J_Edwards misquotes me by omitting the preceding sentence, "According to your logic, there is a Christ who is incapable of sin and a Christ who is capable of sin (i.e., two persons)."
Misquote Speartus, may it never be! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/comfort.gif" alt="" /> You are your own master at that… Sparing you the embarrassment by not addressing all your errors is more like it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
However, if you desire to push the proverbial button, there is ONE person and TWO distinct natures, NOT TWO PERSONS, as you state above….
Since you continue to misstate, here's my original post in its entirety:
Quote
No, that would be Eutychianism. According to your logic, there is a Christ who is incapable of sin and a Christ who is capable of sin (i.e., two persons). Christ the Man is incapable of holiness since holiness is purely a divine attribute. And we are lost because we can never be holy.
In His state of humiliation, Christ did not always use His divine powers (Phil. 2:5-8), but He never became capable of sin. He could never deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13).
The first paragraph refers to what I say logically follows from Pilgrim's erroneous view. The second paragraph refers to my view of scripture. Note the paragraph break between the two thoughts.
Quote
J Edwards continues Pilgrim no where TMK states there are TWO persons, but he does describe TWO distinct natures in ONE person. Pilgrim agrees with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII Of Christ the Mediator, which IMHO states the issue correctly … Pilgrim even highlighted Christ’s TWO natures for you in The Creed of Chalcedon, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union </span> , but I guess you had your eyes wide-shut!
For "the distinction of natures" to be applicable, "impeccabilitity" would have to be an attribute that applies only to the divine nature. Are Pilgrim and you saying that man is incapable of "impeccability"?
As 1 Cor. 15:45-49 states, we have better Adam. Unlike the first Adam, the second Adam was perfectly holy and incapable of sin. Yes, Christ suffered temptation, hunger, thrist, and pressure expel gases. But sin is not an essential attribute of man. Christ was and remains 100% man though incapable of sin. We will be incapable of sin yet we will remain men.
Neither you nor Pligrim wish to deal with the implications of Peccability. There are only two options: 1.If Christ is capable of sin, then He can not offer man that which He is lacking Himself. Resurrected and glorified man remains capable of sin forever. So much for eternal security! 2. If Christ earns His own personal Impeccability through His perfect obediance and death, it still would not apply to us since He did not accomplish it as our substitute. So much for vicarious atonement!
