Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[backwoodsman]

But I just have not found Scriptural support for the idea that Jesus had to have been able to sin in order for His temptation to be valid. Until I see clear Scriptural support, I see your statement as a supposition without support. I remain comfortable believing that His sinlessness included inability to sin.

But the same is true of your position -- it has no clear scriptural support. Given the lack of clear scriptural teaching one way or the other, I have to conclude two things: (1) It's not important to God that we make an issue of it, or He would've made it clear in the Bible; and (2) the more logical position is probably correct.

[Candlepower]

But the same is true of your position -- it has no clear scriptural support.

You’re right. My position has little Scriptural support. As I presently see it, neither position has adequate clear support to establish it as irrefutable dogma.

(1) It's not important to God that we make an issue of it, or He would've made it clear in the Bible

I can’t tell how important the subject is to God. I won’t speak for Him. But you’re right: the conclusion isn’t clear. In case I’m missing something, however, I’m going to keep my eyes open. I just might have to side with the other guys someday. I've done it before.

(2) the more logical position is probably correct.

I agree. But, what seems logical to one person can seem illogical to another, which is why “logical” Christians often disagree. Calvinists and dispensationalists think their systems are the epitome of logic. I think they're illogical, and I can't understand why they think I'm illogical.

My present position (concerning whether or not Jesus could sin) is one I’m more comfortable with because it seems more logical to me than the other position does, which is why I agree with your second conclusion and with Romans 14:5.

My intent in this discussion was not to argue that my position was categorically correct, but to show that the opposite position (that Jesus must have been able to sin) does not seem categorically correct to me.

I didn’t mean to come across as wanting to “make an issue of it.” I don’t. I was just expressing my point of view in a discussion that ended, for me, about a week ago.

CP

[benstenson]

Hi Candlepower, I'm sorry for taking a while to reply to your post. I hope to further defend that both God and Jesus Christ have free will. I wasn't going to tonight because I have not fully finished my study on this but I am eager to share these thoughts with you so I will just paste my notes here:

There are thousands of unique living creatures on the earth, in the ocean and in the sky.
Only the creature who is able to sin is made in God's image. (Gen 1:26; Gen 2:16-17)

God created many things that did not have the ability to sin.
He said that they were 'good'. (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25)
But God finished his work by making a creature who was able to sin.
Then he said everything was 'very good'. (Gen 1:31)

If someone does good out of necessity, it is good, but they deserve no praise.
Paul said, "I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me" (1Cor 9:16)
But good that is done freely is better because it is virtuous and praiseworthy.
Paul said, "if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward" (1Cor 9:17)

Pelagius said, “God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the possibility of choosing either alternative . . . he could do either quite naturally and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent Creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself”

If Jesus was incapable of being selfish, then his will was not free.
If Jesus' will was not free, then his love for God was not freely given.
If Jesus' love for God was not freely given, then it was not real love.

It is impossible for us to have free will but not God.
No effect can ever be greater than its cause.
We have power over our choices, therefore God must have power over his choices.
Those who have power over themselves are greater than those who have no power over themselves.
If Jesus did not have power over his own will then we would be greater than him.

Jesus promised a reward to "him that overcometh ... even as I also overcame" (Rev 3:21)

( I'd also like to address objections that were brought up when I have another opportunity. )

[Candlepower]

Ben,

Sorry to take so long in responding. I have not been uninterested.

Thanks for the quote from Pelagius. I have never read anything by him before. He seems to be saying what is true.

Individual human responsibility/liberty is one of the most-often-dealt-with principles in Scripture. It is everywhere in them. Followers of Augustine/Calvin claim to agree that man is responsible, but then they negate man's responsibility by asserting that God is solely responsible for everything. The only way their argument could be right, it seems to me, would be to remove from the Bible any hint of the principle of individual responsibility. Then their system would be consistent with Scripture, though it would be a much thinner volume. And one appropriate for mice, not men.

It is impossible for us to have free will but not God.
No effect can ever be greater than its cause.
We have power over our choices, therefore God must have power over his choices.
Those who have power over themselves are greater than those who have no power over themselves.

I'm not convinced that God is able to choose in the same way man is. For instance:

* Man can lie; God cannot (Titus 1:2)

* Man can be tempted; God cannot (James 1:13)
From this, it seems one can reasonably conclude that if God cannot be tempted, then He cannot sin. But even if He could sin, and were to do so, the definition of sin would thereby be changed, because God, by definition, defines all things.

*The character of man can change; God’s cannot (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17)

*Man can be unfaithful; God cannot (2 Timothy 2:13)

*Man can sin; God cannot (Matthew 7:18)
I know this verse applies to men, but I think it can be applied, by extension, to God. If a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, then how much more impossible is it
for God (if we let the good tree represent Him) to bring forth evil fruit.

It seems clear from Scripture that God is bound by His own character/nature, and only that.

Returning to James 1:13, which tells us, "...God cannot be tempted by evil...." Now, Jesus in His humanity was tempted, though without sin. Therefore, it seems that Jesus' humanity was not deity. God cannot be tempted -- Jesus was tempted -- therefore Jesus (the man) was not God. Because His humanity was not deity, He could have sinned. Perhaps that solves my problem.


