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

AHA (said with a loud voice) I thought someone was going to say John Murray.

But 1 Cor 15:47 clears it up thanks

I've never heard anyone distinguish between them.

WELS Q&A quotes an Anglican scholar and a Lutheran dogmatician and states, "The quoting of Alfred Edersheim and Franz Pieper above was done in part to assure you that our position is by no means only a WELS one. Nor is it limited to Lutherans. It is biblical."

Significantly, WELS Q&A does not quote the Book of Concord or even an official WELS doctrinal statement. As much as I agree with Impeccability, I can't say that Impeccability is explicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions.


Sola Scriptura, J Edwards. Scripture is the only source of doctrine.

You appeal to Chalcedon and Westminster. However, these confessions say nothing regarding the Peccability of Christ. Can you find one orthodox early church or Reformation confession that explicitly endorses Peccability?

Speratus I believe I understand the standard of Sola Scriptura—I even use it. If you will review all my posts on this subject you will see an appeal to Scripture, among which are: Gen 1:31, Rom 5, 1 Cor 15:22, 45, 47, etc. Moreover, I have gone the extra mile with you to even interpret them for you. In addition, I have made several appeals to Ad Fontes, or get back to the original, which you have not done.

Though you have posted arguments from other men everyone of them thus far have already been disproven— You have no evidence Scripturally to support your view.

Now, though I know you will not and cannot do it, prove the Peccability of Christ—prove it from Scripture alone, not the articles of man, not unproved Lutheran dogmas or catechisms, but from Scripture alone. Can you do it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

PS: Have you ever read The Second Helvetic Confession?

If you review my past posts, you will see that I did not appeal to other men, as you did, but to scripture alone. I do not need to introduce additional scripture. Your own references refute you:

As stated in Gen. 1:31, all things (whether peccable or not) were created by Jesus Christ who is eternally begotten in the impeccable image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15,16). As stated in 1 Cor. 15:47, the first man is earthly (peccable) and the last man is the Lord from heaven (Impeccable).


Yes, and I find no endorsement of your doctrine of Peccability. But that is not surprising. According to Dabney, your Reformed fathers taught only Impeccability, "The old doctrine of the Reformed Churches asserted not only the actual sinlessness, which none but violent infidels impugn, but the impeccability of our Redeemer. In recent days, some of whom better things should have been expected, deny the latter."

Could Peccability have possibly been derived from Arminianism (i.e., If man is capable of doing good, surely Christ is capable of doing evil)?

"Could Peccability have possibly been derived from Arminianism (i.e., If man is capable of doing good, surely Christ is capable of doing evil)?"
Speratus, I "stirred the pot" with my implication of "open theology" with this line of reasoning, it will be interesting the responses you get.
Geomic

How can you argue a finite theological issue when you don't even rightly understand a fundamental doctrine, i.e., the incarnation and the two natures of Christ? All things were NOT created by Jesus Christ, Who is the SON OF GOD in human flesh, Who was BORN of the virgin Mary in space and time (Jh 1:14). Gen 1:31, Col 1:15, 16 and Col 2:3, 9; 2Cor 4:4; Phil 2:6; Heb 1:13 in speaking of deity, divine attributes, etc., ALL are referring to the SON, the divine nature of Christ and NOT to the human nature of Christ. See also Jh 1:1, 18; 10:30, 38; 14:9; Rev 3:14; 1Tim 1:17; 6:16 and Heb 1:1, 2. Impeccability belongs to God alone and to whomever He by His sovereign will grants that ability, e.g., the resurrected Christ and glorified saints.

In His grace,

J.Edwards, I came upon this article which may explain things better than I:
"While a peccable Christ may at first appear to be a more empathetic and human Jesus, a Christ who was able to sin is robbed of His full deity. Only an impeccable Christ measures up to the teaching of Scripture that the Son of God was fully God. Jesus could not sin because He was God. The term impeccable implies more than just the ability not to sin. Impeccable means not able to sin. Adam, before the fall, had the ability not to sin, but he was not impeccable because he had the ability to sin. Jesus was impeccable because as God He was not able to sin.


