The Octave Day of Pentecost commonly called Trinity SundayALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hast it given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that this holy faith may evermore be our defence against all adversities; who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.
XV. Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Despite being longer than some of the other articles, at first glance, Article XV seems straight forward: Christ did not sin, and the rest of us do. There is more to it than that, though, and it also raises some theological questions which at time have been quite controversial.
First, and this point brings continuity with Article XVI, this article makes clear the rejection of the extreme Protestant position that it is impossible to sin after baptism. This view that the regenerate were incapable of sin was one of the viewpoints, related in some ways to doctrines of predestination, led to the view that if you were sinning that it was an indication you were not regenerate, thereby denying the efficacy of Holy Baptism.
More to the point, this article highlights controversy over Christ’s nature. The opening sentence of Article XV states plainly that Christ was fully human, apart from sin. This conflicted with viewpoints that saw sin as an inherent part of human nature and that the only way that Christ himself could be sinless were if he were born of a sinless mother. One belief was that the Blessed Theotokos was set free from sin at the time of Christ’s conception while a much more recent development in the mid-19th century had the Roman Catholic Church promulgate the dogma of her immaculate conception, that she was kept free from sin from the time of her own conception.
The interesting commentary from this Article is that it does not suggest Christ was set free or kept free from sin either externally or by some influence of his divine nature. It properly maintains the distinction between his two natures, articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the doctrines of which had in common practice become muddled at the time of the English Reformation. Article XV reinforces the statement made in Article IX that human nature itself is not sinful but rather that we have taken on for ourselves a fallen nature. Christ, however, was perfectly obedient to God in his incarnate form and thus remained free of sin and sinful nature throughout his life on earth.
The confusion of this point largely comes from those who suggest that somehow Christ’s divine nature made it such that he did not struggle to follow the Father’s will. This completely contradicts Scripture’s description of Christ’s passion, however, and particularly his prayer in the Garden where he says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Similarly, we are told, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted,” (Heb 2. 18). If Christ could not have sinned, could not even have been tempted, then surely his sacrifice would mean nothing?
This sinless nature is integral to the Lamb referenced in Article XV, a reference to the ancient laws of the Jews, for which only a spotless lamb was suitable to become sin in the sacrifice. Christ could not have become the Lamb, the perfect sacrifice once offered for the sins of the whole world, had he not been spotless. He submitted himself wholly to God that he would be the spotless lamb, and offered himself up as a sacrifice, not for himself but for us.
The Article concludes by again reinforcing that while Christ himself gave himself up to conquer sin, that does not mean that we who are baptised do not sin. The Article quotes from 1 St Jn 1. 8, to remind us we are deceiving ourselves if we say we do not sin. Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the consequence of death and opened to us the way of everlasting life, but that does not mean that we will never sin again. This dichotomy is raised throughout Scripture, and in particular, St Paul discusses it extensively in his epistle to the Romans.
One image often used is the transition from a slave to sin to the adopted child who still sins. Before Christ’s sacrifice, sin represented a barrier to God which we could not, on our own, overcome, therefore we were slaves to it. Through Christ’s atonement, we continue to sin, but by his grace and love it no longer represents an insurmountable barrier to relationship with God. We may repent and return to him.
This line of reasoning leads well into Article XVI which discusses further what it means to sin after Baptism, a point referred to here, and again an issue of no small contention in the medieval times and in the time of the Reformation.
First, and this point brings continuity with Article XVI, this article makes clear the rejection of the extreme Protestant position that it is impossible to sin after baptism. This view that the regenerate were incapable of sin was one of the viewpoints, related in some ways to doctrines of predestination, led to the view that if you were sinning that it was an indication you were not regenerate, thereby denying the efficacy of Holy Baptism.
More to the point, this article highlights controversy over Christ’s nature. The opening sentence of Article XV states plainly that Christ was fully human, apart from sin. This conflicted with viewpoints that saw sin as an inherent part of human nature and that the only way that Christ himself could be sinless were if he were born of a sinless mother. One belief was that the Blessed Theotokos was set free from sin at the time of Christ’s conception while a much more recent development in the mid-19th century had the Roman Catholic Church promulgate the dogma of her immaculate conception, that she was kept free from sin from the time of her own conception.
The interesting commentary from this Article is that it does not suggest Christ was set free or kept free from sin either externally or by some influence of his divine nature. It properly maintains the distinction between his two natures, articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the doctrines of which had in common practice become muddled at the time of the English Reformation. Article XV reinforces the statement made in Article IX that human nature itself is not sinful but rather that we have taken on for ourselves a fallen nature. Christ, however, was perfectly obedient to God in his incarnate form and thus remained free of sin and sinful nature throughout his life on earth.
The confusion of this point largely comes from those who suggest that somehow Christ’s divine nature made it such that he did not struggle to follow the Father’s will. This completely contradicts Scripture’s description of Christ’s passion, however, and particularly his prayer in the Garden where he says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Similarly, we are told, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted,” (Heb 2. 18). If Christ could not have sinned, could not even have been tempted, then surely his sacrifice would mean nothing?
This sinless nature is integral to the Lamb referenced in Article XV, a reference to the ancient laws of the Jews, for which only a spotless lamb was suitable to become sin in the sacrifice. Christ could not have become the Lamb, the perfect sacrifice once offered for the sins of the whole world, had he not been spotless. He submitted himself wholly to God that he would be the spotless lamb, and offered himself up as a sacrifice, not for himself but for us.
The Article concludes by again reinforcing that while Christ himself gave himself up to conquer sin, that does not mean that we who are baptised do not sin. The Article quotes from 1 St Jn 1. 8, to remind us we are deceiving ourselves if we say we do not sin. Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the consequence of death and opened to us the way of everlasting life, but that does not mean that we will never sin again. This dichotomy is raised throughout Scripture, and in particular, St Paul discusses it extensively in his epistle to the Romans.
One image often used is the transition from a slave to sin to the adopted child who still sins. Before Christ’s sacrifice, sin represented a barrier to God which we could not, on our own, overcome, therefore we were slaves to it. Through Christ’s atonement, we continue to sin, but by his grace and love it no longer represents an insurmountable barrier to relationship with God. We may repent and return to him.
This line of reasoning leads well into Article XVI which discusses further what it means to sin after Baptism, a point referred to here, and again an issue of no small contention in the medieval times and in the time of the Reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment