Posted on 07/29/2013 7:55:48 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
A non-Christian asked if we teach that Jesus was sinless because he did not have a human father, wasn't his human mother, Mary, sinful? Why wasn't her sin passed on to her son, Jesus?
Answer:
You ask an important question about the sinlessness and perfection of Jesus Christ.
As you suggest, if there is any way in which Christ partakes of sin, he is disqualified from being the only redeemer of God’s elect (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 21). The testimony of Scripture about this is clear. Hebrews says that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sinning (Heb. 4:15). Christ challenged his adversaries to prove that he had sinned and they could not (John 8:46). As the apostle Paul put it, “For our sake he made him [Christ] to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21, cf. 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5). He is a high priest unlike any other who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). His title as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) also draws our attention to his innocence.
The early church thought deeply about this as it formulated clear statements about Jesus Christ having two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, yet being one person. Christ unites in himself uniquely and in an unrepeatable way, this union (called the hypostatic union) of the human and the divine. This is the mystery of the Incarnation that the creeds of the church confess.
The way in which God answers your question is in the mystery of the virgin birth. The Scriptures begin from, what one theologian terms, “above” (Donald Macleod). John 1 or Philippians 2 show this movement from the eternal Son of God to the incarnate Son of God. This is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes it:
Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin. (Q. 22)
As Matthew described it, Mary was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (1:18), and then the angel explained it to Joseph: “that which is conceived in her [Mary] is from the Holy Spirit” (1:20). The explanation to Mary herself, in response to her “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34), leaves any human agency out of the incarnation in the normal way of conception, for the angel tells Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called ‘holy’—the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Without further description of how this would occur, the Bible testifies that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (the same idea as the cloud which overshadowed the Mount of Transfiguration) in such a way that she indeed became the bearer of the Holy One of God (Gal. 4:4); and her offspring, Jesus Christ, remained without sin. God does not specify in greater detail than this how the conception of Jesus by-passed Mary’s own sinfulness to preserve Christ’s sinlessness, but the rest of Scripture, as I indicated above, affirms that Christ did not inherit our sin nature. He came to be the Second Adam (Rom. 5) who could forgive sins because he himself was both the One offended and himself sinless.
The glory of the grace found in Jesus Christ is that though he was without sin, yet he had pity upon sinners so as to die in their place while we were enemies, ungodly, and sinful (Rom. 5:6, 8, 10). We need a Savior who is fully human to bear patiently with us, yet is able to atone for our sin as the final and perfect sacrifice. The sinlessness of Christ makes a passage like Isaiah 53:9–11 so marvelous in that Christ had no deceit in his mouth and by his death he made many to be accounted righteous.
I hope this is of some help.
Unless I am mistaken. ;o)
There are orthodox Catholics and heterodox Catholics. The latter are to a greater or lesser degree "Catholics in name only," and you know as well as I do that their beliefs contradict Church teachings. They are only "tolerated" inasmuch as we are all sinful pewsitters in need of salvation. Their beliefs are opposed to Church teaching, not condoned by the Church, and when their heterodoxy becomes public and scandalous, Church law provides for refusal of the sacraments and, ultimately, excommunication for obstinate grave public sinners, despite the fact that these medicinal measures are rarely applied by our modern spineless bishops.
Only if Jesus was behind the curve ball. But He was not.
I guess it all comes so clear when we add our preconceived notions to what scripture actually says. :-)
Jesus was a Jew. He lived and worshiped like a Jew. His Disciples were Jews. Somebody is behind the curve ball.
Followers of Jesus are called Christians, not Jews. I’m a Christian. If you want to call yourself a Jew that’s fine. If you want to debate where Judaism falls in a discussion of Christian sects, knock yer socks off. I’m not interested.
So much for documenting the claim, now ducking out with a haughty "this is afar as I'm willing to go with it".
As far as "rivers in Egypt" go, what of the denial concerning the presumption of singular office of papacy?
There was no such thing from the beginnings of the church.
And just the other day...the bishop of Rome made noises towards re-affirming (within the RCC) acceptance homosexuals as priests -- as long as they did not engage in the act itself.
They could even become bishops & cardinals too? Are there a few there already? There is, isn't there? Does that drive you batty? It would me, if I was the sort to be demanding strict celibacy while at the same time going the extreme as to equate even masturbation with the sin of Sodom.
Actually Jesus' Disciples were called both. However none were called Catholic.
So you want everyone to look at your pretty chart but you do NOT want to look at a more complete chart that disagrees with your position, isn't that correct? That's call a biased report. The early Church was comprised of Messianic Jews/Christians. Not a Catholic in the bunch.
Regarding God visiting the iniquity of the father on the following 3-4 generations:
What aspect(s) of iniquity of the father are visited on the son? You understand it to be the guilt and/or punishment of iniquity. The Jews misunderstood it the same as you. And that's why God specifically revealed they (and you) were wrong.
Read Ezekiel 18:19-32. A bit long to post all here, but a significant excerpt from the outset:
"Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
The Lord told them (and us) that the concept of the son inheriting the guiltiness of the father is not,/i> true. The sons do not bear the guilt and punishment of the fathers' iniquity.
So then, what about iniquity is visited on the next generations? It seems the only option left is the physical consequences of that iniquity: national/familial degradation, removal of God's protective providence. We see that played out over and over in history, as revealed in OT & NT scripture.
