Adam had the posse non peccare - the ability not to sin.

In addition to this, Jesus had the non posse peccare - the inability to sin.

How is this reconciled with the fact that Jesus was tempted throughout his life?

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by the "inability to sin"?

In some respect, Jesus clearly had the ability to sin. He could have cut wood on the Sabbath. He could have offerred sacrifices while ritually unclean. His human body was capable of all sorts of sins. I honestly wonder if his body was subject to human "passions". Did Jesus see an attractive woman and have to catch himself to keep physical attraction from becoming lust? If people were yelling in his face, did his adrenaline boost and he have to catch himself to not be angry? Just how much of our fallen nature did he inherit?

You begin with "Jesus clearly had the ability to sin", but then refer solely to his humanity. I don't think his person can be divided like that. If Jesus had sinned, God the Son would have been guilty. That is impossible.

if jesus was unable to sin, then he's not really a very compelling example to follow, imo.

I meant that he could physically sin. He had all the working anatomy required to commit sin. He could have used his hands and mouth to eat bacon and then walk into the Temple with his feet and offered sacrifice with his hands. His body was human and capable of sin. I say this to contrast with some early Gnostic teachings that he didn't really have a physical human body and so didn't eat, didn't sleep, couldn't physical procreate, etc.

schmendeler said:

---

if jesus was unable to sin, then he's not really a very compelling example to follow, imo.

---

How so? There are many now, and in the future, who are in heaven unable to sin and yet very compelling examples to follow.

the ability to roll one's tongue is genetic. some people are born with the ability and some are not.

if there was a divine proclamation that tongue rolling would doom you to hell for eternity, would you find people that have a genetic inability to roll their tongue to be a compelling example for those who can?

they couldn't do it if they wanted to. how are they an example for those who can?

The second you admit god can create creatures that can have choice and not choose to sin god suddenly becomes a moron.

And if they cant choose, they don't have free will and are hardly anything like humans

Quote:

---

they couldn't do it if they wanted to. how are they an example for those who can?

---

that's pretty much where we are regardless...ie, a distinction without a difference.

Also, and I know you know this, but being a compelling example to follow isn't the point of Christ anyway.

The OT has two different ceremonies for sin. It has chatat and asham. This means that there are ceremonial sins covered by chatat and moral sins "covered" by asham. Not all sin is moral. Not sure if the passage is describing all sin or just moral sin. Sounds like probably all sin. I think as people in the 21st century we tend to think of sin primarily as moral, but that wasn't the case 2000 years ago. The ancient people ascribed demonic activity to regular life events such as blood loss during birth. The "sin" was just something as simple as coming into contact with dead things, associated with the realm of Satan, Ben-halal Shachar. It wasn't the blood that made the person unclean, but the association that blood had with unclean spirits. Coming into contact with unclean spirits was forbidden because it was tantamount to communicating with the enemy. Since Israelites were only to worship One God, they were commanded to only communicate with Him to prevent the proliferation of depravity.

Jesus could commit sin in that He could have chosen to join forces with Satan. To say he didn't have a choice is to say He is a robot. He had free will, just as we all have free will.

schmendeler said:

---

the ability to roll one's tongue is genetic. some people are born with the ability and some are not.

if there was a divine proclamation that tongue rolling would doom you to hell for eternity, would you find people that have a genetic inability to roll their tongue to be a compelling example for those who can?

they couldn't do it if they wanted to. how are they an example for those who can?

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy. Jesus is an example of godliness, not sinfulness.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The second you admit god can create creatures that can have choice and not choose to sin god suddenly becomes a moron.

And if they cant choose, they don't have free will and are hardly anything like humans

---

Those in glory cannot sin and yet are fully human.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The second you admit god can create creatures that can have choice and not choose to sin god suddenly becomes a moron.

And if they cant choose, they don't have free will and are hardly anything like humans

---

Those in glory cannot sin and yet are fully human.

---

which makes god awful silly for not setting things up that way in the first place

Jesus could not sin.

All all times he was the God man. Fully man and fully God. To allow for the possibility that Jesus could sin is to say that God can sin.

So He wasn't really tested? I just don't buy it. It just doesn't make what He did seem amazing if there was no risk.

The text says he was TESTED in the wilderness

It says that He was led by the spirit to be tempted by Satan. That doesn't mean that Satan could actually tempt Him.

To take the position you are, you are saying that God can sin right?

This sins like one of those useless things like can God make a rock He can't lift. God can do whatever He wants. If something prohibits God from doing something, that force is greater than Him, no?

What's the pay off to this question??

