Could jesus had Actually Sinned, as Adam chose to DO?

[Winman]

Why does this question keep coming up?

God cannot sin. Case closed.

Yeshua1 asked this question because it has been addressed in the past and he knows how I will answer. His desire is to provoke discord.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Do you remember Junior High School when we were all very immature? There were many fights among the boys (and sometimes the girls!), there was always someone trying to start a fight. A student would tell Joey that Billy called him a wuss, or some other offensive name... Of course Joey would confront Billy and a big crowd would gather as the boys began to argue. There was always one fellow that would shove one of the boys into the other to start a physical fight. The boys would clobber each other for several minutes while all the boys cheered. A teacher or the principal would rush out of the school and stop the fight. The boys would be taken to the office for disciplinary action.

Well, Yeshua1 would not only be the boy who told Joey about Billy's comment, Yeshua1 would be the boy who shoved Joey into Billy to get the actual fight going. He gets a great deal of pleasure out of causing trouble like this. God says he hates persons who do this type of thing, but Yeshua1 persists, even when he has been warned. Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.

As concerning the OP, Jesus himself showed that he had option and choice. He was sinless by choice, not because he was unable to sin.

Jhn 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Here Jesus implied that he could lie. The word "if" denotes possibility. If Jesus wanted us to understand he could not lie, then there was no need to say "if". Jesus does not make careless mistakes, he was perfect. It is not as if Jesus was unable to utter the words, "I know him not", in fact, Jesus uttered these very words.

If Jesus could not sin, there was no need for the Spirit to lead him into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. It would have been meaningless and vain.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Jesus fasted for 40 days and afterward was very hungry. He was literally starving. Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread. Was Jesus able to turn stones into bread? Of course, but he CHOSE not to sin, but obey his Father.

That Jesus was not fixed in stone and had real option is shown in Matthew 26:53;

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

We all know the story, when the soldiers came for Jesus in the garden, Peter took a sword and cut off a servant of the high priest's ear. Peter was going to fight and attempt to rescue Jesus from these soldiers. Awesome!

But Jesus told Peter to put up his sword and asked him if he did not think he could call on his Father and his Father SHALL presently give him more than 12 legions of angels to rescue him from these soldiers.

This question of Jesus's demands a YES answer. So Jesus did not have to allow himself to be taken by these soldiers, even though that had been determined by his Father. And even more remarkably, Jesus implies that the Father would have granted his request and rescued him, thereby overthrowing God's own plan.

Now that is amazing I agree, but that is precisely what these scriptures imply.

But thank God, Jesus willingly submitted to his Father's will and allowed these soldiers to take him. Jesus allowed himself to be sacrificed as the Lamb of God for our sins, spotless, and without blemish.

But Jesus had choice, Jesus had option, he said so himself.

Now you guys can go crazy and attack me as a heretic, exactly what Yeshua1 desired.

 

[Arbo]

Not arguing a point, for presently I can see the validity of both opinions.

Opinions? Yours is opinion, the other side is the Word.

I'd guess that any answer given would be rejected by you. You believe Christ could sin obviously. No one on this planet could possibly convince you otherwise. It would take One outside of this to do so.

I don't know how long you've been saved but you seriously misunderstand the nature of Christ here.

Wow. This is why I usually avoid posting in the Theology and Bible Study section. I express no opinion (rather asking questions before forming one) but am granted one instead then seemingly rebuked for it.

I'll leave you to it then.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow. This is why I usually avoid posting in the Theology and Bible Study section. I express no opinion (rather asking questions before forming one) but am granted one instead then seemingly rebuked for it.

I'll leave you to it then.

So you bow out after you make a dogmatic assertion concerning Gods Christ and are called on it? You see both opinions as valid, thus you believe Christ can sin.

OK. Bow out then.

 

[preacher4truth]

I wonder when those who bow out of discussing theology will ever face theirs point blank?