"Wait a minute!" you may say. "Isn't that one-sided logic? Wasn't it stated above that the Bible taught that Jesus was Man as well as God? Isn't it logical to conclude that, as Man, Jesus was capable of sinning?" While the God-side of the logic seems to be straightforward and conclusive, how is the man-side of the logic to be answered? Once again the God-side of the logic equation is as follows: Since Jesus is God and God cannot sin, then Jesus cannot sin. The man-side of the logic equation seems to contradict this conclusion. Since Jesus is man and man can sin, then Jesus can sin. What's the answer to this apparent contradiction in logic? The answer lies in the fact that there is a flaw in the man-side of the logic. The premise that man can sin is not 100% correct. A person does not have to sin or even be able to sin in order to be classified as man. The fact that we humans are all capable of sinning is not intrinsic to the definition of mankind. In our glorified bodies in the eternal future, for example, we will not sin or be able to sin (praise God!), but we will still be mankind. We are not going to be changed into angels or some new kind of creature--we will still be human and yet we will be sinless! To be capable of sinning is not a necessary part of what makes up the essence of man. So for Jesus to be fully Man, as the Bible teaches, does not necessitate His capability of sinning. Don't be thrown off by what appears to be sound logic. Even though every other person in history has been able to sin (in fact, not able not to sin!), this characteristic of mankind is not what defines the essence of man. However, for Jesus to be fully God as Scripture teaches does mean that Jesus could not sin. Here the logic is very sound and cannot be disputed.


One of the strongest Scriptural statements for the impeccability of Christ is found in Hebrews 13:8. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Can Jesus sin today? No! Will He be able to sin in the forever future? No! Well, what about yesterday? Is He the same or isn't He? If He was the same yesterday as He is today, then He could no more sin yesterday than He can today or forever. The constancy of Christ's character is demanded by Hebrews 13:8. The fact that Christ does not and can not change is known as the doctrine of immutability. Immutable means "not capable or not susceptible to change." The attribute of immutability applies just as much to the Person of the Son in the Trinity as the Persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit. In fact, a section of Psalm 102 which speaks of the unchangeableness of God is applied directly to Christ, the Son, in Hebrews 1:10-12. "But about the Son He says...'In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.'" There was no "time out" period for the Son's immutability when He walked on this earth. Colossians 2:9 emphasizes that all the attributes of Deity were present in the Son during His earthly ministry. "For in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." The attribute of immutability not only implies impeccability during the Son's earthly ministry, it demands it!


But what about the temptations of Christ? Doesn't the fact that Jesus was tempted imply that Jesus was "temptable?" No, not necessarily. Temptation is the attempt to ensnare and does not define the temptability of the target. A rowboat may attack another rowboat or it may attack a battleship. While the attack may be the same in both cases, the attempt in no way defines the vulnerability of the object attacked! In the case of our own bouts with temptation there may be an inward response without an outward "committing the act." This is because we have a sinful nature and are therefore temptable. As James 1:14 says, "Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust." But the case of the Lord Jesus is unique. Without a sinful nature, the temptations of Christ were strictly a test from without with no inward response whatsoever. In terms of the illustration above, our Lord is like the battleship. Even if rammed by the rowboat, the attack causes no damage whatsoever.


Well then, if Jesus could not sin, are the temptations of Christ a sham? No! The temptations of the Lord Jesus were not to see if He would sin, but to show that He could not sin. Show whom? Well for one thing, Satan and his fallen angels. Satan did not necessarily know that Christ could not sin. He's not omniscient! As the wonder of the incarnation became evident to Satan, he was determined to thwart the purposes of God in any way he could. He tried on more than one occasion to attack the Lord Jesus with temptation. (See Luke 4:13.) But Satan learned to his undoing that the prophecy made in the Garden of Eden concerning the "Seed of the woman" could not be thwarted. (See Genesis 3:15.) The triumph of Christ over temptation demonstrated to all the angelic hosts, and to us as well, that the eternal Son of God was not susceptible to sin even though He became Man.


