constantinople-- is that Christ is not called "divine" or "God" because he has a mere likeness to God (through, say, a moral union of his will with God's will), nor because He has a mere "participation" in the divinity (as every person filled with God's grace does, see 2 Peter 1:4). Rather, according to traditional Christianity, the Man Christ is called "divine" (or "God") in virtue of the fact that the union which exists between the human nature of Christ, and the Divine Person of the Word, is a union which takes place "in the very Person" of that Word (so that, there remains but one Person as a result of the union between the Divine Person and the human nature, which the Divine Person "assumed" to Himself). Thus, when we say that "Christ is God", we mean that there is ONE Person (one "Who?"), with two natures (two "Whats?") (a human and divine nature), and that this Man, Christ, can be called God, simply (without any qualification needed), because He, the Man, is united to the Son of God in a personal union (there are not two persons, but one Person in Christ--the Divine Person of the Word). But, all the while, the Divine Person remains Divine (for the Divine Person is God, and so cannot change, becasue God cannot change). AND, the human nature is precisely that, HUMAN (it is not some "mixture" of divine and human, nor is it a mere appearance). The Man, Christ, REALLY is a MAN, for He was REALLY born of a REAL woman, Mary.
[Paidion-- question: What do you mean when you say that Christ retained only His identity when He became man (but, no longer was a Divine Person)?]

Indeed, the Council of Ephesus (back in 431) succinctly affirmed both the divinity and the humanity of Christ by asserting that Jesus' Mother, Mary, can be most fittingly referred to as, "The Mother of God". Besides bestowing upon Mary an honor that she deserves (as God's blessed handmaid (Lk. 1:38, 48)), this title, even more importantly, affirms both the divinity and humanity of Christ "in one short stroke". It affirms the humanity of Christ for it reminds us that He was indeed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4); and women only have human sons (so Christ must be human!). But, it also affirms His divinity because it reminds us that the Person to whom Mary gave birth, according to the flesh (Romans 9:5) was the Person of the Word, Who is God. Thus it is that the Church in the early centuries affirmed that Christ is God in a unique and special way-- not by a moral union, or by participation, but by a "hypostatic" union (a union in the Person of the Word).

That is not meant to be an exhaustive "demonstration" of the fact (for, indeed, this is a mystery that can only be held by faith, not by demonstration), but it does try to briefly explain what is meant by the traditional formulation that "Christ is God", that Christ is the “God-Man” (and, also, that this is indeed the faith of the early Church).

In Christ,
Alan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

[BrotherAlan]

Ben (and anyone else interested)--
Okay.....back to the thing on Original Sin.

I'll just explain it this way....Consider the nature and function of, say, a leg. Now, a leg is meant to walk, run, jump, etc. That is in its nature. But, now, suppose the leg is damaged-- say it broke jumping off a tall height. Well, after that break, the leg will no longer function as it naturally should. It will likely limp (if it can even do that), and will be very limited in its other abilities. While, according to its nature, it is not necessary that a leg limp; in this respect, according to its nature as a wounded leg, it is necessary for that leg to limp.

Applying this to man, then......Man was given a nature, with all of his faculties working very well ("back in the day" of the Garden of Eden). Man's nature is perfected by acts of reason and acts of will (the two fundamental acts of man, as man); and man could perform these acts perfectly and with ease, in the Garden, before the Fall. However, something went awry in that Garden, and our First Parents, Adam and Eve, fell into sin. With this sin, that perfect nature, with which they were endowed by God, was now damaged (by their own fault, of course). Thus, our nature was damaged, you could say. It was not entirely destroyed (nor "depraved", as some might claim), but it was definitely damaged....and all its various faculties were damaged, too (including the faculty of the will; and the damage to all the other faculties also influence the will, which is the faculty that can choose good or evil). Thus, it is, that, after the Fall, man now "limps" along in trying to perform his specifically human acts (namely, those acts of reason and will). Oh, man still has some ability to perform these human acts, but he cannot naturally do them all that well, anymore.

Now, mistakes (or "limps") on the physical level are not sins, surely (it is not a sin to have a bum leg, or to have spontaneous emotions that are "a-moral" or "pre-moral", as you, Ben, pointed out). But, it is a sin to make a wrong choice with the will. That is of the essence of sin (sin lies fundamentally in the will). Now, the Council of Ephesus (as well as other councils and authorities from the early Church), aimed to explain all this in the doctrine of Original Sin. What the doctrine of Original Sin is getting is the fact that, just as we can get a "bum" or a "broken" leg; we all come into this would having "bum wills", "damaged wills", "broken wills", etc (whatever you want to call it). Thus, it is, that we all (even holy men!) have great difficulty in using our WILLS correctly....and not using one's will correctly is what we call, "sin".

I think all of this is seen in Paul's famous lines to the Romans:
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.....So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:15, 17-25)

Thus it is, that while Christ is indeed a Teacher, He is primarily a Redeemer and a Savior....saving us by the grace He merited for us weak sinners through His redeeming death on the Cross (which saving death we shall once again be commemorating next month). Blessed be He, the Savior, forever.

In Jesus Christ, the Savior,
BrotherAlan

"You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

[benstenson]

Alan this is a quick reply to the original sin thing.

Did you understand what I said about how our obligation matched to our present ability? You did not seem to respond to that - though I've read your reply very quickly at work here.

Romans 7 is about a convicted legalist, someone "carnal, sold under sin" - NOT the experience of a Christian!

The passage uses personification to describe the experience of the sinner who is experiencing conviction being victimized by the part of him (his own selfishness) who is persisting in disobedience.

[charleswest]

Divine Persons cannot sin

If it was true then God would lack the power of choice.

Precisely. Divine Persons have the ability to sin (CAN), but are unwilling to sin (WON"T). In God's case the "WON'T" part is eternal and immutable, fortunately for us.
(I would be tempted to argue that Divine unwillingness may produce its own disability, but that might be circular reasoning)

The exception in this case is that God cannot lie (nor is He willing to). He is unable to lie because everything He says comes to pass, without exception. (Woops, I just thought of some items that may be considered exceptions: such as when someone repents and God calls off His judgements. But I think you get my idea. But then usually God says thats what will happen upon repentance, so... maybe it is without exception).

(This is why God needed a voluntary agent to become a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. See 1Kings 22:20-22)