Quote
geomic1 said:
Being a bit of a “hyper Calvinist”, I find the logic that there was a chance that Jesus could have succumbed to temptation, hard to accept. It would place the omniscience of the Father in question (at least in my mind). Is this not a kind of “Open Theism”, with an “infralapsarian” bent?
You're joking right? re: "Open Theism, with an infralapsarian bent". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Tell, me, was the salvation of any of the elect ever in "divine limbo" until the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ had occurred? Is the justification of any of the elect ever in jeopardy until they actually believe, albeit they are not actually justified until they do believe. The point is that whatever God has decreed is certain. But that doesn't negate nor diminish the historical reality of that which God has decreed.

If you want to hold to the view that it was impossible for Christ to have sinned, then how about dealing with the reasons I and others have given that He must have had the ability to sin and/or give your reasons why you think He could not have been able to sin (non posse non peccare)? That would be far more profitable than suggesting that those who disagree with you are somehow guilty of holding to some form of "Open Theism/infralapsarian bent". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]