Therefore He would not be qualified as a substitutionary atonement for the sin of all mankind, hence no real Gospel message exists.
Reductio ad absurdum,...wrong basis for His sinlessness***
Cvengr, I am not surprised to see no response. In a thread, awhile back, I asked this question; "Do you think a righteous God could/can condemn Adam and/us if He could not prove Adam or us could live a sinless life?"
I had several replies but none would give a yes or no answer. After several attempts with one individual I told them I would never ask them again and would list them in the column of those who would not give a yes or no answer.
For Jesus to be a second Adam, per Rom 5, He had to be just like Adam having free will and without a sin nature which is passed through the father. A virgin birth, no human father, is all that is needed to accomplish that.
Adam used his freewill to disobey God. Jesus used His free will to obey God.
God's Christ is proof a man can live a sinless life.
May God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB
While you're at it, go back to the chart and push back the Reformation a full century or so.
Hus pointed out the errancy of singular papacy. That really burned them up. They really burned Hus up. Cooked his goose as it were, but were unable to, as Hus prophesied, trap, catch, or roast a singing swan who would come a hundred years later (as documented by Poggius the Papist).
Hus also mentioned how that of seven sacraments, all seven were available to none. Priests not allowed to marry, and those whom were married, not allowed the sacrament of priesthood. Such was not the case for "the church" in it's first centuries.
At one point Hus also asked if "the church" was composed only of the priesthood. In the context in which that arose, it was an honest question.
Who is "the church"?
If Hus and Jerome could have been more carefully listened to, tolerated ---perhaps have been allowed to bring correction to the political/religious entanglements & intrigues (if not out-right den of iniquity>/a>) the RCC had become --- then much of the violence associated with the Reformation could have been avoided.
From the pulpit Ministry of pastor Tom Browning, Arlington Presbyterian Church "How Christ restored the gospel to his church";
The Goose that became a Swan, John Huss [pdf file]
That is taken from Luke 10 where Christ is talking to the additional 70 who He appointed as “missionaries” if you will. He wasn’t talking to just the apostles. So yes, He is talking to any true Holy Spirit filled believer who witnesses in His name.
>> since as you know then it would apply to me as an individual believer -- and you would certainly not accept my voice as the Voice of Christ --- and rightly so <<
Oh but you’re leaving out something. Anything anyone teaches is to be held to what is taught in scripture. Paul gave one example of the Bereans who “checked the scriptures daily” to see if even what he taught was so. So yes I would accept the teaching of anyone who comes in the name of Jesus after checking with scripture to “see if these things be true”. That’s the difference between Catholics and those who follow Christ alone. Catholics take the word of men without checking with scripture. Examples would be the sinlessness of Mary, the assumption of Mary and many other teachings and practices of the RCC.
>> All the individuals can differ, and do differ, sometimes radically, on matters of faith and morals, even though they all read the same Bible and pray for the gift of the same Holy Spirit.<<
Sure they differ. Mostly because they started from a particular teaching from man rather than putting aside what men teach and study scripture. They pray for the gift of the same Holy Spirit perhaps but if they are already set in a particular belief system the Holy Spirit will withdraw from them. That’s the problem with most who call themselves Christians today. It’s the men who teach them who they follow attempting all the while to fit scripture into what they teach rather than “search the scriptures daily” to see if what they teach is so. It’s not easy to admit that ones parents, teachers, pastors or whatever were in error in what they taught. Believe me, I’ve been there and done that. Staying in that error however has some very dire consequences.
>> So Jesus, in the passage above, must not mean individual voices. It must mean the Church as the Body of Christ, which alone can speak with one voice.<<
No He doesn’t mean “individual voices”. He meant those who are truly filled with the Holy Spirit and listen to Him only when “searching the scriptures daily” who are drawn to witness for Him. He obviously expected for others to be “labourers” other than just the apostles as we see in verse 2.
Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. >> A person who sees the 'church' as just a fellowship of individuals, will not get this.<<
You are correct. The “ecclesia” or assembly is the body of Christ consisting of all true Spirit filled believers who may gather in many different places. Many have organized what they try pass off as the “church” but have been woefully lacking in what the word “ecclesia” really means and to what Christ referred.
>> So good day to you, I leave you to your Babel or your solitude.<<
Oh my! I guess you didn’t want civil discourse after all. Oh well.
Must have been a misfired witticism.
Not a criticism.
I am sorry if that offended you. Sometimes my wit goes thud - thud - thud. Please forgive.
Because she was also conceived Immaculately (the feast of the Immaculate Conception is Mary’s day, not Jesus.)
So, Mary was born free of sin, and conceived Jesus without sin, since she was a virgin.
Voila—baby, conceived without sin.
Wow! A family tree of the whore of Revelation and her daughters!
It is a catholic thing.
Its funny, I was just talking to my wife (the product of 16 years of catholic schools and college) about this.
She pretty much said, if you are getting down to the part of being born without sin you first have to get through “Jesus is God.” If you agree that Jesus is God, then how he got that way is not real important. If you don’t think that Jesus is God, it doesn’t matter.
Catholic school logic is a wonderful thing.
We generally agree. The issue of my disagreement before resides in the doctrines of kenosis and hypostatic union. As God, He obviously is without sin, but His sinlessness is more significantly due to His remaining in fellowship with the Father, until He was made sin for us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.