geomic1 said: I understand the position that Christ was able to sin, but it was certain that He would not (higher decree). If "ability to sin" to be actual, implies that there is a possibility (chance) of failure or the validity of your claim is dismissed. Example would be Charles Hodge quote:
"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." Thus "chance" is not a conflation of "ability", but a possible outcome or consequence to the decision made. Geomic
Then Adam WAS NOT ABLE to continue in obedience, since there was no CHANCE that he would continue in obedience. In fact, you WERE NOT ABLE not to make this post of yours, nor am I able not to make this response.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
geomic1 said: Heb. 4:15: Our Lord was subjected to testing in the totality of His Being, not that He might “overcome temptation and thus win a victory for all His redeemed”, but in order that the Impeccability of His Person should be forever manifested to men, to angels, and to demons!
This would appear to be perilously close to denying the vicarious substitutionary element of Christ's atonement, e.g., Finney's "Governmental Theory". Personally, I wouldn't use McCormick's argument to defend your view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Quote
You further quote McCormick: There is every reason to believe that Satan would have gladly avoided the encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ if he could have received Divine permission to do so; for he well knew that the inevitable result of that meeting was going to be a humiliating defeat for himself and for his kingdom of darkness.
This too I must take issue with for it doesn't accord with other Scriptural testimony, e.g., when Satan stood before God and asked permission to "have Job"! (cf. Job 1:6ff) The way McCormick seems to state the case, Satan was ordered to tempt Christ which was not his own desire to do so. I would contend that this is inconsistent with what we know of Satan, e.g., that his insatiable desire is to wage war against God, the Christ and His saints and grasps at every opportunity to do so, yet not without being granted permission by God. See also, e.g., Zech 3:1ff.
And once again, you have failed to address the issue of Christ's mediatorial and redemptive role as the Messiah, the second Adam in order to atone for the sins of the elect.
Truly you jest. Christ was the SECOND MAN ADAM. He was capable of sinning, otherwise you have no Redeemer who was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Jesus knew firsthand the drive of human nature toward sin, as His humanity was His battleground. The Second Man Adam accomplished what the First Man Adam failed to do. Since the first Adam was given choices to make, so was the second Adam, Christ. To say, or even imply, that Christ could not have sinned is to take Christ’s obedience to God and make it nothing. The obedience of Christ would be a sham, a lie, an untruth.
Look at Hebrews 4:15 again. The verse is very descriptive of our LORD. Jesus’ likeness to us as the Second Man Adam, means He was tempted and that temptation was total, but with one exception—namely sin. Likeness without sin resembles Romans 8:3—in the likeness of sinful flesh. The temptations of Jesus were more severe than yours or mine will ever be—but He never sinned. His first recorded temptation is that of the very Devil himself tempting Him in the wilderness (Luke 4). The One who was so tempted, so able to feel for those who are tempted, is able to help us who are now being tempted even to turn away from Him as He was tempted to turn from His Father and that His Father’s will (Heb 2:18). As Calvin said,
Quote
From this also arises the comfort for our anguish and sorrow that the apostle holds out to us: that this Mediator has experienced our weaknesses the better to succor us in our miseries [Hebrews 4:15a]. They claim that it is unworthy to attribute to Christ something evil of itself. As if they were wiser than God’s Spirit, who harmonizes these two things! "Christ in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning." [Hebrews 4:15b.] There is no reason why Christ’s weakness should alarm us. For he was not compelled by violence or necessity, but was induced purely by his love for us and by his mercy to submit to it. But all that he voluntarily suffered for us does not in the least detract from his power. These detractors are, moreover, deceived in this one point: they do not recognize in Christ a weakness pure and free of all vice and stain because he held himself within the bounds of obedience. Our fallen nature, whose violent and turbulent emotions know no bounds, is without moderation. Hence, our opponents wrongly measure the Son of God by that standard. But since he was uncorrupted, a moderation that restrained excess flourished in all his emotions. Hence, he could be like us [cf. Hebrews 2:17] in sorrow, fear, and dread, yet in such a way as to differ from us by this characteristic
Now, that you should better understand the humanity of Jesus—for He IS a real person (which your definition of Him denies; 2 John 1:7), you must now look at His Divine being, for His Divine nature being very God of very God could not have sinned for God cannot be tempted with evil (Jam 1:13). Your definition of Christ fails to see the union of His two natures. You confuse the nature of Christ and the decree(s) of God. That Christ could not sin by decree does not negate that He could sin in His nature. Hodge helps us here:
Quote
What those qualifications are the Scriptures clearly teach.