CP

[darinhouston]

That is an interesting quote from Pelagius. Was it in the context of mankind before the Fall, after the Fall, or both? I believe that's the crux of most concerns over Pelgianism, that is his belief (as I understand it) that man is neutral in bent at birth (even post--Fall).

[Candlepower]

That is an interesting quote from Pelagius. Was it in the context of mankind before the Fall, after the Fall, or both? I believe that's the crux of most concerns over Pelgianism, that is his belief (as I understand it) that man is neutral in bent at birth (even post--Fall).

Darin,

I'm responding to this in order to move the topic back to the top of the list, because I hope it will catch Ben's eye and that he will respond. I like reading his posts. It's easy for me to lose touch with what I've said on the Forum and how others have responded, as the newer posts pile atop the older ones.

I've not read any more of Pelagius than the quote Ben included in his post. Apparently Ben is acquainted with his writings. I did not know that Pelagius believed we are born unbent. I'm interested to learn what Ben will say.

Ben, are you there brother?

CP

[benstenson]

CP, sorry to keep you waiting, thanks for your patience. I've already written quite a bit in response but I was waiting to finish it before posting so I just pasted it into a text file until tomorrow.

CP, could George Washington tell a lie after he cut down the cherry tree? If he could then why did he say he could not?

I need to get some sleep but I haven't abandoned this discussion, I'm really enjoying it.

Darin,
Pelagius, like Charles Finney, did not believe in original sin. I'm aware of at least three basic concepts of original sin, Augustininian loss of free will, federal headship theory, and the vague bent/inclination idea which often just means temptation. It gets very vague when people talk about a bent, propensity, inclination, tendency, etc. These words seem to really obscure the difference between temptation and sin.

[darinhouston]

This is how I've seen his view explained...

He believed that all men are created, like Adam, with equal ability to do good or evil. That the only difference between Adam and man today is the external example of sin. That sinful man is able to choose the good at any time; simply by the exercise of his free-will. He does not require the grace of God to enable him to will to do good, for his nature is neutral, and is therefore able to choose between good and evil. The only work of grace, admitted by Pelagius, was merely external; such as proper education and the example of Christ.

[benstenson]

Candlepower and Jeff I tried to reply to both of you in this post. I hope the length is not completely overwhelming.

Followers of Augustine/Calvin .... negate man's responsibility by asserting that God is solely responsible for everything. The only way their argument could be right, it seems to me, would be to remove from the Bible any hint of the principle of individual responsibility. Then their system would be consistent with Scripture, though it would be a much thinner volume. And one appropriate for mice, not men.

Calvinism is self-evidently false because our freedom of choice is self-evident. Just as human freedom is self evident so also is God's freedom. We don't need the Bible to know that we have free will because God gave us a rational mind with a conscience. If we can not trust our own mind, then how can we know if the book we are reading is the Bible or not? Likewise, we do not need the Bible to know that God has free will because it is illogical to think that He does not. If we can not trust logic then it does not matter if we interpret the Bible logically or illogically. And then the Bible could mean anything at all, or nothing at all, or everything all at once.

Our Creator logically must possess moral agency because we possess moral agency. It is self-evident that a moral being is greater than an amoral being. This is because a moral being has power over himself whereas an amoral being lacks such power.

A moral being is capable of virtue. An amoral being is not. A moral being can deserve honor and gratitude. An amoral being can not. If God was not a moral agent we would have no obligation to honor and thank Him. If God was not a moral agent we would have no right to worship Him. If God did not possess power over His own will He would be lower than us, not greater. But it is not possible that we could be capable of virtue while our Creator was incapable of virtue.

God only has moral character because God has moral agency. If God did not have power over His own will then He would not have any moral character. An amoral being has a nature, but has no character, no moral quality. Many Christians speak as if there is no distinction between God's nature and God's character. For example, Candlepower, you said,

It seems clear from Scripture that God is bound by His own character/nature, and only that.

I agree that God is bound by His own character, but His character is not bound by His nature. If God's character was determined by His nature then He would not actually have any character because He would be amoral. His character is, by definition, the moral quality of His will or intention. So God is voluntarily bound by His own free commitment to do what is good.

This is the only logical way to interpret passages which say that God cannot lie, be tempted, deny himself. When we read that being "born of God" means that we cannot sin, we know it does not mean God takes away our freedom to choose, because our conscience affirms our freedom. The "inability" to sin is a result of a voluntary intention, as John explains, "whoever loves is born of God". A righteous intention or motive is a good heart. This is voluntary. This is the good tree that "cannot" bear bad fruit. The type of tree is a matter of free choice. The fruit will inevitably reveal the voluntary motive of the heart. This is what the story of George Washington's confession indicates. It was not a speech impediment that prevented the boy from lying but a change of heart. If the story did not indicate a voluntary humility on his part then no one would repeat it.

even if He could sin, and were to do so, the definition of sin would thereby be changed, because God, by definition, defines all things.

