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

Wes,
There seems to be a human realm of real culpability, suffering and etc,that we as humanity go through and what Jesus experienced, which is a total mystery in respect to God’s sovereignty. Pilgrim thinks I am ignorant of this fact, but the paramount thought is that God’s high decrees usurp the human realm in regards to the plans He put forth before the earth was created. The supralapsarian believes that the Fall was determined as part of that plan, thus Adam was destined to fail. The infralapsarian believes that after the Fall, the elect were actively intervened upon by the Holy Spirit, while the reprobate were and are passively left in their sins, which is a very palatable view in respect to God’s sovereignty and the accusation of “fatalism”. I believe there is much Holy Scripture to support that the elect and reprobate were decided before the Fall, but this view is I admit is undesirable in most Calvinistic circles. Yet, according to Henry Bavinck , “though infralapsarianism deserves praise because of its modesty- it abides by the historical, causal order-and though its shows greater consideration for the demands of practical life, it fails to give satisfaction. It is just as difficult to conceive of reprobation as an act of God’s justice as it is thus to conceive of election. Faith and good works, to be sure, are not the cause of election, but neither is sin the cause of reprobation; God’s sovereign good pleasure is the cause of both; hence, in a certain sense, the decree of reprobation always precedes the decree to permit sin (pg. 386 The Doctrine of God)”.
This may sound like “fatalism”, but on a human realm, we have an innate understanding of our responsibilities. With my very limited understanding, I accept man’s responsibility as well as God’s total sovereignty of everything that transpires on this earth. As Martin Luther once said, I believe in his book “Bondage of the Will”, “All things happen out of necessity, but not out of compulsion”. I am pretty sure Martin didn’t fully understand his own statement, but Scripture like Romans 11:36 and Eph. 1:11 support his thought.
On a human level we are responsible for our behaviors, thus I accept the apparent paradox of God’s high decrees, until Glory comes and I understand things better.
Geomic

Check out my recent response to Wes, I think you will see where I am coming from. Geomic

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> Sorry, but that is NOT what Infralapsarian teaches.... never has and never will. Both, Supras and Infras hold that the decree of God was made in eternity. The difference between them is the order of that decree; the Supras placing election and reprobation before the Fall and the Infras after the Fall, in order to uphold the justice of God. However the actual outworking of the decree, of necessity followed the decree(s). Where you came up with that summation of the alleged position of Infralapsarianism you only know. But it certainly isn't an accurate one.

Now, fyi, Herman Bavinck is one whom I esteem highly, particularly in his views concerning the eternal decree(s), mainly because he takes a mediating position, seeing the "logic" of the Supralapsarian view but the "reasonableness" of the Infralapsarian view. He holds to neither but both, admittedly a view that is difficult if not impossible to justify. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For a fuller and more accurate statement of what Bavinck held see here:

1) History of the Doctrine of the Decree of Predestination, by Herman Bavinck
2) Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, by Herman Bavinck

The issue I have raised does no injustice to the verity of God's eternal decree, and His indisputable sovereignty but rather it focuses upon the equal and complementary truth of man's whole responsibility; re: the humanity of the Lord Christ and His role as the second Adam and qualified representative of fallen mankind. If He was not "in all ways as we" in our humanity, including the necessity of choosing good over evil, then He could not have made atonement for sinners. The error, which you are making, IMHO, is that you are pitting two biblical truths against each other instead of giving each equal recognition. The decree made the end sure, but the decree didn't negate the freedom and responsibility given to Adam nor to Christ. (cf. Prov 16:9) This freedom/ability is not owed by fallen men, albeit their are fully responsible to do that which is right. But it was given and owned by Adam and Christ; the first failing and the second succeeding.

Therefore, the question still remains for you to answer, How could the Lord Christ have been a qualified representative of mankind if the ability to transgress the law of God was not possible. If sin was not an option (theoretically), then a machine could have done what He was sent to do. More precisely, the issue is of obedience; the Lord Christ's "active obedience" and not His "passive obedience". This obedience was required and could only have been exercised by a true man. To deny this truth would be to make Him to be nothing more than an automaton.