If Jesus could not sin, can He sympathize with us when we are tempted? Does the fact that Jesus was not able to sin make Him less "human" and less able to understand what we go through as fallen humans? Not according to Scripture. Hebrews 4:15 says that "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet without sin." This verse seems to imply that Jesus experienced the force of temptation the same way we do, but is that possible if Jesus could not sin? What is the answer to this apparently difficult question? One possible answer that has been suggested by Christians over the years is that Jesus may not have known that He could not sin. We do know that in the eternal counsels of God it was decreed that certain facts would not be in the conscious mind of the incarnate Son of God. As a Boy, He would learn facts about His own creation, and even as a Man He would be able to say that He did not know the "day or the hour" of His second advent. (See Mark 13:32 and Luke 2:52.) On the other hand, as God, our Lord may have known all along that He could not sin. The Lord's statement to the Pharisees in John 8:46 would imply that this was the case. In response to the Pharisees' argument against His deity, Jesus said, "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?" But even if Jesus knew He could not sin, He still felt the force of the temptations. Doesn't a tree feel the full force of a hurricane even though it doesn't fall? Consider an infinitely strong tree that cannot fail during a hurricane. Does this tree experience and feel the force of the storm as much as the trees that are more vulnerable? Of course it does. In fact, the tree that cannot fail experiences a greater force of the storm than a tree that falls.


What kind of a High Priest do we want, anyway? Do we want a High Priest who was so susceptible and vulnerable to sin when He lived on this earth that He almost sinned on certain occasions? Do we want a High Priest who had to struggle with His thought life before He overcame temptation in order to "feel" the force of the temptation the way we do? Do we want a High Priest who only had limited moral strength to resist temptation? Or do we want a High Priest who had infinite resistance against sin? Praise God, we have a High Priest who was not susceptible or vulnerable to sin in any way. He did not struggle to keep His thought life pure. He was the perfect Man. He was attacked but it was like a hurricane against the Rock of Gibraltar. He had infinite moral strength and therefore infinite resistance against sin--because He was God and could not sin. We have a High Priest who was the same yesterday as He is today and will be forever. The immutability of the eternal Son of God demands that He has always been impeccable."

David R. Reid

These arguments have already been presented and answered! Thus, so what! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Can you give us anything new, or do you wish further explanation on something? I am preparing another lengthly answer for Speratus, which may help <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Did yoou ever answer Col.2:9 and the aspect of "fulness". BTW, what you consider "presented and answered", is in your own mind, but certainly not in the majority of christendom.
Geomic

Well one could speculate all day long, however the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is in no way lessened by God’s ability to give Jesus the choice to sin any more than it is lessened by giving that choice to the FIRST Adam or even YOU. God is still God and He is still sovereign! God trusted His Son! We do grave dishonor to the persons of the Trinity, if we suggest that God could not trust His Son with such an important characteristic of His being—for Christ had be to a “real man.” If it were impossible in the life of Christ for Him to sin, then Jesus could not be a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful man. Indeed, He would not actually be human at all but a God with merely the appearance of humanity (Docetism, which the confessions do not affirm). There is a clear relationship between Adam (the FIRST MAN) and Christ (the SECOND and LAST MAN; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45, 47; Heb 4:15-16). Only a Being who can sin can be tempted. Was Jesus, the man, ever tempted (Matt 4)?

What did Peter say about Jesus? Did he say, "Jesus was a good Man, but He had a few teeny tiny faults? Did Peter say that Jesus was the best Man who ever lived, but He was not perfect"? NO, may it NEVER be! In 1 Peter 2:22, Peter says that Jesus did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. This is an amazing statement, but it wouldn’t be if Jesus could not sin! After all if the disciple(s) knew Jesus could not sin—then this is NO BIG DEAL. So why was this important to Peter? Peter saw and knew the temptations of Christ were genuine. He saw Him literally overcome them and thus his testimony! In 1 Peter 3:18, we learn,

This is a critical point. Christ has once suffered for sins, the RIGHTEOUS for the UNRIGHTEOUS (some translations use JUST for the UNJUST), but how was Jesus JUST? Was Jesus JUST by imputation or was Jesus JUST by fulfilling the law himself? Do you believe that the Divine nature of Christ had to be imputed to Christ for him to be JUST, or was Jesus JUST because in His human nature He did not sin and He fulfilled all RIGHTEOUSNESS? If by imputation then the God-Man would be determined not to be a Saviour at all! This would raise the question of the sinlessness of Christ’s human nature—Why was not Christ JUST in himself? The VERY sinless HUMANITY of Christ would be brought into question!!! But, Luke did not question it did he? Luke declared, But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14). Luke knew who was holy and righteous.

