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

What does this have to do with the subject being discussed?? Stick to the subject or refrain from replying.

Therefore?? Sorry, but this is nothing but nonsense. For your conclusion to be valid, Christ would have had to take upon Himself fallen human nature; non posse non peccare (not able to not sin). Is this what you believe? There are only two other choices if you reject this: 1) The human nature of Christ possessed that which Adam was created with; endowed with posse peccare and posse non peccare (able to sin and able not to sin), or 2) a nature which no human has ever possessed; posse non peccare and non posse peccare (able to not sin and not able to sin). If it was the former, then the case for peccability is proved. If the latter, then the Lord Christ did not possess a human nature which equates to that which God created man with and thus He is not a qualified representative of the human race and therefore He is no Saviour of men, but rather of some species of which we are not ever told existed.

In His grace,

It is not improper to speak such, for as you rightly wrote, "SON OF GOD"..... the second person of the Trinity; God of very God. Did you not read what I wrote? Divine attributes belong to the divine nature of Christ, Who consists of 2 natures. You consistently contradict and deny historic Christianity which embraces that which is so clearly expressed in the Creed of Chalcedon concerning the 2 natures of Christ. Jesus Christ did NOT create the worlds for He did not exist until c. 3 B.C. The SON OF GOD is eternal and it is HE Who created all things and Who TOOK UPON HIMSELF human flesh (Jh 1:14) and BECAME Jesus of Nazareth. The Son of God did not hunger, thirst, suffer, anguish in prayer, etc.. the HUMAN NATURE of Christ experienced these things in the ONE PERSON. Get it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Christ needed no Saviour!! Where in the world did you ever come up with that?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> The Lord Christ, His human nature, was granted impeccability due to His perfect obedience to the law of God having fulfilled all things which the first Adam failed to do. Have you no understanding of what the purpose of God was in sending His only begotten Son into the world, taking upon human flesh? Have you no understanding of the role Jesus of Nazareth was entrusted with in regard to being the Second Man/Adam? This is basic Christology 101.

In His grace,

Was Christ the Last Adam or not?

Pilgrim

I am enjoying this discussion immensely, because it is stretching my mind.
I find myself in total agreement with you on this subject.
But I have a question concerning the ramifications of it.
If it is true that as Hodge says (and I believe it is) “He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning.” Then does it not follow that If He was a true man He must have been capable of dieing eternally in hell?
I don't see an alternative to this, because if hypothetically Christ had sinned, would not that have been the outcome both for Him and the entire human race?

Tom

Arminian Christology and  Anthroplogy are consistent (i.e., Christ who able to sin and able not to sin is the savior of an existing species who are able to sin and able not to sin). Calvinists who hold with Arminian derived Christology and with Calvinist Anthroplogy are inconsistent (i.e., Christ who able to sin and able not to sin is the savior of an existing species who are able to sin and not able not to sin).


If the ability to sin and to not sin are essential attributes of man, then Christ is not a qualified representative for a species who are not able to not sin.

Speratus said:
I think you are mixed up here. Man after the fall is only able to sin. They are able to sin and able not to sin after they are saved.

Tom

And do you see a problem somehow, in this hypothetical situation you have come up with?

What I see is that you have added something which should not be there, i.e., "would not that have been the outcome for ... the entire human race?". IF the Christ had failed by sinning, then the outcome for the human race wouldn't have changed since it was already under judgment and the wrath of God.

Secondly, this "hypothetical" situation you have come up with did in fact happen but not because the Lord Christ sinned but because He gave Himself vicariously and substitutionally for those whom the Father gave Him, who were already under condemnation, He suffering the pain and torment of eternal Hell for them on the cross. (Isa 53:4-6, 9-12; Rom 8:3; 2Cor 5:21; 1Pet 2:22-24; 3:18)

In His grace,

Pilgrim

Thanks that makes sense, though I must say that I did not come up with this hypothetical situation. It seems that the position that servatus (oops I mean speratus <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />)is taking is more wide spread than I realized. This thread is being read by people who frequent another board.

Tom

I thought I would show one example for those who may be interested by AW Pink.
The Impeccability of Christ

Tom

Let me see if I follow you. Son of God: Eternally begotten of the Father; immutable and impeccable? Son of Man: Created in time by the Son of God; mutable, and peccable? Jesus Christ: One person having two personalities?

Did the Son of Man obtain his sinless yet peccable personality from an immaculate, yet peccable and mutable, Mary?


From you: "The Lord Christ, His human nature, was granted impeccability due to His perfect obedience to the law of God having fulfilled all things which the first Adam failed to do." If Christ needed to earn His Impeccability through a covenant of works, He was His own Savior.


So the Son of Man could earn mutation into Impecability? Where's that in scripture?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> You have erred on two matters: 1) "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are synonymous; two terms which describe the same person from two perspectives. 2) "One person having two personalities".... There were two distinct NATURES, not personalities resident in the one Christ. Read the Creed of Chalcedon again!

Again, the human nature of Christ was not granted/endowed with impeccability until after He fulfilled all that the law required, which the first Adam failed to do, thus securing the redemption of the elect being a substitute for them.

Nowhere...... He didn't "earn mutation into Impeccability". His human nature was granted/endowed with impeccability after the Lord Christ was resurrected and at His coronation, having accomplished all that He came to do; i.e., atonement for the elect.

In His grace,