Yup. 100%. He could've but he didn't.

I appreciate Mr. Piper and his ministry but I disagree with his interpretation. I won't go into a lot of detail but the book of Hebrews contradicts what He says.

For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin. Heb 4:15.

How could Jesus be tempted as we are (having sinful desire) and never have a sinful desire. The Lord suffered and asked God to take away the cup three times. Matt 26:39, 42, 44. He also truly believed God had forsook Him. Matt 27:46

People need to read books other than Romans to know the full story of the Bible.

I have heard Mr. Pipers preaching and he puts a lot of emphasis on faith, which is good. But I have no doubt that he would find someone with a lack of faith sinful. Well guess what, Jesus doubted.

Zobel said:

---

This sins like one of those useless things like can God make a rock He can't lift. God can do whatever He wants. If something prohibits God from doing something, that force is greater than Him, no?

What's the pay off to this question??

---

God can do whatever he wants meaning, if Jesus had bowed down and worshipped Satan it would not have been sin?

The pay off is to understand the nature of Jesus' temptation.

codker92 said:

---

I appreciate Mr. Piper and his ministry but I disagree with his interpretation. I won't go into a lot of detail but the book of Hebrews contradicts what He says.

For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin. Heb 4:15.

How could Jesus be tempted as we are (having sinful desire) and never have a sinful desire. The Lord suffered and asked God to take away the cup three times. Matt 26:39, 42, 44. He also truly believed God had forsook Him. Matt 27:46

People need to read books other than Romans to know the full story of the Bible.

I have heard Mr. Pipers preaching and he puts a lot of emphasis on faith, which is good. But I have no doubt that he would find someone with a lack of faith sinful. Well guess what, Jesus doubted.

---

Jesus never had a sinful desire or doubted. Good grief!

If you want to say that fine, but it's not textual. I follow the text.

If someone doubts but still does what they are supposed to it counts. Did Abraham have doubts when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Yes he did. Blind faith is not biblical.

To get into the weeds a little more on this: the Council of Constantinople in 681 affirms that Jesus has two Wills. One of these is the Divine Will that he shares with the Father and Spirit. It is impossible for this Will to sin by definition. After all, sin is opposition to God's Will, and God's Will cannot oppose God's Will. However, Jesus also had a human Will. This human will had the potential and capability to sin, be tempted, and oppose the Divine Will, at least in theory. This did not happen, because Jesus' human Will and his Divine Will were always in loving fellowship and harmony. His human will could be tempted and desire sin, otherwise the whole idea of temptation doesn't make any sense.

I think his two wills could have been in opposition as much as Paul's were. Paul talks at length about the war inside his own body between the Holy Spirit and his human desires. Though I could see why that would be difficult to swallow from Trinitarian standpoint.

codker92 said:

---

If you want to say that fine, but it's not textual. I follow the text.

If someone doubts but still does what they are supposed to it counts. Did Abraham have doubts when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Yes he did. Blind faith is not biblical.

---

the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

Jesus never doubted. The notion is repugnant.

I don't know what you mean by blind faith. In your example, Abraham had no idea what would happen to Isaac, but offered him up anyway based on God's command alone.

Quote:

---

God can do whatever he wants meaning, if Jesus had bowed down and worshipped Satan it would not have been sin?

The pay off is to understand the nature of Jesus' temptation.

---

I think you'd first have to have an agreed understanding of sin.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

To get into the weeds a little more on this: the Council of Constantinople in 681 affirms that Jesus has two Wills. One of these is the Divine Will that he shares with the Father and Spirit. It is impossible for this Will to sin by definition. After all, sin is opposition to God's Will, and God's Will cannot oppose God's Will. However, Jesus also had a human Will. This human will had the potential and capability to sin, be tempted, and oppose the Divine Will, at least in theory. This did not happen, because Jesus' human Will and his Divine Will were always in loving fellowship and harmony. His human will could be tempted and desire sin, otherwise the whole idea of temptation doesn't make any sense.

I think his two wills could have been in opposition as much as Paul's were. Paul talks at length about the war inside his own body between the Holy Spirit and his human desires. Though I could see why that would be difficult to swallow from Trinitarian standpoint.

---

I like your thoughts here, but I believe it just moves the problem into a different sphere. i.e. could Jesus' human and divine will NOT be in loving fellowship and harmony? If no, then does the idea of temptation still make sense?

Quote:

---

I don't know what you mean by blind faith. In your example, Abraham had no idea what would happen to Isaac, but offered him up anyway based on God's command alone.