1. He must be a man. The Apostle assigns as the reason why Christ assumed our nature and not the nature of angels, that He came to redeem us. (Hebrews ii. 14–16). It was necessary that He should be made under the law which we had broken; that He should fulfil all righteousness; that He should suffer and die; that He should be able to sympathize in all the infirmities of his people, and that He should be united to them in a common nature. He who sanctifies (purifies from sin both as guilt and as pollution) and those who are sanctified are and must be of one nature. Therefore as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same. (Hebrews ii. 11–14.)
2. The Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Under the law the victim offered on the altar must be without blemish. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be Himself free from sin. The High Priest, therefore, who becomes us, He whom our necessities demand, must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. (Hebrews vii. 26.) He was, therefore, "without sin." (Hebrews iv. 15; 1 Peter ii. 22.) 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.
3. It was no less necessary that our Mediator should be a divine person. The blood of no mere creature could take away sin. It was only because our Lord was possessed of an eternal Spirit that the one offering of Himself has forever perfected them that believe. None but a divine person could destroy the power of Satan and deliver those who were led captive by him at his will. None but He who had life in Himself could be the source of life, spiritual and eternal, to his people. None but an almighty person could control all events to the final consummation of the plan of redemption, and could raise the dead; and infinite wisdom and knowledge are requisite in Him who is to be judge of all men, and the head over all to his Church. None but one in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead could be the object as well as the source of the religious life of all the redeemed. These qualifications for the office of mediator between God and man are all declared in the Scriptures to be essential; they all met in Christ; and they all were demanded by the nature of the work which He came to perform.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Originally published 1872. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Pilgrim, I would agree that McCormick may have extrapolated a little in respect to the Satan thing, but the general thought that the purpose of Christ’s temptation was not to determine if Christ would sin, but to demonstrate that He could not sin, is made clear. A gentle reminder; in all I have read in regards to Impeccability and Peccability, your view is a minority view. Which may not mean a whole lot, considering Calvinism at this time, is a minority in Christendom, but nonetheless, James 3:1 is sobering to one like yourself who has a following (on this forum)on such a debated theological position. Remember, Heb. 4:15 and the Greek word for temptation (peirazo) according to the original article I started the post with, (the one that had Lat. potuit non peccare and Lat. Non potuit peccare wrong) states that it is the same word used in other verses where the Father and Holy Spirit are used. Who of you wants to venture out and claim They also could of have had the ability to sin? Yes, I know they do not have a human nature, yet, who of you are willing to separate the 23 chromosomes given by the Holy Spirit and the 23 chromosomes given by the virgin Mary and say that Jesus was able to cease being effected by His divine nature (Heb. 13:8, John 1:1, John 2:25, John 10:18)? Also, many of you claim that those who believe in “impeccability”, lessen or cheapen Christ’s suffering, temptation and etc, but do not bring up the fact, that the ultimate suffering that took place, was while Jesus was on the cross. This suffering was delivered by the Father (Isaiah 53:4)? “For He (Father) made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”, 2 Cor. 5:19. Can you hear our Savior’s cries, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Geomic
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).
J. Edwards, As John McCormick says; "Where is there a single line or phrase in the Bible that would infer or imply that the two natures in Christ were ever in conflict for a single moment? Moreover, where is there any Biblical hint which would even remotely suggest that the Divine nature of Christ stood idly by and allowed the human nature to struggle against temptation to sin? Shedd rightly points out that:
The divine nature cannot innocently and righteously leave the human nature to its own finiteness without any support from the divine. . . When the Logos goes into union with a human nature, so as to constitute a single person with it, he becomes responsible for all that this person does through the instrumentality of this nature. The glory or the shame, the merit or the blame, as the case may be, is attributable to this one person of the God-man. If, therefore, the Logos should make no resistance to the temptation with which Satan assailed the human nature in the wilderness, and should permit the humanity to yield to it and commit sin, he would be implicated in the apostasy and sin. The guilt would not be confined to the human nature. It would attach to the whole person. And since the Logos is the root and base of the person, it would attach to him in an eminent manner. Should Jesus Christ sin, incarnate God would sin; as incarnate God suffered, when Jesus Christ suffered.." Geomic
geomic1 said: J. Edwards, As John McCormick says; "Where is there a single line or phrase in the Bible that would infer or imply that the two natures in Christ were ever in conflict for a single moment?
"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will" (Matt. 26:39).
Quote
Moreover, where is there any Biblical hint which would even remotely suggest that the Divine nature of Christ stood idly by and allowed the human nature to struggle against temptation to sin?
Have you not read of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness? Surely Christ was tempted to sin, yet we do not suggest that His divinity "checked out."
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Yes, I know they do not have a human nature, yet, who of you are willing to separate the 23 chromosomes given by the Holy Spirit and the 23 chromosomes given by the virgin Mary and say that Jesus was able to cease being effected by His divine nature (Heb. 13:8, John 1:1, John 2:25, John 10:18)?
