Kyle, I think, depending on your presuppositions, Heb. 4:15, can support both views. Check out this site for what seems a fair exegesis of the passage http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1488 Geomic
Theo, I like your statement and would say yes. This was something the first Adam never was (the fulness of the Godhead in one person), so, you can only go so far with passages like Romans chp. 5:12-21. Geomic
speratus said: No. In the hypostatic union, Christ is both true God and true man in one indivisible person. Christ is holy and incapable of sin (Lev. 19.2; 1 Peter 15, 16; James 1:13). To say that Christ the man is capable of sinning is to separate the person and deny the true nature of the Incarnation (John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9; Is., 9:6).
And similar to the other errors you have made on similar subjects re: the two natures of Christ, using your "logic", the human nature of Christ was divine, possessed omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
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).
Speratus said; 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).
So you deny the holiness of Jesus—the man. How sad that you have no true Redeemer. IF holiness is ONLY a Divine attribute (only owned by God, not man, even Jesus) then WHY does the Scripture give us mere mortals commands to be holy and even call us holy? (Exodus 22:31, Isaiah 62:12, Luke 1:70, Romans 11:16, 12:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:14, Hebrews 3:1, 1 Peter 1:15-16, etc.). Have you ever read what the Apostle Paul wrote in?
Quote
Colossians 1:21-22:
And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:
Colossians 3:12:
Put on therefore, as God's elect, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering;
Jesus was/is/and will always be holy, however this does not mean He was never legitimately tempted not to be holy. Christ’s temptations were real, not imagined.
Now, what you have declared is that YOU do not have a holy Redeemer. However, Jesus, the MAN, had to be holy in order to redeem any from sin (Hebrews 7:26), but this YOU deny by saying, “Christ the Man is incapable of holiness since holiness is purely a divine attribute,” thus improperly separating Christ’s two natures and placing more emphasis on His Divine, rather than balancing His Divine and Human natures. However, the Scripture states that the Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of His elect, must be Himself free from sin—He must be HOLY (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22). As Hodge states,
Quote
A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. 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.
It may assist you to read the WCF and prayerfully understand it:
Quote
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII Of Christ the Mediator
I. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,[1] the Prophet,[2] Priest,[3] and King,[4] the Head and Savior of his church,[5] the Heir of all things,[6] and Judge of the world:[7] unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed,[8] and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.[9]
1. Isa. 42:1; I Peter 1:19-20; John 3:16; I Tim. 2:5 2. Acts 3:20, 22; see Deut. 18:15 3. Heb. 5:5-6 4. Psa. 2:6; Luke 1:33; see Isa. 9:5-6; Acts 2:29-36; Col. 1:13 5. Eph. 5:23 6. Heb. 1:2 7. Acts 17:31 8. John 17:6; Psa. 22:30; Isa. 53:10; Eph. 1:4 9. I Tim. 2:6; Isa. 55:4-5; I Cor. 1:30; Rom 8:30
II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,[10] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.[12] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.[13] Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[14]
10. John 1:1, 14; I John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4 11. Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14, 16-17; 4:15 12. Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal. 4:4; see Matt. 1:18, 20-21 13. Matt. 16:16; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; I Tim. 3:16 14. Rom. 1:3-4; I Tim. 2:5
III. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure,[15] having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;[16] in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;[17] to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,[18] he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator, and surety.[19] Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father,[20] who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.[21]
15. Psa. 45:7; John 3:34; see Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:18; Heb. 1:8-9 16. Col 2:3 17. Col 1:19 18. Heb. 7:26; John 1:14 19. Acts 10:38; Heb. 7:22; 12:24 20. Heb. 5:4-5 21. John 5:22, 27; Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36
IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake;[22] which that he might discharge, he was made under the law,[23] and did perfectly fulfill it;[24] endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul,[25] and most painful sufferings in his body;[26] was crucified, and died,[27] was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption.[28] On the third day he arose from the dead,[29] with the same body in which he suffered,[30] with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father,[31] making intercession,[32] and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.[33]
22. Psa. 40:7-8; see Heb. 10:5-10; John 4:34; 10:18; Phil. 2:8 23. Gal. 4:4 24. Matt. 3:15; 5:17; Heb. 5:8-9 25. Matt. 26:37-38; 27:46; Luke 22:44 26. Matt. 26:67-68; 27:27-50 27. Mark 15:24, 37; Phil. 2:8 28. Matt. 27:60; Acts 2:24, 27; 13:29, 37; Rom. 6:9 29. I Cor. 16:3-4 30. Luke 24:39; John 20:25, 27 31. Luke 24:50-51; I Peter 3:22 32. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; see Heb. 9:24 33. Acts 1:11, 10:42; John 5:28-29; Rom. 14:10b; Matt. 13:40-42; Jude 1:6: see II Peter 2:4
V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father;[34] and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.[35]
VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.[36]
36. Gal. 4:4-5; Gen. 3:15; I Cor. 10:4; Rev. 13:8; Heb. 9:15; 13:8; see Rom. 3:25
VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;[37] yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.[38]
37. John 10:17-18; I Peter 3:18; Heb. 1:3; 9:14 38. Acts 20 28; Luke 1:43; see Rom. 9:5
VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;[39] making intercession for them,[40] and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation;[41] effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit;[42] overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.[43]
39. John 6:37, 39; 10:15-16, 27-28 40. I John 2:1; Rom. 4:34 41. John 15:15; 17:6; Eph. 1:9 42. John 14:26; 17:17: II Cor. 4:13; Rom. 8:9, 14; 15:18-19 43. Psa. 110:1; I Cor. 15:25-26; Col. 2:15; Luke 10:19
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."
