Featured Love requires choice?

If He so willed it, He could still be hanging on that cross today, alive. He GAVE UP the ghost.

 

Nevertheless, as a man he had some abilities that God does not have, God cannot die.

I believe this shows being divine did not hinder or prohibit his human qualities, therefore he would have been able to sin.

If your view was correct, being God would have prevented him from needing to sleep, or eat, or die, or even being tempted, which scripture clearly says he was.

I agree with the author in that last article I showed, that Jesus had to defeat Satan as a man. It is no big deal for God to defeat Satan, but it was a great thing to defeat Satan as a man. Otherwise, what is the point in even having to become flesh?

So, I do not believe impeccability makes sense.

 

Orthodox theologians generally agree that Jesus Christ never committed any sin. This seems to be a natural corollary to His deity and an absolute prerequisite to His work of substitution on the cross. Any affirmation of moral failure on the part of Christ requires a doctrine of His person which would deny in some sense His absolute deity.

A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted He could sin.
Definition of Impeccability

The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term peccability, and the doctrine that Christ could not sin is referred to as the impeccability of Christ. Adherents of both views agree that Christ did not sin, but those who affirm peccability hold that He could have sinned, whereas those who declare the impeccability of Christ believe that He could not sin due to the presence of the divine nature.

The doctrine of impeccability has been questioned especially on the point of whether an impeccable person can be tempted in any proper sense. If Christ had a human nature which was subject to temptation, was this not in itself evidence that He could have sinned? The point of view of those who believe that Christ could have sinned is expressed by Charles Hodge who has summarized this teaching in these words: “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 provocations;

BSac 118:471 (Jul 61) p. 196

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.”1

The problem that Hodge raises is very real, and, judging by our own experience, temptation is always associated with peccability. Hodge, however, assumes certain points in his argument which are subject to question. In order to solve the problem as to whether Christ is peccable, it is necessary, first of all, to examine the character of temptation itself to ascertain whether peccability is inevitably involved in any real temptation and, second, to determine the unique factor in Christ, i.e., that He had two natures, one a divine nature and the other a sinless human nature.
Can an Impeccable Person Be Tempted?

It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. It must be admitted by Hodge, who denies impeccability, that in any case the temptation of Christ is different than that of sinful men.

Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15 ).

It is also clear that this temptation came to Christ in virtue of the fact that He possessed a human nature, as James states: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself

BSac 118:471 (Jul 61) p. 197

tempteth no man” (1:13). On the one hand, Christ was tempted in all points except through that of a sin nature, and on the other hand His divine nature could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted. While His human nature is temptable, His divine nature is not temptable. On these points all can agree. The question is, then, can such a person as Christ is, possessing both human and divine natures, be tempted if He is impeccable?

The answer must be in the affirmative. The question is simply, is it possible to attempt the impossible? To this all would agree. It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for the rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable. It will be observed that the same temptation which would be easily resisted by one of sound character may be embraced by one of weak character. The temptation of a drunken debauch would have little chance of causing one to fall who had developed an abhorrence of drink, while a habitual drunkard would be easily led astray. The temptation might be the same in both cases, but the ones tempted would have contrasting powers of resistance. It is thus demonstrated that there is no essential relation between temptability and peccability. Hodge’s viewpoint that temptation must be unreal if the person tempted is impeccable is, therefore, not accurate...


Walvoord, John F., "The Person and Work of Christ Part VII: The Impeccability of Christ " Bibliotheca Sacra BSAC 118:471 (Jul 1961)

 

But it was impossible for death to hold Him. He was raise by the power of an endless life.

I didn't say he couldn't die. I said He was uncorruptible. He cannot deny Himself, and it is impossible for Him to lie. Even as a man.

In other words, He was impeccable.

 

If one applies inverted logic to what you've just stated above, we humans are able to NOT sin. Is that what you're actually getting around to?

 

:thumbs:

Just contrast Adam and Christ. Adam was fully human, but not begotten of God, and not a partaker of His divine nature. It is said of us, who are partakers, that we cannot sin, because we are born of God. Adam, however, was corruptible, and just his exposure to a lie was enough to defile and corrupt him so that he could do no other than bring forth sin.

Christ could do no other than bring forth righteousness. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."

 

Yes, that is what he believes. He denies any form of Original Sin (whatever way one may define it), or the depravity of man. IOW, it is possible for man to go through life without sinning since all men, according to Winman are fully responsible for all sins.
That ignores the Levitical passage of "sins of ignorance."

 

Sounds like a good argument, except a great ship can be sunk by a rowboat.

Anybody remember the U.S.S. Cole?



This giant hole was blown in the side of the Cole by a little rowboat that pulled alongside the ship filled with explosives.

God cannot die, but Jesus did die. So, this view that Christ's divinity necessarily overrides his humanity does not hold water, the very opposite is shown in scripture, his humanity overrode his divinity and he actually died.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. We are not discussing Original Sin or unintentional sin, we are discussing whether Jesus Christ as a man had the ability to sin. And I am not the first person to believe scripture shows Jesus was able to sin, Charles Hodge lived a long time before I was born. He was no amateur at the scriptures either.

