The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The impeccability of Christ

Could The Man aspect of Christ Jesus Have Sinned?

If you are asking if Jesus was actually tempted like us yet without sinning the answer is yes!

Hebrews 2:18

“Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”



Wes

Wes, I found this article, but unfortunately I don't know who wrote it, it seems pretty solid. You wrote that Jesus was tempted like us, yet without sinning, which I agree with, but how does one who does not have a sinful inclination ("Original Sin")like our Savior, be tempted like us?

"Although Christ was repeatedly "tempted" during His ministry (cf. Luke 4:13, 22:28; Mark 8:11), His great temptation (Matt. 4:1 and parallels) is the focus of this study unit. His temptation was a testing for demonstration of His purity and sinlessness (Heb. 4:15) without any possibility of enticement to evil (James 1:13).

PECCABILITY

The view that Christ could have sinned is termed peccability (Lat. potuit non peccare, "able not to sin,") while the view that Christ could not have sinned is designated impeccability (Lat. non potuit peccare, "not able to sin"). Among evangelicals the issue is not whether or not Christ sinned; all evangelicals would deny that Christ actually sinned. The question in the debate is whether or not Christ could have sinned. Generally (not always), Calvinists believe that Christ could not have sinned, whereas Arminians generally believe that Christ could have sinned but did not.

Those who hold to the peccability of Christ do so on the basis of Hebrews 4:15: He "has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." If the temptation was genuine then Christ had to be able to sin, otherwise the temptation was not a genuine temptation. Charles Hodge, a Reformed theologian, is perhaps the best representative of this view. He states:

"If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people."

The radio and written ministries of M. R. DeHaan and Richard DeHaan also teach the peccability of Christ.
The supposed strength of this view is that it alone identifies Christ with humanity in His temptations—they were real temptations. The weaknesses of this view are that it does not sufficiently consider Christ in His Person as God as well as man. Additionally, the word temptation (Gk. peirazo) is also used of God the Father (Acts 15:10; 1 Cor. 10:9; Heb. 3:9) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9). It is unlikely that anyone would say the Father or the Holy Spirit could have sinned. The conclusion is that temptation does not demand the ability to sin. The people genuinely tempted God the Father and the Holy Spirit, but there was no likelihood of those Persons of the Trinity sinning.

IMPECCABILITY

Those who hold to impeccability suggest Christ's temptation by Satan was genuine, but it was impossible for Christ to sin. Several introductory observations should be noted.

Observations.

The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could sin, but to show that He could not sin. The temptation came at a critical time: the beginning of Christ's public ministry. The temptation was designed to show the nation what a unique Savior she had: the impeccable Son of God. It is also noteworthy that it was not Satan who initiated the temptation but the Holy Spirit (Matt. 4:1). If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit solicited Christ to sin, but that is something God does not do (James 1:13).

Christ's peccability could relate only to His human nature; His divine nature was impeccable. Although Christ had two natures, He was nonetheless one Person and could not divorce Himself of His deity. Wherever He went, the divine nature was present. If the two natures could be separated then it could be said that He could sin in His humanity, but because the human and divine natures cannot be separated from the Person of Christ, and since the divine nature cannot sin, it must be affirmed that Christ could not have sinned.

Evidence.

The evidence for the impeccability of Christ is set forth by William Shedd and others in the following way.

(1) The immutability of Christ (Heb. 13:8). Christ is unchangeable and therefore could not sin. If Christ could have sinned while on earth, then He could sin now because of His immutability. If He could have sinned on earth, what assurance is there that He will not sin now?

(2) The omnipotence of Christ (Matt. 28:18). Christ was omnipotent and therefore could not sin. Weakness is implied where sin is possible, yet there was no weakness of any kind in Christ. How could He be omnipotent and still be able to sin?

(3) The omniscience of Christ (John 2:25). Christ was omniscient and therefore could not sin. Sin depends on ignorance in order that the sinner may be deceived, but Christ could not be deceived because He knows all things, including the hypothetical (Matt. 11:21). If Christ could have sinned then He really did not know what would happen if He would sin.