Quote
Speratus said; 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).
So you deny the holiness of Jesus—the man. How sad that you have no true Redeemer.
No, I am referring to the natural consequences of Pilgrim holding to peccability of Christ.
Quote
J Edwards continues IF holiness is ONLY a Divine attribute (only owned by God, not man, even Jesus) then WHY does the Scripture give us mere mortals commands to be holy and even call us holy? (Exodus 22:31, Isaiah 62:12, Luke 1:70, Romans 11:16, 12:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:14, Hebrews 3:1, 1 Peter 1:15-16, etc.). Have you ever read what the Apostle Paul wrote in?
Quote
Colossians 1:21-22:
And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:
Colossians 3:12:
Put on therefore, as God's elect, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering;
Jesus was/is/and will always be holy, however this does not mean He was never legitimately tempted not to be holy. Christ’s temptations were real, not imagined.
Correct and exactly my point!
Quote
J Edwards misstates Now, what you have declared is that YOU do not have a holy Redeemer. However, Jesus, the MAN, had to be holy in order to redeem any from sin (Hebrews 7:26), but this YOU deny by saying, “Christ the Man is incapable of holiness since holiness is purely a divine attribute,” thus improperly separating Christ’s two natures and placing more emphasis on His Divine, rather than balancing His Divine and Human natures. However, the Scripture states that the Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of His elect, must be Himself free from sin—He must be HOLY (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22).
No, I am saying that Christ is holy and incapable of sin.
Quote
[J Edwards quoting Hodge A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. 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.
When Hodge says that Christ must be capable of sin to be a true man, he is in error. The capability to sin is not of the substance of man. In our glorified state, we will continue to be men but we will be incapable of sin.
Quote
J Edwards commends the WCF It may assist you to read the WCF and prayerfully understand it
Where does the WCF address the peccability of Christ?
geomic1 said: Kyle, I think, depending on your presuppositions, Heb. 4:15, can support both views. Check out this site for what seems a fair exegesis of the passage http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1488 Geomic
The fundamental problem for you and other impeccabilists is this: what is it to be tempted to sin if there is no ability to sin? Can you be tempted to eat if you are incapable of eating?
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Kyle, The pecca…people, don’t want to discuss, the rationale that there really can’t be an “ability to sin” if there is no real possibility of it happening. I enjoy silhouette target shooting, there is an ability (in my person) to hit the metal plate (bulls eye) every time, but there is a real chance I will miss the mark (definition of sin, BTW). If I miss, there is a consequence that I will not win the match (many of my opponents get perfect scores). That is a given. You all are willing to say that Jesus had the ability to miss the target, but not lose the match (redemption).I believe that Jesus’ temptation was mainly external, if He did have internal pressure it seem to come from the knowledge that He would soon take on the sins of the world and become sin (a bit of a mystery in and of itself), separating Himself from the Father. Our temptations always start out internal (James 1:14), when we are bombarded by the external, that is why I believe He was incapable of sinning, internally His mind was not neutral like with Adam, His will was to be obedient from the start (God’s foreknowledge), our will is to be disobedient from the start, because we are not neutral either (2Cor.2:14), but our will (prior to conversion) is the antithesis of our Savior. He was tempted by all types of sins, just like we are, but because in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col.2:9), and because He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Heb.13:8), I have a Savior who triumphed over evil and made me His. I also know that my Savior is able to save completely, because His Father set it up that way from before the foundation of the earth (Rev.13:8,Rev.17:8). Granted, I am very finite and this whole line of thought is more on the mysterious side, with some glimpses (Scripture) of truth. My personal difficulty as been with this topic on this forum, is that many are quick to make accusations of aberrant teaching (the kind people) and to near heretical claims (by the not so kind), yet this is a highly debatable topic. Why the harsh responses, especially considering that the majority view on this forum has been a minority view since the first Advent? Geomic
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! You are your own master at that… Sparing you the embarrassment by not addressing all your errors is more like it
However, if you desire to push the proverbial button, there is ONE person and TWO distinct natures, NOT TWO PERSONS, as you state above….
