The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Was Jesus Peccable?

It is agreed by all Conservative theologians that Jesus never sinned. However, Conservative Theologians disagree with whether or not Jesus was capable of sinning or not.
The late R.C. Sproul for example believe that If Jesus was not able to sin in his human nature. His temptations would be meaningless.
I was recently on a Reformed board that said what R.C. Sproul believed on this was not only dangerous; but was very close to Nestorianism. He went onto say that AW Pink and CH Spurgeon have great teaching on this.
I got the feeling they did not think very highly of R.C. Sproul.

My position is the same as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul, Sr. In fact, my reasons for taking that view were thoroughly stated and defended here on this very discussion board quite a number of years ago.

Pilgrim
It would be great if you would direct me to where you wrote that article.
I just spent the last 15 minutes searching the Highway for it.
Perhaps I am using the wrong words in my search?
From what I am reading Sproul’s view is a minority view among Reformed theologians and pastors.
In fact, I could find only a few who agreed with Sproul.

Tom

1. I didn't mention an alleged "article" I wrote.
2. I mentioned my positing and defense of my view; "peccability" HERE on this Discussion Board.
3. I did a search HERE using "impeccability" and "newer than 15 years" and found a thread from 2005.

See it here: The impeccability of Christ

Unfortunately, the discussion I was referring to is not accessible. Evidently, it was part of the database that was lost during a move years ago.

Reading this thread and the link that Pilgrim provided has caused me to have a few thoughts and questions that stem from them.

1. Adam was created perfect. Yet he still sinned. Which means (if I understand it correctly) that although he was created “perfect”; does not mean that he could not sin. Rather it meant that he was able to sin or not sin. His human nature was not dead in trespasses and sins. Would it be correct then to say then, that the human nature of Jesus was the same as Adam’s perfect pre-fall condition? I.e, able to sin or not to sin.
It would seem that the majority “Calvinist view”, would be completely at odds with this view, yet if this understanding is correct. It is the view of some fairly impressive names.

2. Why do many people who believe in the Impeccability of Christ accuse those who don’t of borderline “Nestorianism”? Seems like a pretty serious charge.

3. By the way, I have read a fair amount from both sides of the debate and I must say that for the life of me, I can’t understand why those who hold to the Impeccability of Christ would have such a hard time with believing the Christ’s human nature had the ability to sin. It would also seem that to not believe this would be to say that Jesus human nature was somehow different than Adam’s pre-fall human nature?
Perhaps I am missing something?

Tom

1.Adam was created "very good" (Gen 1:31)... not "perfect", albeit, ALL THINGS that God creates is impeccably perfect because it is His good pleasure according to His will.

Adam was given the ability to sin [posse peccare], and the ability to not sin [posse non peccare], but he was not given a guarantee that he would never sin [non posse non peccare].

The incarnate Son of God; Jesus the Christ, the "last Adam" (1Cor 15:45) was in all ways tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15). As the pre-Fall Adam, He, Jesus had no predisposition toward sin; His human nature was pure and predisposed only to love God and to do right. GOD cannot be tempted, thus the divine nature of Jesus was not subject to sin... But, His human nature was most certainly subject to temptation. It is essential that we not intermix the two natures of Christ yet maintain that they were/are inseparable.

2. re: Nestorianism "the doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ. It is named after Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428–31), and was maintained by some ancient churches of the Middle East. A small Nestorian Church still exists in Iraq."
Myself and those who believe that it was theoretically possible for Jesus Christ to sin do NOT in any way, shape or form even suggest that there was/is two separate persons in the one body. There was/is two distinct natures as the Creed of Chalcedon and the true Church throughout the centuries has maintained and defended. The charge of Nestorianism is unfounded.

Pilgrim
Thank you for the correction. Had I actually looked at the applicable Scripture verses, I would not have used the word “perfect”. “Very good” is the proper way to describe Adam’s pre-fall condition.
It is also, part of what being human is all about.
Therefore, why would we expect Jesus to be be different?
Hmm..., this is speculation, but perhaps they think the thought of Jesus in His humanity as just being “very good”, to be unthinkable?

Thank you for mentioning the confession. I agree with you that the accusation about Nestorianism to be unfounded.
That makes me wonder why fellow Calvinists would make such an accusation against other brothers and sisters in Christ.
Makes me think of the 9th commandment.

Tom

Just a brief item form contemplation... The Lord Christ was sent by the Father to accomplish what Adam failed to do; live a righteous life before God in perfect obedience according to God's law. Due to Adam's disobedience, it was not only required that Christ He live in perfect obedience, active obedience, but He also had to pay the penalty of Adam's sin and that of all the elect which the Father gave to Him, aka: passive obedience. IF there was even one single exception applied to Christ which was not owned by Adam, then Christ's substitution of Adam would not be acceptable under the law, etc.

A very worthwhile contemplation as well.
Thanks
Tom

I thought I would add something that I have read from people who disagree with us on the matter; that seems to be a big contention of theirs.

(My words not theirs, from my understanding of their argument. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding them.)

The fact that Jesus is100% human and 100% God, makes it impossible for Jesus to sin even in His humanity. To say otherwise we divide the two natures as though they are two separate persons.

I don’t quite follow their logic; but that is my understanding.


Tom

That's because it is not logical.

Again, I and those who believe in the peccability of Christ do NOT believe there are two separate persons... but two indivisible and separate natures. The Scripture is replete with passages which reveal the two separate natures of Christ. God does not thirst, hunger, feel pain, grow in knowledge, submit in obedience to any human, die, etc., etc. All these things+ are applicable to man. Again, the Chalcedonian Creed makes clear that you cannot separate the two natures but you cannot intermix the two natures thus changing their respective qualities and attributes.

Jesus was fully human, but was also fully God, and while he did experience all of His temptations in the same fashion that we do, there was literally nothing in either His sinless humanity nor his Deity to entertain sinning, so He was not able to actually sin!

Please, if you can how it was that Adam sinned when he likewise had no inherit propensity to sin? More so, please explain how Satan sinned in his rebellion toward God before any human being came into existence and without, as was the case with Adam, any external temptation/influence?

They both were created beings with the capacity to choose to sin or not, but Jesus being very God, cannot sin!

The Son of God is eternal, but Jesus of Nazareth the human was created (Isa 9:6; Jh 1:14; Lk 1:30,31), albeit divinely in the womb of Mary. God the Son cannot sin! But the human nature of the incarnate Son of Man was certainly capable of sin. As I have argued for years, a) If Jesus could not have sinned in His human nature then He could not have been the "Second Adam" (1Cor 15:45) and would not have been a legitimate representative of sinful mankind. That is why His atonement was vicarious and substutionary.Not only were the temptations of life and the Devil real, but so was the effects on the human nature of Christ real. In short.... the Lord Christ was sorely tempted by He CHOSE NOT to give in to those temptations. b) And, as I have also pointed out, the Chalcedon Creed which has been accepted by all of Christendom since it was presented clearly states that you cannot intermix the two natures, i.e., each of the two natures; Divine and Human must be maintained although they are inseparable in the one person of the Lord Christ.