In 1 John 3:5 we read, in him is no sin. But why is this so significant if there was no genuine SECOND Adam, with the possibility to sin? Even Jesus enemies attest to the possibility that Christ could sin. In Matthew 27:4 Judas said, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. Now Judas said this about the very Christ he saw everyday. It amazed this reprobate, but why if he did not think that Christ could have sinned? Consider the criminal who died next to Jesus. This man mocked Jesus (Matt 27:44), but as he watched Jesus dying something happened which made him change his mind. What did this man think of Jesus (Luke 23:41)? He said,

But, why is this significant if Jesus could not sin? Only if Jesus could have sinned would this be such a great cry in the courts of the whole earth! One day Jesus said, Which of you convinceth Me of sin? (John 8:46) " Why is this significant if Christ could not sin? Later when Jesus was arrested and put on trial, His enemies had a very difficult time finding individuals who would testify against Him (Matt 26:59-60), but they looked didn’t they! Why did they look if Jesus could not sin? Because Jesus was truly a man who could be and was literally tempted! May I point out here that even Jesus enemies knew this—how much more should His saints!

In Matthew 3:17, at the baptism of Jesus, the Father spoke from heaven and said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. You would have to say, well this is no big deal! SO WHAT, after all if Jesus could not sin and there was no genuine temptation—why be pleased God?—man why did you say these words God?—Jesus was your little robot that could not sin—no big deal right? WRONG. God was well pleased because Jesus was fulfilling that which He and His Father planned in eternity past! Jesus is not a robot, but has an actual will that submitted to the Father (Luke 22:42). Christ was fulfilling God's redemptive plan against every temptation and the very Devil himself! The Lord faced Satan as a Man. The SECOND MAN ADAM, walking in the Spirit and using and relying upon the Word of God defeated Satan! As a Man, Christ was always filled with the Spirit (Luke 4:1). As a Man, Christ always stood firmly upon the Word of God-- "IT IS WRITTEN," but why if He could not sin? He could simply say I cannot sin, get thee hence Satan! However, the Devil left Him only for a time. I wonder why oh why Mr. Devil did your waste you time tempting the One some say could not be tempted? Why return (Luke 4:13)? As a Man, Christ always had His full armour on (Eph 6:10-18), but why if He could not sin? As a Man, Christ always was alert to temptations, but why, if He could not sin? Why oh why Mr. Sperartus do you not believe Jesus is a man? The devils believe and tremble!

Thanks be unto God who always causeth us to triumph in Christ (2 Cor. 2:14). Of course, if Christ never triumphed over sin like we have to there is not much to sing about! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

I thought we had, but.... in respect to fullness, Christ is a single person in full possession of two distinct natures, one human and one divine. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 put forth the canonical statement of the doctrine as follows:

What you and Speratus are doing is confusing (mixing) the TWO natures and thus seeing a change in Christ that DID NOT happen in the incarnation. You are elevating Christ's divine nature OVER His human nature and not allowing Christ to be a real human--thus all our emphasis on the humanity of Christ in this thread ...

Take a guess which of the TWO natures Col 2:9 is speaking about. Is it one, two, or ...?

Was Adam capable of continuing in obedience? Is it Arminianism to say so?

If it is improper to speak of Jesus Christ as the eternal, impeccable, and immutable Son of God by whom all things were created, why does Heb. 13:8 say, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever"?


If the saints were granted Impeccability through the merits of Christ, why was Christ granted Impeccability? It's a poor Savior who needs a Savior.

Did Christ come into the world to save men capable of continuing in obediance or to save men in bondage to sin?

In Arminianism, free choice to do good or evil is an immutable and essential attribute of man that was not completely lost in the fall. Therefore, under the Arminian system, Christ must have free choice to do good or evil. He must surrender His Impeccability in the Incarnation in order to become a true man.