Re: What would Sam have done?

Paul S. Person wrote:
This is getting so confusing that I am going to try and straighten it
out.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Weland <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Weland wrote:


And an act...Paul sets up the comparison very neatly. Adam was not in a state of sin, but fell when he sined. Jesus was not in a state of sin, but could have fallen by sinning, but did not.


Paul S. Person wrote:

Where, exactly, does Paul state that Jesus "could have fallen by
sinning"?


You stated that Paul stated that Jesus "could have fallen by sinning".

Actually, no, I didn't. I discussed the typological analysis in Paul upon which the doctrine of original sin is based. That's a bit different than asking me to quote where Paul states "Jesus could have fallen by sinning." In fact, asking me to provide what I didn't claim was explicitly stated is a form of moving the goal posts.

When asked to produce the appropriate section, you choose to evade.

Before this continues down this ugly turn that you've introduced, I invite you to revisit the chronology of the discussion paying particular attention to what is actually said in contrast to what you think has been said.

So in that spirit, let's reconstruct a little more of the discussion:

You said:
>>> Sin is a state, and Jesus lacked that state.
>>

I replied:
>> And an act...Paul sets up the comparison very neatly. Adam was not in a state of sin, but fell when he sinned. Jesus was not in a state of sin, but could have fallen by sinning, but did not.

You then asked:

> Where, exactly, does Paul state that Jesus "could have fallen by
> sinning"?

I replied:
Where does he say Jesus could not have fallen by sinning? In fact, where does any NT text say that of Jesus?

Once again, however, Paul compares Adam and Jesus and states that Adam is a type of Christ. If the Second Adam faced the same challenges that the First Adam did, as Paul says, and succeeded where the First Adam failed, then Jesus must have had a choice in the matter similar to and the same as Adam's choice. Jesus succeeded, making him a worthy sacrifice on behalf of others, Adam failed.


Ultimately we get this:



Weland wrote:


Once again, however, Paul compares Adam and Jesus and states that Adam is a type of Christ. If the Second Adam faced the same challenges that the First Adam did, as Paul says, and succeeded where the First Adam failed, then Jesus must have had a choice in the matter similar to and the same as Adam's choice. Jesus succeeded, making him a worthy sacrifice on behalf of others, Adam failed.



To which I replied:


In other words, you are /inferring/ that Jesus could have failed.


And now the story changes:


No, I'm not inferring anything. Its the implication of the biblical text. And not just of this one: if as in Hebrew 4:15 it is claimed that Christ was tried in every way as a human being is, then by definition he could have failed. If he couldn't, if there were no possibility, then it can't be the same test, and the claim (and the analogy of the First and Second Adams), are false.


The problem is, an implication /is/ an inference.

There is a certain degree of semantic overlap. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took your use of your use of "inferring" was in the word's negative connotations rather than the positive connotations. If so, I apologize.

You are arguing for
your position, but have no direct evidence.

I have more direct evidence than you have. What you call my "evasion" is the clear meaning of the texts involved; on the other hand, you've made a number of declarations that have been unsupported by any text whatsoever.


I noted this:


don't think God (Jesus being both God and Man) could have failed. You
are free to infer whatever you like, but that isn't the same as a
clear and authoritative statement.


And you responded with:


But this works both ways. You are free to infer whatever you like, particularly since it isn't particularly well based in either the biblical text or in the Christian tradition, but that isn't the same as a clear and authoritative statement.


Indeed I am free to draw any implications I wish from the texts. They
are as likely to be correct as yours are.


Perhaps. But the point was that your "argument" is an impoverished one.

Let's take a look at this a slightly different way.

And, if you have a "clear
and authoritative statement" that Jesus was capable of sinning, isn't
it about time you presented it instead of merely drawing inferences
(or, if you prefer, claiming implications)?

Once again, the argument works both ways. If you have a clearn and authoritative statement that Jesus was not capable of sinning, isn't it about time you presented it instead of merely stating it as fact based on an inadequate understanding of RC doctrine and a few forays into the thought of but one doctor of the church who himself never says that Christ was incapable of sin? Why haven't you produced this authoritative statement yet? After all, you've been in this thread longer than I, isn't it about time you coughed up the goods?

But before you do, perhaps you might consider what peirazw means in Greek, and ask yourself that if one is incapable of failing the test, is it then a test?

Or by analogy: if Dirk says, "Let's test Paul's math skills. Paul, tell us what 2+2 is." Naturally, you don't give it a nano second's thought. So is that really a test of your math skills? No, its no test at all.

You might find these instructive:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14504a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14504b.htm


I believe I noted earlier that it might be best if we agreed to
disagree on this point, since we have each presented our arguments and
neither is likely to benefit from this in any way.

