Pilgrim,
I would agree that McCormick may have extrapolated a little in respect to the Satan thing, but the general thought that the purpose of Christ’s temptation was not to determine if Christ would sin, but to demonstrate that He could not sin, is made clear. A gentle reminder; in all I have read in regards to Impeccability and Peccability, your view is a minority view. Which may not mean a whole lot, considering Calvinism at this time, is a minority in Christendom, but nonetheless, James 3:1 is sobering to one like yourself who has a following (on this forum)on such a debated theological position.
Remember, Heb. 4:15 and the Greek word for temptation (peirazo) according to the original article I started the post with, (the one that had Lat. potuit non peccare and Lat. Non potuit peccare wrong) states that it is the same word used in other verses where the Father and Holy Spirit are used. Who of you wants to venture out and claim They also could of have had the ability to sin? Yes, I know they do not have a human nature, yet, who of you are willing to separate the 23 chromosomes given by the Holy Spirit and the 23 chromosomes given by the virgin Mary and say that Jesus was able to cease being effected by His divine nature (Heb. 13:8, John 1:1, John 2:25, John 10:18)?
Also, many of you claim that those who believe in “impeccability”, lessen or cheapen Christ’s suffering, temptation and etc, but do not bring up the fact, that the ultimate suffering that took place, was while Jesus was on the cross. This suffering was delivered by the Father (Isaiah 53:4)? “For He (Father) made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”, 2 Cor. 5:19. Can you hear our Savior’s cries, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Geomic