(4) The deity of Christ. Christ is not only man but also God. If He were only a man then He could have sinned, but God cannot sin and in a union of the two natures, the human nature submits to the divine nature (otherwise the finite is stronger than the infinite). United in the one Person of Christ are the two natures, humanity and deity; because Christ is also deity He could not sin.

(5) The nature of temptation (James 1:14-15). The temptation that came to Christ was from without. However, for sin to take place, there must be an inner response to the outward temptation. Since Jesus did not possess a sin nature, there was nothing within Him to respond to the temptation. People sin because there is an inner response to the outer temptation.

(6) The will of Christ. In moral decisions, Christ could have only one will: to do the will of His Father; in moral decisions the human will was subservient to the divine will. If Christ could have sinned then His human will would have been stronger than the divine will.

(7) The authority of Christ (John 10:18). In His deity, Christ had complete authority over His humanity. For example, no one could take the life of Christ except He would lay it down willingly (John 10:18). If Christ had authority over life and death, He certainly had authority over sin; if He could withhold death at will, He could also withhold sin at will."

I believe so since Jesus could be tempted.

In the same way in which Adam, who also had no sin nature, was tempted.

geomic1,

Aside from the fact that the author of that piece has his terminology messed up, e.g., "potuit non peccare", which actually means "possible to not sin" and thus belongs to "impeccability", whereas "non posse non peccare", the correct term, which means "not able to not sin" is correct. Also Hodge was a staunch Calvinist and believed in peccability as I am as well along with many others. So, the general observation that Calvinists hold to impeccability may not be an accurate one.

Now... here is my take on this matter. It had to be that the Lord Christ could have sinned if He so willed in His humanity. The divine nature of Christ, being God of truly God could not have sinned for God cannot be tempted. (Jam 1:13) He was man's duly appointed representative, aka: the second Adam Who came to earth to do that which the first Adam failed to do. The first Adam was created, posse peccare (able to sin) and posse non peccare (able to not sin), but he was not created non posse non peccare (not able to not sin), i.e., Adam was not guaranteed the ability to never sin. Thus the Lord Christ, being truly man had to willingly resist all temptation and live perfectly before the Father, keeping the law completely. If He was endowed with non posse non peccare, the guarantee to never sin, then the temptations were pointless and He would not have been qualified to represent mankind to undergo the test of the law which would have merited atonement for those who would believe upon Him. Hebrews 2:18 says clearly that He "suffered being tempted" showing that the Lord Christ was actually touched, drawn, etc., by those temptations of which He refused to acquiesce, and of which the first Adam allowed himself to be taken in and thus transgressed the law of God.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,
You say in your response “If He was endowed with non posse non peccare, the guarantee to never sin, then the temptations were pointless…, isn’t that holding the whole drama of salvation in check, until our Savior does or does not accomplish what the first Adam failed to do? Being a bit of a “hyper Calvinist”, I find the logic that there was a chance that Jesus could have succumbed to temptation, hard to accept. It would place the omniscience of the Father in question (at least in my mind). Is this not a kind of “Open Theism”, with an “infralapsarian” bent?
Geomic1

You're joking right? re: "Open Theism, with an infralapsarian bent". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Tell, me, was the salvation of any of the elect ever in "divine limbo" until the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ had occurred? Is the justification of any of the elect ever in jeopardy until they actually believe, albeit they are not actually justified until they do believe. The point is that whatever God has decreed is certain. But that doesn't negate nor diminish the historical reality of that which God has decreed.

If you want to hold to the view that it was impossible for Christ to have sinned, then how about dealing with the reasons I and others have given that He must have had the ability to sin and/or give your reasons why you think He could not have been able to sin (non posse non peccare)? That would be far more profitable than suggesting that those who disagree with you are somehow guilty of holding to some form of "Open Theism/infralapsarian bent". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Could we simply say that in His humanity Christ was tempted even as we are, but that in the fulness of His Person, being One Person with two Natures, He could not have sinned--due to His Divine Nature?

Theo

Pilgrim,
Don’t take yourself so seriously (especially with a twit you don’t know in cyber land), you will end up with plugged coronaries and a shortened life. My point is that a person who believes like myself that God has chosen the elect as well as the reprobate prior to the “Fall”, would claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection was decided before time began to be efficacious for the elect. Even for the infralapsarian, Jesus' death and resurrection was for the elect prior to the actual event of the cross (those who look forward to the cross) as well for those after the event (who look back). I would say it is semantics that the elect are not elect until they believe, because before the foundation of the earth they were chosen to believe. So, how could Jesus have sinned if the plan was already in place to succeed? Mind you, Scripture is clear that he was tempted in every way, but the outcome was sure. In my pea brain mind, to say that He could have sin, negates the plan all ready in motion by the Almighty. This is why according to the article, most Calvinist (not all) would believe that Christ could not have failed (impeccability). To say that He could have sinned, means God the Father had to wait to see the outcome of the temptation of His Son, for the reality of salvation to occur (unless He had a plan “B”). Isn’t this a bit like Open Theism?
Geomic

geomic1,

It isn't myself that I take seriously, but biblical doctrine and truth. Patronizing by a professed "twit you don’t know in cyber land" I don't take seriously either. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

It isn't Supralapsarianism nor Infralapsarianism that is going to resolve this question, which at this point it is obvious it wasn't a sincere question at all but simply the typical enticement of a . Nevertheless, the issue remains if it were possible for the Lord Christ to have sinned. That He would not sin was certain from the decree which does not deal with the "nature" of Christ in His humanity and its possibility to sin. Again, the Fall of Adam was decreed and thus made certain. Yet, Adam still was endowed with the freedom and ability to abstain from sin. The decree of God does not negate the freedom of the creature even though the end is certain. But I suppose "hypers" can't comprehend that truth which is also set forth in the WCF, Dordt, Belgic, and every other Reformed/Calvinist confession. Again, was Adam given the ability to not sin? Absolutely!! Thus was it possible for Adam to NOT sin? Absolutely!! even though it was decreed that he would sin. The possibility that he could abstain from transgression was given to him as part of his created nature. If this were not true, then the objection by everyone out there that Calvinism makes men robots is justified.

Okay... now this is also true of the Lord Christ in His human nature, that He must have had the ability to sin (posse peccare) or to not sin (posse non peccare) even while it was decreed that He would not sin, else He would not be qualified to serve as a substitute for mankind, for the "test" would not have been real and there would be no such thing as "victory", etc.

Perhaps now you can entertain some form of rational and relevant dialog? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

If you find this hard to accept do you also have a problem with Jesus being truly human?


Wes

Pilgrim,
“Patronizing”? Nah, just having fun. I am curious what you mean by “simply the enticement of a (picture of some type of animal)”? I do not believe that I am being insincere in my responses, nor enticing. Mainly “stirring the pot”, to get a response to yours and Hodges thought on “Impeccability”. Also, trying to get you understand the possible implication of that thought. Most importantly, I could be wrong.
Remember Pilgrim, there were many supra’s present at the WCF and probably at the other councils. I believe much of what was adopted in the WCF was a compromise with the less palatable positions of eternal decrees of the supra’s. You say that you do not take yourself seriously, but you take “biblical doctrine and truth seriously”; well, so do I, but I do have enough reason in me to realize that the whole issue of the Impeccability or not of Christ has been an on going debate in Christendom for 2000 years. So, who is fooling who, over being to serious about a question of theology that may never be answered until glory by their dogmatism? Especially considering your position is probably a minority view amongst Reform people and most of the protestant world.
Though I do not pretend to understand the mystery of God’s sovereignty, I also do not pretend to understand the mystery of man’s responsibility. Yet, when it comes to eternal decrees set forth, Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the earth where the names of the elect were already established (Rev. 13:8), thus I reject the notion that the human aspect of our Savior could have failed, thus placing the whole drama of man’s redemption in jeopardy.
Now I have been a Reform person for many years and one of the things I have been guilty of in the past is a haughty attitude. Unfortunately, my subjective feeling is that a haughty attitude is and has been a stumbling block for many of us in the Reform tradition. May we never forget that any real truth we possess came from God.
Geomic

Could Adam have succeeded?

Your stirring of the pot makes God's plan of redemption which the Godhead engineered before the foundation of the world a bit fatalistic. I can't help but feel that you are taking an extreme position which overlooks the humaness of Jesus Christ. Do you then believe His suffering was just a performance? How about Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemene?


Wes