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, the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union , but I guess you had your eyes wide-shut!
Quote
Speratus said,
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).
----
J_Edwards replied ,
So you deny the holiness of Jesus—the man. How sad that you have no true Redeemer.
----
Speratus states, No, I am referring to the natural consequences of Pilgrim holding to peccability of Christ.
The natural consequence of Pilgrim’s assertion is that for Christ to be truly man He had to be able to be truly tempted and capable of sinning, otherwise He is not a true man. He had to be “as” the First Man Adam—capable of sin, yet, "as" the Last Man Adam (1 Cor 15:45), He did not sin. Christ had to be man—fully man--in order to accomplish the atonement for His elect.
Do you understand that there are two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation? This is basic to the issue at hand. Do you understand that Jesus had hands and feet and a tongue and a mouth? Do you understand that Jesus was REAL MAN? Let me be a little crude—Jesus could fart! (I mean here no offense to the Trinity, however the shock value will hopefully reveal your lack of faith in Christ's humanity ...)
Jesus' humanity is displayed in the fact that He was born as a baby from a human mother (Luke 2:7; Gal 4:4), that He became weary (John 4:6), thirsty (John 19:28), and hungry (Matt 4:2), and that He experienced the full range of human emotions such as marvel (Matt. 8:10), weeping, and sorrow (John 11:35). The fact that Jesus is truly and fully human is clear from the fact that He has a human body (Luke 24:39), a human mind/soul (Luke 2:52; Matt 26:38). Jesus does not just look like a man; He does not just have some aspects of what is essential for true humanity but not others, but possessed full humanity. His humanity, a "true body" and a "reasonable soul," was subject to all the infirmities of the flesh, but He never sinned….
However, Christ had a human nature capable of sin and was tempted to sin--yet He did not. As Hebrews 4:15 states: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." So when Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness, these were real temptations! However how real would they be if He was not capable of failing? What did Jesus overcome in the wilderness, if He could not sin? Again, as the Scripture states,
Quote
Hebrews 2:17-18 Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
Only ONE who had been tempted like we are could be our High Priest (Heb 4:15). Only ONE who responded to every test without sin could be our faithful High Priest (Heb 7:26-28; 5:7-9) and thus offer himself as the atonement for the sins of His elect (Heb 9:14).
Virtue is the resistance and overcoming of temptation, whereas, sin is the yielding and capitulation. Christ overcame real sin as a real person. As our High Priest He experienced temptation which corresponds to us in every respect—yet with greater magnitude than ours will ever be… He was tempted with self-concern, popular acclaim, and ambition when directly assailed by Satan in the wilderness (Matt 4), by temptation in the Garden (Matt 26:38), and by the words spit at Him on the Cross (Matt 27:40)—if you be the Son of God …, -- He could have called on 12 legions of angels—could have, but did not (a genuine choice was made), for He came to do His Father’s will and guarantee the salvation of His elect… (Matt 26:51f). Christ’s whole life on earth was one of genuine testing and proving. To have succumbed to these temptations would have been the sabotage of our salvation and a failure of trust and obedience on Christ’s part. What did Christ say to His closest followers, “But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations,” (Luke 22:28). Not only did Christ win for us the victory through temptation, but in doing so He also has gained the profoundest “fellow-feeling” for our weaknesses at the same time demonstrating that our human frailties are the opportunity for the power of God and for the triumph of His grace (2 Cor 12:9). To have this “fellow-feeling” He must be fellow-man and as such tempted in the same way as we are tempted. Peter Lombard comments,
Quote
A man who has had no experience of affliction, and who has not endured everything in his own senses, cannot possibly know the affliction, and who has not endured everything in his own senses, cannot possibly know the affliction of the afflicted. But Christ knows it, not just because as God He knows all things, but because as man He has endured the same things as we endure.