Nice attempt to distract from the real question at hand. :thumbsup:

 

Christ could have been imperfect, and man could be perfect is what Winman is saying. He builds a whoooole lot from the parables of Lu 15 alone - heap big medicine to him. Of course it's like trying to nail jello to the wall to get him to admit to it, but it sounds as if he believes 99 out of 100 have no need of the Saviour.

 

You too attempt to deflect. You must KNOW you are losing the debate. This is not about Original Sin, or unintentional sin that DHK brought up.

This is about whether Jesus as a man had the ability to sin or not. I believe impeccability is utterly nonsensical, if Jesus could not sin, then what was the point of becoming a man?

It is nothing extraordinary for God to defeat Satan, but for a man to defeat Satan where Adam failed is super-extraordinary. Jesus as a man succeeded where ALL men have failed. I believe Jesus had to not only become flesh and blood like us, subject to our same lusts and passions, but he also had to defeat sin in the same way a Christian does, by faith in God and obedience to his word.

And I believe scripture like John 8:55 and Matthew 26:53 imply that Jesus had the ability to sin, but CHOSE not to.

 

Just as you believe man's absolute peccability is utterly nonsensical.

 

And no Winman, I'm not trying to deflect, I'm building on what you haven't answered:

If you're insisting that Christ's human nature prevented Him from being impeccable, and yet He succeeded in not sinning, then that means we as humans have the capacity to never sin. No deflection, only sound logic.

 

It isn't a distraction. It shows how your unorthodox theology relates together.
First you believe that all men are born perfect, sinless and innocent.
Second, you believe that Jesus took on "sinful flesh" just as we have.
Third, you believe that the virgin birth was nothing but a sign, and had nothing to do with escaping the curse of Adam.
Fourth, you believe that the fact that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the fact that he has a perfect nature without sin, unlike our natures.

The fact that you believe that Christ has sinful flesh and infants don't make Christ more sinful than an infant which is heresy.

 

That is completely untrue and an intentional misrepresentation of my views which I have published here dozens of times.

I do not believe babies and little children who do not understand between good and evil are held accountable for sin. I am not saying they cannot do wrong, I am saying they are not accountable because they do not understand their actions, especially before God with eternal ramifications.

But....

Every single person who survives and matures to the point where they do understand right and wrong before God will willingly and knowingly choose to sin.

Now, this is what I have always said, and I think you know that. I believe you know you are losing this debate, and so now you are using nothing but low down smear tactics. You are trying to deflect and talk about other subjects so folks will forget what we were talking about.

Boy, you must really think people are dumb.

Believe what you want. Here is a good video I found, I have no idea who this preacher is, or if he is even Baptist. But I like what he says and agree with him. Fast forward to about 31 minutes to actually hear what he says about the peccability of Christ (he actually gets to that around 33 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2q7Q_5fOA

I like one thing this preacher said, he said Jesus shows us how it "can be done" speaking of overcoming sin in our lives. He also said Jesus took away all our excuses. That is what this debate is REALLY about.

 

What scripture do you base that on, that all men that reach the age of accountability will indeed eventually sin?

So you actually do believe in total depravity, it's just 'delayed', so to speak.

 

What is your refutation for this logic?:

 

Romans 3:23 for one;

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I don't know if I like that word "total". To me, total means 100%. I do not believe everything unregenerate man does is evil. It is not evil to tell the truth, otherwise God's commandments are nonsensical. And I do not believe people always have some ulterior motive for telling the truth. You ask someone what time it is, they look at their watch and say, "Three-forty-seven" and they are simply answering your question, they are not thinking, "Boy, what a great person I am for telling this person the accurate time, God will surely let me into heaven when I die" I think this teaching that everything an unregenerate man does is sin is absolute nonsense. I am not saying folks do not do things for wrong reasons, they do, but nobody thinks like that 100% of the time. Sometimes you just give an honest answer.

Jesus himself said evil men can give good gifts to their children. He also said if you do good to those who do good to you, what thank have ye? For "sinners" also do the same. So Jesus directly said sinners do good things.

But I do believe every person who matures and understands right from wrong will willingly and knowingly choose to sin and do what they know is wrong. I certainly know it was true in my case.

But....

I do not believe people are forced or compelled to sin. I believe all people sin by CHOICE.

 

Well, I actually believe man is capable of not sinning, but I do not believe any man except Jesus has chosen to live a sinless life, and I do not believe any other man other than Jesus Christ ever will.

But that doesn't mean we have to sin. When do we have to sin? Name even one occasion where you HAD to sin.

Seriously, name even one occasion in your life where you HAD to sin because of your nature.

Now, don't give me some example where someone held a gun to your head and forced you to sin. I am talking about being forced to sin by your human nature.

Be honest.