tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4939655915262236215..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Could Jesus sin?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14085159233421516602015-09-17T06:41:39.898-04:002015-09-17T06:41:39.898-04:00It's silly for free-willers to say things like...It's silly for free-willers to say things like Christ's temptations to sin weren't real if He couldn't actually sin.<br /><br />Do free-willers sin every time they're tempted? I hope not. Were those resisted temptations real? Surely.<br /><br />In fact Christ's temptations were worse, more difficult than ours because at some point we give in and sin. He resisted to the uttermost.<br /><br />I personally think we see a glimpse of this in Gethsemane. CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44429216966694501062015-09-17T00:18:26.105-04:002015-09-17T00:18:26.105-04:00The incident in Luke 2:41-51 is interesting to bea...The incident in Luke 2:41-51 is interesting to bear on this. At age 12, he is taken to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. Once there, he separates from his parents and spends several days in the temple, talking with the teachers. We're not clearly told whether his understanding is remarkable for a 12 year old or for anyone, but it is clearly portrayed as superior. When Mary complains about his unexpected absence, he gently rebukes her (and Joseph) for lacking insight. And yet, we are told that he returns to Nazareth and submits to them.<br /><br />(1) Even at age 12, Jesus has divine insight.<br /><br />(2) Even at age 12, Jesus claims a relationship to God that is more significant than to his parents. This is indicated not only by "I must be in my Father's house", but also in that he voluntarily leaves the Temple in order to submit to them, despite their lack of understanding. I think Luke's point here is not just that Jesus the teen was an obedient Jewish son, but that he chooses to remain under his birth-parents' authority despite spiritually surpassing them.<br /><br />Given this, I think we have to conclude that Jesus' divine nature (and some awareness thereof) was with him from birth, and is not subsequently imparted (e.g. at his baptism). At the risk of dualism, I suspect that his full divine awareness was always present, and gradually became more dominant as his brain developed from instinctive to conscious thought. This model would handle the issue of a baby's brain having access to cosmic power.<br /><br />Even under this model, I speculate on the effects of the Fall on human instinct. It doesn't take long for babies to move from a simple declarations of need to greed - the desire for more. And we also mis-perceive our needs. Babies are Fall-broken, but are they morally culpable for mis-perceiving their needs or does their behaviour only become morally culpable once they can desire? If the former, then Jesus-as-baby would need to be fall-frail but not fall-broken.<br /><br />(Also, how does John "leaping for joy" - Luke 1:44 - in utero play into this discussion? Saying that John has no awareness in the situation, that the leaping is entirely an external miraculous action imposed upon his unknowing foetal body, seems to me an uncharitable reading of the passage.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92111501457618063352015-09-16T22:59:32.993-04:002015-09-16T22:59:32.993-04:00I'm addressing freewill theist Christology on ...I'm addressing freewill theist Christology on its own terms. A Calvinist can say Christ is impeccable because it's possible for even a mere human being to be impeccable (given compatibilism). Of, even if his humanity is peccable, his divinity acts as a check on his humanity, ensuring impeccability. <br /><br />But I'm considering a position which denies that Christ is impeccable. So, it in a sense, I suppose that's like a kind of Monophysitism inasmuch as it effectively brackets the divine nature and treats the human nature as peccable. It doesn't allow the inherently impeccable divine nature to act as a brake on the human nature, and given libertarian freedom, what's left must be able to sin. <br /><br />That doesn't represent my own Christology, but the implications of freewill theist Christology, according to which the temptations of Christ would not be real unless he was at liberty to sin. So that, in effect, treats Jesus as if he were merely human, and defines human freedom in libertarian terms. <br /><br />Now, you do make the interesting additional point that even a sinless omnipotent child could inadvertently wreak cataclysmic damage. Imagine, for instance, such a child having a nightmare. Omnipotence would make his nightmare a telepathic reality.<br /><br />If, however, we allow the divine nature to regulate the human nature, that won't happen. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44330283495762881282015-09-16T21:29:46.004-04:002015-09-16T21:29:46.004-04:00Hi Steve,
This is a fun post, but I find your lin...Hi Steve,<br /><br />This is a fun post, but I find your line of reasoning here odd. It seems to trade on a kind of Monophysitism - as if Jesus was Hercules. A sinful omnipotent child - how about a *sinless* omnipotent child? It seems to me that would be almost equally scary; since innocent non-malicious play by a toddler can be accidentally destructive; and it would be catastrophic if the child was all-powerful. Little Jesus running around happily swinging his arms, accidentally striking Joseph and sending the man sailing past Jupiter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918979397703969600noreply@blogger.com