In His grace,

Loraine Boettner on infralapsarian position
1.to create;
2.to permit the fall;
3.to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels,
4.to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
5.to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
6.to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ

Pilgrim, I think the problem we are having is that on a heavenly realm, Jesus could not of failed, because He was determined to be our Savior before time began, yet on a earthly realm He was subjected to temptations that He as the 2nd Adam must not fail in (the law). You state that He must of had real temptations and that there was a chance he could of failed, or He wasn't a true representative for the elect, correct? For me the higher decree is that He already was the Savior slain for our sins (Rev.13:8, 17:8), so the human realm needs to be seen from that perspective. I do not want to "beat a dead dog" on this subject, but logic seems to on my side (at least in my estimation, but I could be wrong).
Geomic

geomic1,

This "dead horse" you are beating is your desire to prioritize two truths rather than accepting them as co-equals. It is BOTH that God's sovereign decree could not be thwarted AND the Lord Christ in His humanity had the ability to sin. Again, the Lord Christ being the second Adam was given the "choice" to live perfectly before God; obeying all the law of God, doing that which the first Adam failed to do. Though the Fall was decreed, Adam nonetheless had the "ability" to not sin, yet chose to transgress God's commandment. Likewise, God decreed that the Son would take upon Himself human flesh and atone for the elect through His perfect active obedience and vicarious substitutionary death (passive obedience), yet it was His deliberate decision to obey and not transgress the law of God. Had he had no ability to transgress, it cannot be established that there was any real test of obedience, which mankind was required to do. So, again, it is NOT and either/or nor a proportional equation, e.g., 60%/40% but rather it is Both/And; aka: God's absolute sovereignty AND man's total responsibility.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Well said.

ISTM geomic1 had claimed you said there was "a chance" of Jesus sinning, when you had not, and his use of the term introduced an equivocation between:

1) chance = Jesus's human nature had the ability to choose to sin when tempted
and
2) chance = the eternal decree was subject to the possibility of being thwarted by such a choice

By conflating the 2 senses one arrives at: since the eternal decree is fixed, Jesus didn't have a chance of sinning, ergo he could not sin. But this denies the essential truth that Jesus was able to sin. As you point out, both truths must be held, and to do so is biblical and not, as others imply, illogical.

Moving on, I notice the discussion has been entirely about Jesus before His death. What about now? Is His nature now still capable of sinning?

Elements which might be taken into account:

Does the glorified Christ have a human nature?

If so, is that nature essentiallly the same as prior to His death?

If not, what replaced it?

Is the issue of peccability a non-issue in heaven, since there is no externally-motivated temptation there, and therefore no possibility of transgression?

What about ourselves, after glorification: will we be able to sin or not?

If so, will there be sin in heaven?

If not, what will have changed?

Paul,

You’ve probably seen this example before but I’m posting it here in reply to your questions about the inability of glorified man to sin.

Augustine developed his now famous fourfold view of man: These four states, which are derived from the Scripture, correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin enumerated by Augustine of Hippo: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.

Pre-Fall Man - able to sin / able to not sin

Post-Fall Man - able to sin / unable to not sin

Reborn Man - able to sin / able to not sin

Glorified Man - able to not sin / unable to sin

[the] human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace obtains liberty. Secondly, that by means of the same grace, the heart being impressed with a feeling of delight, is trained to persevere, and strengthened with invincible fortitude. Thirdly, that while grace governs the will, it never falls; but when grace abandons it, it falls forthwith. Fourthly, that by the free mercy of God, the will is turned to good, and when turned, perseveres. Fifthly, that the direction of the will to good, and its constancy after being so directed, depend entirely on the will of God, and not on any human merit. Thus the will, (free will, if you choose to call it so,) which is left to man, is, as he in another place (Ep. 46) describes it, a will which can neither be turned to God, nor continue in God, unless by grace; a will which, whatever its ability may be, derives all that ability from grace. (Calvin on Augustine)

(Contributions from Monergism & Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)


Wes

Pilgrim,
“It is BOTH that God's sovereign decree could not be thwarted AND the Lord Christ in His humanity had the ability to sin”, If He had the ability to sin, was there ever a chance in His humanity to sin? If so there are only two possible outcomes:
A.Humanity is without Christ vicarious substitutionary death in our stead
B.Humanity has Christ’s vicarious substitutionary death in our stead.

If there was no chance, then Impeccability is true.
Geomic

Death dog (horse) must still have breath.

Dead dog (horse) must still have breath.

...use bigger bullets.

I'm following this thread, its very interesting... and its hard to ride a very sharp fence for this long...

The consternation I'm still trying to overcome, if there was/is a chance that Christ could have given into temptation, then what were thoes chances? Where they 1/1057? 1/1000988365? 1/18673905738412634065? Explain to me if He could have sinned then could He have been God (I'm trully am looking for an explanation and not trying to prove a point)? Can we at-all consider the man-nature of Christ w/ out taking into consideration the God-nature? The being of Christ consists of God-nature + man-nature, if we are going to consider just one nature are we still talking about Christ?

Also, the decrees of Christ's substitution and election of the saved (and implicitly, the reprobate), were made in light, not only of Christ's man-nature, but God-nature as-well.

Also, Pilgrim, explain why is it necessary for Christ to be able to sin in-order to qualify as a seccond Adam (I'm not proving a point just want an explanation). For some "strange" reason, I feel kinda good knowing that my Representative before the Judge not only did not commit sin, but that no possible quantity of sin can put a dent in Him.

Jadeitedrake0,

As was demonstrated in another recent discussion, equivocation can seriously distort the truth. If you insist on using the word chance, take care not to conflate its usage as "natural ability/opportunity" with its usage as "mathematical likelihood". If the 2 meanings are distinguished, it is quite possible to state:

Christ had the chance (ability) to sin, but there was no chance (likelihood) that He would sin.

On the surface, this is extremely confusing:

Are you perhaps confusing the difference between temptation and sin? At any rate, your repeated reference to mathematical quantification shows that you may not be grasping where the real root of sin lies.

I need a Savior who, like me, could have sinned, but, unlike me, did not.

But you're not really answering the question.

The problem is that you are construing ability as chance. I believe that Adam had the ability not to sin, but there is no chance he would not have sinned because God had decreed the Fall. In the same vein, Christ had the ability to sin, but there is no chance He would have because God had decreed that He would not.

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

Well, it is obvious that your Supralapsarianism is dictating everything and thus you simply are not going to think this through. So, for the sake of argument, IF your view was correct, then of necessity, the Lord Christ could not have been a suitable sacrifice for sinners and thus we should join the Jews and look for another Messiah who will be like us and take our place as the second Adam and by His own willful obedience resist temptation and thus provide atonement for our sins. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

And by your same "logic" neither Satan and the other angels nor Adam had the ability to render obedience to the Almighty for the "higher decree" determined that they should transgress. Therefore, they are not culpable for their rebellion as it was not their choice to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />

BTW, there is no "higher decree" for there is but one decree of God, i.e., His foreordination.

In His grace,

The "higher decree" is God foreknowledge of all events, we agree. Pilgrim, consider another way of looking at what Christ did for us from Dr. John W. McCormick:

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! 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. It was then (at the Temptation in the Wilderness) that our Lord entered into the strong-man’s house, and bound the strong man hand and foot. After that He went to the cross and “spoiled the strong man’s goods” for ever! (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27). Thus, the Temptation of Christ was not a matter of laying the redemptive purpose of God on the block; but it was an annunciation to men, to angels, and to demons that King Jesus had come to dethrone the usurper (Satan), to smash his kingdom into eternal oblivion, and to restore His crown rights to every one of His beloved ones who were yet to be drawn to Him in repentance and faith. To put it another way, it was nothing short of a declaration of total and all-out war! And there was never any question as to the outcome!
Geomic

The problem with this argument is that the Lord didn't need to become a man to display His impeccability. Hebrews 4:15 reads "For 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 was without sin."

This verse is describing a high priest who is merciful and faithful. And “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:18).

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.


Wes