Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
speratus loses all sense of logic and retorts:
In Arminianism, free choice to do good or evil is an immutable and essential attribute of man that was not completely lost in the fall. Therefore, under the Arminian system, Christ must have free choice to do good or evil. He must surrender His Impeccability in the Incarnation in order to become a true man.
Therefore??

Arminian Christology and  Anthroplogy are consistent (i.e., Christ who able to sin and able not to sin is the savior of an existing species who are able to sin and able not to sin). Calvinists who hold with Arminian derived Christology and with Calvinist Anthroplogy are inconsistent (i.e., Christ who able to sin and able not to sin is the savior of an existing species who are able to sin and not able not to sin).

Quote
Pilgrim fails to undestand my point
Sorry, but this is nothing but nonsense. For your conclusion to be valid, Christ would have had to take upon Himself fallen human nature; non posse non peccare (not able to not sin). Is this what you believe? There are only two other choices if you reject this: 1) The human nature of Christ possessed that which Adam was created with; endowed with posse peccare and posse non peccare (able to sin and able not to sin), or 2) a nature which no human has ever possessed; posse non peccare and non posse peccare (able to not sin and not able to sin). If it was the former, then the case for peccability is proved. If the latter, then the Lord Christ did not possess a human nature which equates to that which God created man with and thus He is not a qualified representative of the human race and therefore He is no Saviour of men, but rather of some species of which we are not ever told existed.

If the ability to sin and to not sin are essential attributes of man, then Christ is not a qualified representative for a species who are not able to not sin.