Then agree to disagree.

<snippo>

Paul S. Person wrote:


On the contrary, Jesus' will was free -- free of the taint of sin.


Weland wrote:


Which of course isn't what "free will" means and I think you know that.

To which I responded:


It is in Paul. Man is /enslaved/ by sin as a result of the Fall.

but I also said:

Man is /freed from sin/ as the result of "Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified".


Producing this response:

Not quite. Close though. What produced this response is your equation of "free will" with "free from sin".


The statement about Jesus being free from sin (and in fact us too, if we are baptized into Christ, look at Romans 6), is in Paul; however, the notion of "free will" being defined as "being free from sin" is not. When theologians and philosophers talk about free will, they are talking about something else: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm for example.


Which did not have anything very different from what I have been
saying Aquinas said. Perhaps you can quote something that differs.

You're kidding, right? Just where in that article is there any statement at all that "free will" means "free from sin"?

And how, exactly, is the enslavement of Man by sin to be understood if
not as an enslavement of the will?

That's the question, isn't it? But here you are going the way of Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, rather than on RC doctrine, which was after all what the discussion was supposedly about.

But there are other ways of explaining the effects of original sin other than appeal to "enslavement of the will" that has its roots in Augustine. Aquinas' syntehesis was somewhat different in that he posited the removal of grace that Adam's soul originally possessed, owing more to Anselm on the question, making the human soul more finite than it was otherwise, that only grace can make the finite soul capable. I. E. it is an ontological problem of nature rather than a moral problem.

Alternately, what part of Man,
exactly, do you think is enslaved?

It is somewhat immaterial what I think, since the purpose here is to describe Roman Catholic theology, is it not?

It cannot be the whole man, because
that would include the will. The point was, and remains, that Man
enslaved by sin has no free will or, better, is free only to choose
sinfully.

So when Jesus tells the paralytic to go and sin no more, he's lieing?
Alternatively, is not your very argument then, sinful?

And I continued with:

"Free will" is an illusion so long as Man is enslaved by sin. And
"free will", or, rather "free choice", in Aquinas does not include the
ability to choose evil. Man always chooses (or wills to choose) the
good. He fails because of sin. He is indeed free to choose whatever
course he wants, but, in a sense, it does not matter what he chooses,
because it will be sin simply because he is doing it and less than the
good. I hope it is clear that these statements are about Man in the
absence of grace; grace can indeed allow an individual to choose the
good, at least now and then. And Jesus, per Aquinas, was completely
filled with grace, something that may not have applied to Adam.


You do realize that you contradicted yourself....


If you say so. Are you certain you are not overlooking the insertion
of grace into the situation?

Quite. Now go back and read what you've written, let's see if you get it yet.


Weland wrote:


I'm not certain that purusing Aquinas is the best way to get at Catholic doctrine. But in any case, Aquinas does say that Jesus had a human nature with all the defects of a human nature (save sin) and this suggests then that your claim that Jesus COULD NOT sin is a false one. Further, in his discussion on the Temptation, Aquinas suggests on my reading that it was possible for Jesus to have chosen sin, but didn't.


Paul S. Person wrote:


Could you point out where?


The response:


Book 3.


The version I have divides Aquinas' /Summa/ into:

Quite right, apologies. Third Part, Questions 4, 5, 6, 41
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science and The Revelation
    ... Regarding Adam, the Bible says that it is by Adam that sin entered ... For Baha'is to equate Adam with Jesus is blasphemy. ... Unlike the blessed angels, who are creatures of spirit only, we are ... Jesus without any stain of original sin, ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: What would Sam have done?
    ... Weland wrote: ... state of sin, ... You stated that Paul stated that Jesus "could have fallen by sinning". ... the First Adam did, as Paul says, and succeeded where the First Adam ...
    (rec.arts.books.tolkien)
  • Re: What would Sam have done?
    ... Jesus was not in a state of sin, but could have fallen by sinning, but did not. ... Where, exactly, does Paul state that Jesus "could have fallen by ... Once again, however, Paul compares Adam and Jesus and states that Adam is a type of Christ. ...
    (rec.arts.books.tolkien)
  • Re: What would Sam have done?
    ... Jesus was not in a state of sin, but could have fallen by sinning, but did not. ... Where, exactly, does Paul state that Jesus "could have fallen by ... Once again, however, Paul compares Adam and Jesus and states that Adam is a type of Christ. ...
    (rec.arts.books.tolkien)
  • Re: Truth For The World
    ... The first truth was that ... Of sin, because they believe not on me; ... B - first off I don't believe that Jesus wanted us to trust in "him" ... As far as Paul and his getting "grace" ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
Loading