---

That's not entirely accurate. Abraham received the promise of God that "his offspring would be like the stars in the sky" years before he went to sacrifice Isaac. He was willing to kill Isaac, but he still believed that God would fulfill His promise to both himself and Isaac. He believed that death was not a barrier to God fulfilling His promises, and he likely thought God would resurrect Isaac. So he was willing to give up his son to God completely, knowing that God would keep His promise regardless. Abraham's belief in God up to the point of giving up his own son and expecting resurrection prefigures the beliefs of Christians after the resurrection and sacrifice of Christ. This is the faith that was attributed to Abraham as righteousness.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

God can do whatever he wants meaning, if Jesus had bowed down and worshipped Satan it would not have been sin?

The pay off is to understand the nature of Jesus' temptation.

---

I think you'd first have to have an agreed understanding of sin.

---

Jesus gives the answer, at least to this question. "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." His duty was to worship God and him only. If Jesus instead worshipped Satan, would it have been sin?

This. I think its important that if Christ didn't have a human will, then either a human will isn't a part of being human or He wasn't human like us.

Some good stuff on the will as response to monothelitism that is probably relevant to this discussion:
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/st-maximus-the-confessor-on-the-will-natural-and-gnomic/

https://luminousdarkcloud.wordpress.com/2021/03/24/the-concept-of-the-gnomic-will-in-st-maximus-the-confessor-a-brief-investigation/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161451502.pdf

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know what you mean by blind faith. In your example, Abraham had no idea what would happen to Isaac, but offered him up anyway based on God's command alone.

---

That's not entirely accurate. Abraham received the promise of God that "his offspring would be like the stars in the sky" years before he went to sacrifice Isaac. He was willing to kill Isaac, but he still believed that God would fulfill His promise to both himself and Isaac. He believed that death was not a barrier to God fulfilling His promises, and he likely thought God would resurrect Isaac. So he was willing to give up his son to God completely, knowing that God would keep His promise regardless. Abraham's belief in God up to the point of giving up his own son and expecting resurrection prefigures the beliefs of Christians after the resurrection and sacrifice of Christ. This is the faith that was attributed to Abraham as righteousness.

---

Also known as blind faith. You say he "likely" thought God would resurrect Isaac, but at the end of the day, he didn't know.

I don't think it was blind faith. It was a faithfulness based on experience with God. If I came to you and said, hey man if you drive to Maine I'll give you a million dollars and you did it - that's blind faith. If a person you really knew, who you knew to be trustworthy, who had already made good on incredible promises and was wealthy beyond imagine said - if you drive to Maine I'll give you a million dollars, that's not blind faith anymore.

IMHO, I think it's possible for Jesus' two Wills to be in opposition. I believe Christians have some small measure of the Divine Will through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's not a full measure, so we don't know the exactly what the Divine Will wants and we can't actualize the Divine Will to perform miracles, but it's there a little bit. Even so, our human wills constantly war with whatever measure of the Divine Will we can access. Paul was more immersed in the Divine Will than us as evidenced by his prophecy, miracles, and penning of Scripture, but he still notes conflict between this and his human frailty. You can look at the very name Israel the same way. It means to "struggle with God" and pretty accurately describes the conflict between God's Will and human wills in both the Old and New Covenant. So the idea of a possible conflict in Jesus' Wills fits right in that pattern.

Or to look at it another way, the Divine Will is ultimately free. It can do anything without limit. The human Will is limited in some ways by the Divine Will, but humans still have some limited free will that can oppose the Divine Will. If that weren't true, then there would be no human will. There would only be limited iterations of the Divine Will. If Jesus' human will could never contradict or conflict his Divine Will, then it wouldn't make any sense to say he has two Wills. The human will wouldn't matter at all.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think it was blind faith. It was a faithfulness based on experience with God. If I came to you and said, hey man if you drive to Maine I'll give you a million dollars and you did it - that's blind faith. If a person you really knew, who you knew to be trustworthy, who had already made good on incredible promises and was wealthy beyond imagine said - if you drive to Maine I'll give you a million dollars, that's not blind faith anymore.

---

That's true. This is God, not man. "Blind faith" is not even possible when God is the one promising and irrelevant to this thread.

Right. So the question is what does a truly human will look like?

The interesting question isn't "Can God sin?" because to me sin is deviation from the divine will. It's a loop.

To me the interesting question is - "Can a Human sin?" Which gets you into what it means to be truly human, what within us causes us to sin and rebel.

That can be a pretty deep question. If you fix the incorrect desires people have, would they do the things they no longer desire? Can you induce a desire into someone and cause them to do something they otherwise would not have?