From all these good discussions my take on Christ’s impeccability is both
1. Jesus Christ had the ability to sin. 2. It was an impossibility that he could sin.
Where DOES the first line of Scripture and not a mere Study Bible say Jesus could not sin?
[color:"0000FF"]Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.[/color]
William said: William's <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />
From all these good discussions my take on Christ’s impeccability is both
1. Jesus Christ had the ability to sin. 2. It was an impossibility that he could sin.
Where DOES the first line of Scripture and not a mere Study Bible say Jesus could not sin?
[color:"0000FF"]Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.[/color]
I agree up to the point that he pushes the question one step further. Sproul said “Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have.” I have to disagree and even have a hard time reading that statement. I have provided scripture to support the idea that it was an impossibility for God’s Christ to sin for He said “I do always the things that please Him” speaking of the Father. Mr. Sproul’s statement is only conjecture. Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7 and John 8:29 and would like to add John 10:35 “. . . and the scripture cannot be broken;” Thanks for letting me test the waters. Bill
[color:"0000FF"]Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[/color]
Yes, we all (I think) agree that scripture supports that Christ NEVER sinned, as He is the faithful High Priest. However, "if" you take away the possibility that Christ could have sinned (like Sproul is stating) then once again you have fallen into the abyss of no actual temptation ever having taking place in the life of Christ.... Sproul is IMO correctly splitting the hairs of could have sinned and would have sinned. Christ has never and will never sin, however, in His humanity He could have sinned before His glorified state.... though He never would... for He is the God-man...
J. Edwards, I believe a reasonable person would agree that these verses imply that Jesus could not of sin (from 2nd post): (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." And I would add to it Col. 2:9, if the Godhead dwells in Jesus in fulness, there is no ability to commit sin, or the Godhead really isn't in fulness. Geomic
William said: I agree up to the point that he pushes the question one step further. Sproul said “Could Jesus have wanted to sin? Theologians are divided on this point. I would say yes, I think he could have.” I have to disagree and even have a hard time reading that statement. I have provided scripture to support the idea that it was an impossibility for God’s Christ to sin for He said “I do always the things that please Him” speaking of the Father.
Bill,
Think for just a moment here on this one passage which you provided above, "I do always the things that Please Him." Now ask yourself, Was the Lord Christ referring to the decree of God that compelled Him to always do that which was according to the will of God and which required no thought or act of His own will? OR Was He making a statement regarding His deliberate choice and will to do that which was right? If it was the former, as some here are suggesting, then there is no room for "obedience, wrestling against temptation, conscious fulfilling of the law, etc., etc..." Was the Lord Christ's earthly life one of an automaton? or a life that was that lived out as one Who had to make choices; whether to obey or transgress the law of God? I have and do continue to insist that as the Second Adam, who had no propensity to sin, was tempted to transgress yet by conscious decisions, refused (act of the will) to give in to temptation but rather chose to please the Father in all things, thus as a true representative and Federal Head of the elect, secured that righteousness which was to be imputed to them.
Joe searching around I found this document at the WELS Q&A site Christ's Temptation seems what Speratus is spouting is standard Lutheran view regarding Christ. So as my old man used to say you can lead a horse to water.
Was the Lord Christ's earthly life one of an automaton? or a life that was that lived out as one Who had to make choices; whether to obey or transgress the law of God? I have and do continue to insist that as the Second Adam, who had no propensity to sin, was tempted to transgress yet by conscious decisions, refused (act of the will) to give in to temptation but rather chose to please the Father in all things, thus as a true representative and Federal Head of the elect, secured that righteousness which was to be imputed to them.
I have to agree here and add one personal thought: The active obedience of Christ in my stead is a great source of comfort to me. It is mind-boggling to consider His sinlessness and His perfect fulfillment of the Law; it is even more mind-boggling to consider that I have an interest in that; "and can it be that I should gain. . ."
Last edited by gotribe; Tue Oct 04, 20059:24 AM.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
Fountain of never ceasing grace, Thy saints’ exhaustless theme, Great object of immortal praise, Essentially supreme; We bless Thee for the glorious fruits Thine incarnation gives; The righteousness which grace imputes, And faith alone receives.
Whom heaven’s angelic host adores, Was slaughtered for our sin; The guilt, O Lord was wholly ours, The punishment was Thine: Our God in the flesh, to set us free, Was manifested here; And meekly bare our sins, that we His righteousness might wear.
Imputatively guilty then Our substitute was made, That we the blessings might obtain For which His blood was shed: Himself He offered on the cross, Our sorrows to remove; And all He suffered was for us, And all He did was love.
In Him we have a righteousness, By God Himself approved; Our rock, our sure foundation this, Which never can be moved. Our ransom by His death He paid, For all His people giv’n, The law He perfectly obeyed, That they might enter Heav’n.
As all, when Adam sinned alone, In his transgression died, So by the righteousness of One, Are sinners justified, We to Thy merit, gracious Lord, With humblest joy submit, Again to Paradise restored, In Thee alone complete.