That Christ in Hebrews 4:15 did not merely survive the severe testing through which He literally passed, but was in fact completely victorious over every single temptation is made very plain by the addition of the phrase yet without sinning. Jesus’ lived life was an actual victory and not some scam that God was running on the world. Christ’s sinless lived life was a prerequisite for the accomplishment of our redemption by His sacrifice of himself on the Cross. Hering remarks, “the sinlessness of Jesus does not consist in an absence of human weakness, but in an ever renewed victory over temptations.” Christ's victory over sin was not something merely passive, a mere state of being, but the achievement of Christ’s active conquest of temptation. Indeed, it is entirely synonymous with the complete obedience learned by Him through all He endured, and which fitted Him to become the source of our eternal salvation (Heb 2:10; 5:10; 7:26; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:1; 3:3-5). Read A Commentary on the Epistle of Hebrews, by Philip Edgeumbe Hughes for more.
Your view denies the very humanity of Christ and thus the very atonement, and thus you have no Redeemer! You only believe in a half-Christ, who is not fully man!
Quote
Where does the WCF address the peccability of Christ?
If you understood more of what the WCF stated about the person of Christ, your questions on the peccability of Christ would be answered. Re-read the WCF, again! If you do not understand the very person of Christ, you will not understand the work of Christ.
The pecca…people, don’t want to discuss, the rationale that there really can’t be an “ability to sin” if there is no real possibility of it happening. I enjoy silhouette target shooting, there is an ability (in my person) to hit the metal plate (bulls eye) every time, but there is a real chance I will miss the mark (definition of sin, BTW). If I miss, there is a consequence that I will not win the match (many of my opponents get perfect scores). That is a given. You all are willing to say that Jesus had the ability to miss the target, but not lose the match (redemption).
If there is a REAL MATCH, a genuine contest, then one must be able to miss the target, otherwise it is a staged event—a false event—a false Christ who accomplished nothing genuine. Thus, there would be a false trophy (salvation). Your sporting event sounds more like you are using a hyper-calvinisic blank shooting semi-auto to me. However, did Christ really have to crush the head of the serpent?
Christ ACTUALLY won the match(s)—there was an actual victory with every shot fired through the ages (Col 2:15; John 12:31; Rev 12:9; Rev 20:2). There were real secondary causes at work (Acts 2:27) and Christ had real temptations. However, He overcame every challenge of windage and elevation and hit the bull’s-eye every time in His life. But, please note there was an actual battle to be won. Jesus was obedient, obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8). Jesus was not passive in His salvation for us! He overcame—literally. What does obedience mean/imply?
If there is not a REAL MATCH at the Cross, then one can question if there was ever a REAL FALL! However, your marksmanship proves there was
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!
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
R.C Sproul the editor of the Reformation Study Bible explains this further saying,
Quote
Was Christ capable of sinning?
Did Jesus have the ability to sin? The problem in that question is that if Jesus did have the ability to sin, does that mean he had original sin and participated in a fallen nature? If that were the case, he wouldn’t even be qualified to save himself, let alone us. If he did not have the ability to sin, was his temptation (so central to God’s giving him the crown of glory for his obedience) just a charade -- was he really not subjected to real temptation?
The New Testament tells us that Jesus was like us at every point save one: He was without sin. It tells us that Jesus became incarnate and took upon himself human nature. It also tells us that he is the second Adam. Generally, classical Christology teaches that when Jesus was incarnate and became the new Adam, he came born with the same nature Adam had before the Fall. Adam didn’t have original sin when he was created. So Jesus did not have original sin. So we would ask the same question: Was Adam capable of sinning? Yes, he was. Christ, the second Adam, was also capable of sinning in the sense that he had all of the faculties and all of the equipment to sin if that’s what he chose to do.
Could Jesus have sinned if he had wanted to? Absolutely. Of course, he didn’t want to. So if you ask it a different way, could Jesus sin if he didn’t want to? No, he couldn’t sin if he didn’t want to any more than God could sin because God doesn’t want to sin. Wanting to sin is a prerequisite for sinning.
But then we have to push it one step further: Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have. I think that’s part of being made after the likeness of Adam. When we’re in heaven and are totally glorified, then we will no longer have the power and ability to sin. That’s what we look forward to; that’s what Jesus earned for himself and for us through his perfect obedience. Christ’s perfect obedience was not a charade. He actually was victorious over every conceivable temptation that was thrown his way.
Page 45-46 Now, That’s A Good Question By R. C. Sproul
Quote
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.
Where DOES the first line of Scripture and not a mere Study Bible say Jesus could not sin? They have added words to the holy text. The text says, "He suffered." How did Christ suffer? He was tempted. Was His temptation genuine? YES, then He was capable of sin.
