SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Hanseng]

On 4/14/2026 at 1:07 PM, Gustave said:

A wonderful testimony that is the opposite of what the Bible defines the Gospel to be. 1st Corinthians 15, 1-10 is explicit as to the Gospel St. Paul was given to preach and the most important part of that Gospel was that there couldn't be any outcome other than what was destined "according to the Scriptures".

The gospel Paul rehearses is about the death and resurrection and Christ. That was God's plan. That's the gospel.  Things don't always go according to His plan. Jesus had free will as did Adam before he fell. There were many things Jesus could have done that he didn't do. He could have prayed for  angels to help him, thus avoiding crucifixion. He did not do that. He could have yielded to satan on three different issues in the wilderness. He did not do that. He could have become a glutton, whoremonger, winebibber. He did none of those things. He was tempted in all points as we are. All human desire is subject to sinful indulgence. Jesus was made in the likeness of men. Adam sinned, a sinless being; consequently, we all sin. We can't help ourselves. Jesus could choose to not sin. Sinful man can not make that choice, according to Romans 7.

The gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ. You got that part right.   When you start spinning Scripture to suit your agenda is when you get it wrong. "According to the Scripture" in the context of the gospel plan doesn't mean that Jesus was a poseur, pretending resist sin he was incapable of committing. Hebrews 12:4 says Jesus struggled against sin.

He would not have had to struggle against sin if he was incapable of committing it. Instead of interpreting Scripture to fit your own preconceived opinions, try letting Scripture inform your opinions.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus could not sin?

 

 

[Challenger]

On 4/21/2026 at 7:58 PM, Hanseng said:

Where did you get the idea that Jesus could not sin?

 

Gustave, why have you not answered Hanseng's question? I too, would like to know. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not intend to argue Gustave's position.  But, I think that I understand it.  The Catholic position begins with the idea that God cannot sin.  I agree with that position.  From that point it goes on to say that if Christ was fully God, it would be impossible for Christ to sin.  I have a response, that I am not stating here.  I will only say that I do not believe that an adequate SDA response has been made to this issue.  I would like to hear more from a SDA theologian.

[Hanseng]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I would like to hear more from a SDA theologian.

I'm not a theologian, so forgive me for responding if you wanted to limit replies to only those who are. A theologian is not required to sort this out. Gustave has not revealed the origins of his belief. Based on what Chaplain Matthews has said the answer is simple:  Whoever asserted that Jesus could not sin is/was wrong. Adam was  sinless with no inclination to sin, yet he did sin. Jesus was like Adam, without an inclination to sin. Unlike Adam he did not sin, even though, as the second Adam, he could have.

 Truth doesn't square with the errors of the papacy or whatever the source of the "Jesus could not sin" scheme might be.

[Challenger]

Just want to voice my thoughts even though I too, am not a theologian. I do not believe for a moment that only theologians can understand truth. Example: All religions have their theologians, how many are in agreement on the various Biblical teachings? 

I agree with  Chaplain Mattews, "Whoever asserted that Jesus could not sin is/was wrong. Adam was  sinless with no inclination to sin, yet he did sin. Jesus was like Adam, without an inclination to sin. Unlike Adam he did not sin, even though, as the second Adam, he could have."