What? Do you think Jesus' divine nature was contained in 23 HUMAN chromosomes? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Did Adam also have a divine nature as Jesus? Check out what Pink says; The Man Christ Jesus was the Holy One of God, and therefore He could not sin. But were not Satan and Adam created without sin, and did not they yield to temptation? Yes; but the one was only a created angel the other merely man. But our Lord and Savior was not a created being; instead, He was "God manifest in flesh." In His humanity He was "holy" (Luke 1:35) and, as such, as high above unfallen Satan or Adam as the heavens are above the earth. He was not only impeccable God, but impeccable Man. The prince of this world came, but found nothing in Him (John 14:30). Thus, He is presented before us not only as an example to be followed, but as an Object upon which faith may rest with unshaken confidence. Geomic
geomic1 said: No my point is how can Christ ever be separated from His divinity. He was God 100% and man 100%, which is kind of a mystery, wouldn't you say? Geomic
We are not denying the union of the TWO natures, that is our point--there is a union and a mystery that cannot be fully fathomed. However, your view denies the "full" existence of Jesus in the flesh. You say, He was not tempted like we are, you say, He was not able to sin, you say, He was incapable of being truly tempted. Jesus, being divine, would not sin, but this does not mean he could not be truly tempted. Satan tempted him to disobey the Father by self-gratification, self-display, and self-aggrandizement (Matt. 4:1-11), and the temptation to retreat from the Cross was constant (Luke 22:28, where the Greek for “trials” can be translated “temptations”; Matt. 16:23; and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane). Being human, Jesus could not conquer temptation without a struggle, however 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. From Gethsemane we may infer that His struggles were sometimes more acute and agonizing than any we ever know. The happy end-result is that “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:18). Incarnation means, that the Son of God lived his divine-human life in and through His human mind and body at every point, maximizing His identification and empathy with those He had come to save, and drawing on divine resources to transcend human limits of knowledge and energy only when particular requirements of the Father’s will so dictated (Packer).
Your view does away with the very humanity of Christ making Him some super-human-non-human. Your problem is that you look at the DIVINE side of Christ with higher respect and faith than the HUMAN side of Christ. In essence, you deny the humanity of Christ for you are denying that He is the Second Man Adam who was capable of sin (though He never sinned).
Have you ever studied the early heresy of Apollinarianism? This was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381. This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men (CARM). You may desire to look at the heresy of Monophysitism while you are studying the heresies in part you are embracing.
WT Shedd or AW Pink or have much better arguments than the likes of Dr. John W. McCormick on impeccability--though still easily disproved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />
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. Fortunately, we know from Scripture that this is false. Though the two natures are inseparable, they cannot be intermixed either. The Creed of Chalcedon states the relationship between the two natures correctly, which is one of the standards of the Church, of which you obviously have no regard. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; <span style="background-color:yellow">the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union</span>, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
J. Edwards, I appreciate what you wrote and actually (don’t tell Pilgrim), I have learned a lot while on this topic. I tend to take a more extreme position (Supralapsarian) with my views on God’s sovereignty, but I fully respect the Infralapsarian view and sometimes vacillate over to that side. Believe it or not, I now understand the peccability position much better, though at this time I am still on the side of impeccability. I have read Pink’s and Shedd position, but chose to use McCormick out of laziness (I have a saved file with a paper he wrote on impeccability). Yes, I am aware of Apollinarianism, but haven’t read much in that area, I will in the future. In respect to Jesus’ humanity, I have not swung over to the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic’s yet. Geomic
geomic1 said: No my point is how can Christ ever be separated from His divinity. He was God 100% and man 100%, which is kind of a mystery, wouldn't you say? Geomic
Who ever divided Him? There are two DISTINCT and UNMIXED natures, albeit united in one Person.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
geomic1 said: Did Adam also have a divine nature as Jesus?
No, and I never said he did. However, Jesus is the Second Adam, is He not? So at the very least He had to face temptation of the same sort as Adam faced: outward temptation to disobey God.
Quote
Check out what Pink says; The Man Christ Jesus was the Holy One of God, and therefore He could not sin. But were not Satan and Adam created without sin, and did not they yield to temptation? Yes; but the one was only a created angel the other merely man. But our Lord and Savior was not a created being; instead, He was "God manifest in flesh." In His humanity He was "holy" (Luke 1:35) and, as such, as high above unfallen Satan or Adam as the heavens are above the earth. He was not only impeccable God, but impeccable Man. The prince of this world came, but found nothing in Him (John 14:30). Thus, He is presented before us not only as an example to be followed, but as an Object upon which faith may rest with unshaken confidence.
And Pink manifestly IGNORES Heb. 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been TEMPTED IN ALL THINGS as we are, YET without sin." He took on HUMAN WEAKNESSES, and that's what makes His temptation meaningful.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
