J. Edwards,
My words do not help in the quest to support the impeccability of our Christ, may be some one else might: The Geneva Bible under theological note says, “Jesus could not sin, but He was able to be tempted. Satan tempted Him to disobey the Father through self-gratification, self-display and self aggrandizement (Matt.4:1-11), and the temptation to retreat from the Cross was constant (Luke 22:28); cf. Matt. 4:1-11), and Jesus could not conquer temptation without a struggle, but being divine it was His nature to do His Father’s will (John 5:19, 30), and therefore to resist and fight temptation until He had overcome it. Since His human nature was conformed to His divine nature, it was impossible that He should fail in the course of His resistance. It was inevitable that He would endure temptations to the end, feeling their entire force, and emerge victorious for His people. From Gethsemane we know how acute and agonizing His struggles were. The happy result for us is that because ‘He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted’ (Heb. 2:18)”. Note, the first line, “Jesus could not sin, but He was able to be tempted”, the peccability people want to say, “Jesus had the ability to sin”, instead of He had the ability to be tempted. With the word “tempted”, there are many ways to interpret depending on your bent (Heb. 2:18, Heb.4:15) as I tried to show to Kyle, by giving him an exegesis from another web site.
Maybe in some ways it is simply a problem with semantics, that truly separate the Impeccability from the peccabiltiy people, because I know that both sides do agree on the fact that Christ did experience humanity in a way that qualified Him to be the 2nd Adam. Accusations of Monophysitism and Apollinarianism really do not apply in this on going debate.
Geomic