As far as the word tempted there are not many ways it can be used here in this verse. In context the tempted is speaking concerning our infirmities. What are these infirmities and where did they lead? Verse 16 specifically speaks of mere man's incapability and the need for grace. Read chapter 3 of Hebrews and look at the references to unbelief, the hardness of sin, the grieving of the Holy Spirit, etc. etc., etc. Look at Heb 2:17-18. Christ is the High Priest--compare with Hebrews 5.
Quote
Jesus is not only fully divine; he is also fully human and thus understands our weaknesses and our temptations. Furthermore, Jesus himself experienced weaknesses and temptations. At the onset of his ministry, he was tempted by Satan; he coped with thirst, weariness, desertion, and disappointments throughout his earthly ministry.
Jesus, fully acquainted with human nature, is “touched with the feeling of our weaknesses,” as B. F. Westcott puts it; He has been tempted—in extent and range—in every way. Nothing in human experience is foreign to him, for he himself has endured it. And he has been tempted just as intensely as we are. The author adds the qualifying phrase yet was without sin.
When he was in the wilderness, Jesus experienced hunger, and the devil tempted him by asking him to make bread out of stones (Matt. 4:2–3). While hanging on the cross, he was mocked by chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders, who said, “Let him come down now from the cross … for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’ ” (Matt. 27:42, 43). He endured the full range of temptations, although, as the writer notes, without sinning. Sin is the only human experience in which Christ has no part.
Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Vol. 15, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Hebrews. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary, Page 125. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
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.
Yes, Christ is the BETTER ADAM, but this does not mean He was not able to sin. He is BETTER because unlike the first Adam, He did not sin. He, unlike the first Adam fulfilled the covenant/law of God. He, Christ, though like the first Adam and capable of sin, sinned not. Read what RC Sproul wrote here.
Speratus then you further your misunderstanding by stating, “But sin is not an essential attribute of man.” And who said it was, especially of Christ? Sin was not an essential attribute to the first Adam before the fall either, but depravity was to man after the fall. You are assuming when we say that one is capable of sinning that he is in some way depraved, which is not true! To stir clear of this heresy, Paul refers to Christ as the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45) and the “second man” (1 Cor 15:47). He could have used many phrases if he was just referring to a mere man after the fall, however Paul is referring to Christ’s nature that is similar to the first Adam (before his fall) and thus his wording…. Christ the second Adam was actually capable of sin as the first Adam was (which is not evil—Gen 1:31) and overcame its genuine temptation. If there is no capability to sin then there was not actual temptation. Your position remains un-provable from Scripture—Ad Afontes, Ad Fontes, Speratus.
Quote
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!
Once again you separate the natures of Christ to the destruction of proper theology and a proper understanding of the Person and Work of Christ. Once again you deny the Scriptures which state that we will have a new nature—(1 Cor 15:42f). Once again you do not embrace the glorified Christ in Heaven. Man in his resurrected state will be incapable of sin (non posse peccare)—this is not even in question!
Quote
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!
Now you assert that Christ’s obedience is irrelevant! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Christ is the covenant Head and thus He earned for His elect that which He and His Father purposed, as already has been shown to you above in Hebrews…
See if you can find the article, (1) The Adamic Administration, (2) The Atonement by John Murray on-line. You still do not understand biblical salvation.
geomic1 said: Kyle, The pecca…people, don’t want to discuss, the rationale that there really can’t be an “ability to sin” if there is no real possibility of it happening.
Your logic is as bad as the logic of the Arminians. You would have us believe that Adam was incapable of continuing in obedience! Was he? No, he was not. He was completely capable of continuing in obedience, but God decreed that he should fall, and so Adam fell. Human responsibility AND divine decree.
Quote
I believe that Jesus’ temptation was mainly external. . . . Our temptations always start out internal (James 1:14), when we are bombarded by the external, that is why I believe He was incapable of sinning, internally His mind was not neutral like with Adam, His will was to be obedient from the start (God’s foreknowledge), our will is to be disobedient from the start, because we are not neutral either (2Cor.2:14), but our will (prior to conversion) is the antithesis of our Savior.
Adam's mind was NOT neutral! God said that Adam was GOOD. And no one has suggested that Jesus was tempted by His own lusts.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
You are your own master at that… Sparing you the embarrassment by not addressing all your errors is more like it 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Halo.gif)
(I mean here no offense to the Trinity, however the shock value will hopefully reveal your lack of faith in Christ's humanity ...)![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/NoAmmo.gif)