geomic1,

It isn't myself that I take seriously, but biblical doctrine and truth. Patronizing by a professed "twit you don’t know in cyber land" I don't take seriously either. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

It isn't Supralapsarianism nor Infralapsarianism that is going to resolve this question, which at this point it is obvious it wasn't a sincere question at all but simply the typical enticement of a [Linked Image]. Nevertheless, the issue remains if it were possible for the Lord Christ to have sinned. That He would not sin was certain from the decree which does not deal with the "nature" of Christ in His humanity and its possibility to sin. Again, the Fall of Adam was decreed and thus made certain. Yet, Adam still was endowed with the freedom and ability to abstain from sin. The decree of God does not negate the freedom of the creature even though the end is certain. But I suppose "hypers" can't comprehend that truth which is also set forth in the WCF, Dordt, Belgic, and every other Reformed/Calvinist confession. Again, was Adam given the ability to not sin? Absolutely!! Thus was it possible for Adam to NOT sin? Absolutely!! even though it was decreed that he would sin. The possibility that he could abstain from transgression was given to him as part of his created nature. If this were not true, then the objection by everyone out there that Calvinism makes men robots is justified.

Okay... now this is also true of the Lord Christ in His human nature, that He must have had the ability to sin (posse peccare) or to not sin (posse non peccare) even while it was decreed that He would not sin, else He would not be qualified to serve as a substitute for mankind, for the "test" would not have been real and there would be no such thing as "victory", etc.

Perhaps now you can entertain some form of rational and relevant dialog? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]