Quote
geomic1 said:
Heb. 4:15: Our Lord was subjected to testing in the totality of His Being, not that He might “overcome temptation and thus win a victory for all His redeemed”, but in order that the Impeccability of His Person should be forever manifested to men, to angels, and to demons!
This would appear to be perilously close to denying the vicarious substitutionary element of Christ's atonement, e.g., Finney's "Governmental Theory". Personally, I wouldn't use McCormick's argument to defend your view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Quote
You further quote McCormick:
There is every reason to believe that Satan would have gladly avoided the encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ if he could have received Divine permission to do so; for he well knew that the inevitable result of that meeting was going to be a humiliating defeat for himself and for his kingdom of darkness.
This too I must take issue with for it doesn't accord with other Scriptural testimony, e.g., when Satan stood before God and asked permission to "have Job"! (cf. Job 1:6ff) The way McCormick seems to state the case, Satan was ordered to tempt Christ which was not his own desire to do so. I would contend that this is inconsistent with what we know of Satan, e.g., that his insatiable desire is to wage war against God, the Christ and His saints and grasps at every opportunity to do so, yet not without being granted permission by God. See also, e.g., Zech 3:1ff.

And once again, you have failed to address the issue of Christ's mediatorial and redemptive role as the Messiah, the second Adam in order to atone for the sins of the elect.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]