The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The impeccability of Christ

geomic1,

Aside from the fact that the author of that piece has his terminology messed up, e.g., "potuit non peccare", which actually means "possible to not sin" and thus belongs to "impeccability", whereas "non posse non peccare", the correct term, which means "not able to not sin" is correct. Also Hodge was a staunch Calvinist and believed in peccability as I am as well along with many others. So, the general observation that Calvinists hold to impeccability may not be an accurate one.

Now... here is my take on this matter. It had to be that the Lord Christ could have sinned if He so willed in His humanity. The divine nature of Christ, being God of truly God could not have sinned for God cannot be tempted. (Jam 1:13) He was man's duly appointed representative, aka: the second Adam Who came to earth to do that which the first Adam failed to do. The first Adam was created, posse peccare (able to sin) and posse non peccare (able to not sin), but he was not created non posse non peccare (not able to not sin), i.e., Adam was not guaranteed the ability to never sin. Thus the Lord Christ, being truly man had to willingly resist all temptation and live perfectly before the Father, keeping the law completely. If He was endowed with non posse non peccare, the guarantee to never sin, then the temptations were pointless and He would not have been qualified to represent mankind to undergo the test of the law which would have merited atonement for those who would believe upon Him. Hebrews 2:18 says clearly that He "suffered being tempted" showing that the Lord Christ was actually touched, drawn, etc., by those temptations of which He refused to acquiesce, and of which the first Adam allowed himself to be taken in and thus transgressed the law of God.

In His grace,