Without both moral agency and moral obligation, God could not have moral character. If there was nothing that God should choose then it would mean nothing to say He is righteous, virtuous, morally good. It would be like saying "God is Himself" and would convey no meaning to our minds. If love has no definition of its own, then it means nothing to say that God loves people. But because God is a moral agent He therefore has moral obligation.

It is not the case that something is right as a result of God choosing it. Rather God chooses what is inherently right because it is good. The idea that something is right because God chooses it presupposes that moral obligation originates in the will of God. But moral obligation is a matter of knowledge. God knows what is good and what is evil. Moral obligation originates in the mind or intellect of God, not in His will.

It is not as if some external being imposed law upon God. To God, and thus also to man, the knowledge of good and evil is self-evident. All it takes is enough intellectual development to understand good and evil. In the case of Adam this was the result of eating a piece of fruit - without further instruction Adam had the self-evident knowledge of good and evil just like God has. So God, in His intelligence, understands and knows what is good and what is not good. Therefore, He freely chooses to govern His own will according to this knowledge. God voluntarily guides His will according to the self-evident moral law of His own mind. How righteous God is! How rational and wonderful!

In this particular sense I am able to agree with what Jeff said,

God didn't just arbitrarily label activities as "sins", those activities were deemed sins because they are in direction opposition to the very nature of God.

Because God, by nature, knows the difference between good and evil. He does not need to invent right and wrong because it is readily apparent to a His rational mind. How good it is to understand that there is no dark cloud of arbitrary law hanging over us!

Jeff, you also said,

I don't think God can choose evil, because He would essentially no longer be God.

This seems to presuppose that God is morally good as a result of His nature rather than by choice. Moral goodness, by definition, is voluntary. If God was controlled by His nature and had no power over His choices then He would not even be morally good, but only amoral like animals, objects, elements. God is morally good by choice because moral goodness is a quality of choice or intention. The fact that God has power over His own choice does not put Him at risk of not being Himself.

And of course we need not think there is any risk of God choosing wrong because He is so trustworthy. When Abraham needed to be reassured that the Lord would not do something unfair, He respectfully inquired of Him if He would destroy the righteous with the wicked, repeatedly asking for the sake of fewer and fewer people. The Lord patiently answered Him, not correcting Abraham by saying He could do whatever He wanted to do, not at all disapproving of being questioned or even judged by a man.

Since God freely obeys the self-evident law of His own mind, He is unafraid to have men pass judgment on His character because He has nothing whatsoever to hide:

• "Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?" (Jer 2:5)
• "O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me." (Micah 6:3)
• "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard." (Isa 5:3)
• “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong” (John 18:23)

How could God say such things unless moral obligation was self-evident and thus originating in the intellect rather than the will?

God cannot be tempted -- Jesus was tempted -- therefore Jesus (the man) was not God.

I believe that God cannot be tempted because of His commitment to do good. But the Bible forbids us to tempt God, and people have tempted God throughout history by hurting each other and rebelling against Him.

God has desires and emotions. Making man in His image made God vulnerable to emotions that He otherwise could not have experienced. When the people in Noah's time were constantly killing each other and filled with evil thoughts, it broke God's heart to see it. The all-wise God was sorry for His own choice to make people. But God is long-suffering.

God desires to do many things but since He has self-control (a fruit of His own Spirit) He does not obey every present desire He has. For example, Paul said God was willing to make His wrath and power known publicly because of sin, but instead He endured with much long-suffering the people who rebelled so that He could show mercy on those who repented (like Paul himself). God is not long-suffering by necessity, but by choice, and therefore it is glorious, virtuous, and wins our hearts over to Him!

God's iron will is a voluntary commitment, the dedicated loving heart of a Father. "The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary."

[benstenson]

This is how I've seen his view explained...

He believed that all men are created, like Adam, with equal ability to do good or evil. That the only difference between Adam and man today is the external example of sin. That sinful man is able to choose the good at any time; simply by the exercise of his free-will. He does not require the grace of God to enable him to will to do good, for his nature is neutral, and is therefore able to choose between good and evil. The only work of grace, admitted by Pelagius, was merely external; such as proper education and the example of Christ.

I get the impression that Pelagius viewed being a creature of God like floating in an entire ocean of Gods grace. The Augustinian idea of grace being a metaphysical force that has direct power over our will is foreign to Pelagius, and in my opinion, to the meaning of the word 'grace' itself.

It is interesting that you think of moral influence as external and direct causation as internal. I think of it the other way around.

Pelagius also said, "Within the heart of man there is no overwhelming compulsion to act in one way or the other; whereas animals are compelled to act according to their instinct, human beings have free will, enabling them to control their actions. And within the mind of man there is the capacity of reason: human beings are able to consider rationally the consequences of different courses of action."

My understanding is that Pelagius' concept of grace is the only one not contrary to free will. Augustine flip-flopped on free will in debating with Pelagius and most of the church has followed Augustine by compromising on human freedom since. Many people don't realize that the idea of sin being unavoidable/inevitable is directly opposed to free will and moral accountability.

The idea of being enabled to obey God suggests that a person could disobey God because of a lack of ability. But this would represent God as inconsiderate and unjust.