Our souls His watchful love retrieves, Nor lets them go astray, His righteousness to us He gives, And takes our sins away: We claim salvation in His right, Adopted and forgiv’n, His merit is our robe of light, His death the gate of Heav’n.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Boanerges said: Joe searching around I found this document at the WELS Q&A site Christ's Temptation seems what Speratus is spouting is standard Lutheran view regarding Christ. So as my old man used to say you can lead a horse to water.
Oh, I know his heritage, however, his heritage is not embracing the Scripture and thus my appeal to Ad Fontes, Ad Fontes, Speratus.
(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?
Christ is in a resurrected state now and cannot sin—just as we will not sin in the consummation of the Kingdom (glorification).
Immutability does not imply that there are no changes whatsoever in Christ, after all Jesus did not always exist, etc., etc., etc…... When Jesus died, the human nature died, not the divine. Likewise, when Jesus rose from the dead, it is the physical body that was raised in a glorified state, not the divine nature. It was the same physical body of Jesus that rose from the dead (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39) with the same wounds, yet it was also glorified. (CARM)
What assurances do we have that He will not fail: (1) He fulfilled the law and all righteousness (2) He is the first born from the dead (3) He is faithful in all His house, (4) He sits at the right hand of God, etc., etc., etc. (there is far much to list here).
All God’s attributes or perfections are included in His immutability. There can be no increase, nor decrease in their number, capacity, or power. God could not be more or less holy, righteous, omnipotent, etc. However, immutability, is not immobility. Immutability or unchangeableness does not mean inactivity or idleness on the part of God. God created the heaven and the earth and then stopped creating. Immutability does not negate the power of CHOICES that Christ had! Just as the FIRST Man Adam had the power of CHOICE and failed, the LAST Man Adam had the power of CHOICE and succeeded.
Next, you appeal to the Divine attributes of Christ (omnipotence (#3), omniscience (#4), His very deity (#4), and His authority (#7)), to speak of Christ humanity??? While I do not have time for detailed arguments here (may be someone else will pick o the mantel), these arguments FAIL to reveal that Christ is MAN and God. You are stressing Christ’s divine nature to the exclusion, or at least limiting, of His FULL human nature! You, as others, are denying the full humanity of Christ, by over emphasizing His divine nature…. If one reads the Scriptures one will see that Christ did not always display omnipotence, omniscience, etc. He did not call on 12 legions of angels, He did not know His own Second Coming (Matt 24:36), etc., etc., etc. (i.e. you may desire to change your theology here when you stated; the human nature submits to the divine nature (otherwise the finite is stronger than the infinite). Christ is FULLY man and FULLY God. To over emphasize one, or under emphasize the other is to deny Christ’s WHOLE person.
Quote
(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.
Christ did not have a depraved nature and thus like the FIRST Adam (prior to the Fall) He could CHOOSE life or death…. (1) The FIRST Man Adam did not have a depraved nature (before the Fall, Gen 1:31), but yet partook by CHOICE of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If we are to use your terms (temptation from without, inner response, outward temptation) we can say that the FIRST Adam’s temptation from without was responded to from within, but the FIRST Man Adam made the wrong CHOICE! Christ, the SECOND Adam, the LAST Adam (1 Cor 15; 45, 47) made the right CHOICE. You have proved my argument. (2) you are implying Christ had a CHOICE which negates all your other arguments. Temptation from without still requires a CHOICE from within whether to obey or disobey God or the tempter (i.e. the FIRST Adam; the LAST Adam). Where there is a genuine temptation, there is a genuine CHOICE to do good or evil.
Quote
(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.
No, Christ had a genuine, distinct, human will. The Scripture does not say;
Quote
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his robot, made of a woman, made under the law
Christ made a choice, a decision, and a conscious determination to DO the will of God. Again, the Scripture reveals Christ had a will that was distinct, but obedient:
Quote
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Clearly, Christ had a will. Christ CHOOSE to submit to the will of the Father and was not merely a God-Robot.
Pilgrim OK very well I've lost some sleep thinking about this forum and have come to the opinion that yes it was a possibility.
But where does the Bible call the Lord Jesus Christ the Second Adam.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />
[color:"0000FF"]1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the[color:"FF0000"] last Adam [/color] was made a quickening spirit.[/color]
The exact phrase is never used (but, then again, neither is the term Trinity)
Here is where the term is derived from, particularly verse 14:
Quote
Romans 5 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
William said: Pilgrim OK very well I've lost some sleep thinking about this forum and have come to the opinion that yes it was a possibility.
But where does the Bible call the Lord Jesus Christ the Second Adam.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />
[color:"0000FF"]1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the[color:"FF0000"] last Adam [/color] was made a quickening spirit.[/color]
Paul wrote; 1 Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. Also, compare Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15:22. Read the The Imputation of Adam's Sin, by John Murray for more.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