 

[Arbo]

Temptation is entertaining a possibility. If Christ did not have the ability to submit to it, can it really be said that He was truly tempted?

If He did not have the capability to submit to it, is it really temptation? I might be wrong, but if an "inner darkness" is required, does that mean Adam and Eve had this before they actually sinned?

Not arguing a point, for presently I can see the validity of both opinions.

So you bow out after you make a dogmatic assertion concerning Gods Christ and are called on it? You see both opinions as valid, thus you believe Christ can sin.

OK. Bow out then.

I...was...asking...a...question...about...capability. I made no other assertion than the one that I could see the possibility that either is valid. How is one supposed to learn if one doesn't ask questions?

Seriously, you jumped to a nonexistent conclusion.

 

[percho]

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil. 2:8 KJV
though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8 Darby
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22:44 KJV
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb. 12:4

Through suffering he learned and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Even being Son of God.

He remained: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:19 KJV

 

[percho]

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil. 2:8 KJV
though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8 Darby
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22:44 KJV
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb. 12:4

Through suffering he learned and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Even being Son of God.

He remained: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:19 KJV

 

[convicted1]

Why does this question keep coming up?

God cannot sin. Case closed.

I asked this ? on another site that Yeshua1 is on, and I guess he wanted to carry it over to here......

 

[convicted1]

There is absolutely a "zero%" chance that Jesus could sin, and merely chose not to. Just because He was tempted the exact same way we are, and Him with the impossibilty of even giving into to that notion, doesn't make the temptation any less "temptacious". I can't believe some of the words that have been typed on here lately. It really boggles my mind..........

 

[preacher4truth]

I asked this ? on another site that Yeshua1 is on, and I guess he wanted to carry it over to here......

This was and has been winmans belief here and he has expressed it here recently among several other false beliefs he holds. I wasn't aware that you had not seen it here, or maybe you did and you took it there? salty now believes this corrupt nature as well that Christ could sin (or has always believed this perhaps). Of course these problems stem from other grave theological problems that are held within their system.

 

[Winman]

There is absolutely a "zero%" chance that Jesus could sin, and merely chose not to. Just because He was tempted the exact same way we are, and Him with the impossibilty of even giving into to that notion, doesn't make the temptation any less "temptacious". I can't believe some of the words that have been typed on here lately. It really boggles my mind..........

Then what is the point of the Holy Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil?

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

I think some folks are missing the point. To be a perfect sacrifice for MAN, Jesus had to overcome sin and the devil as a MAN. He had to show that if a man is obedient to God and allows himself to be led of the Holy Spirit he could conquer Satan and sin.

This is why God had to come down from heaven and become a man.

Jesus lived just like a saved or born again person, he overcame sin by reading the Bible and praying, by trusting in God every moment. He had to actually struggle and fight against temptation just as we do, temptation didn't just bounce off of him.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus "suffered" being tempted, he could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities (weakness)", he was tempted IN ALL POINTS like as we are, yet without sin.

If there was no possibility that Jesus could sin, all of this would have been meaningless, there would have been no test, and no point for coming to earth as a man to conquer the devil.

 

[Winman]

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil. 2:8 KJV
though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; Hebrews 5:8 Darby
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22:44 KJV
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb. 12:4

Through suffering he learned and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Even being Son of God.

He remained: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:19 KJV

Exactly, Jesus overcame sin and the devil by being OBEDIENT. He had the ability to be either obedient or disobedient. A robot that is programmed to do one thing is not being obedient, Jesus could not be obedient unless he had real choice.

 

[Winman]

The only place I've 'met' a 'Baptist' who believes Christ could sin is on BB.

When I mention this belief in Baptist churches they've never heard of such a 'Baptist'. Typically they gasp at some of the teachings alleged 'Baptists' here hold to.

The perplexing thing is that within the theologies of those who espouse these things is that Christ is brought down to a low level and man is propped upon a pedestal of ability and inherent goodness.

The Romans 3 indictment upon all of mankind is rejected, i.e. the extent of sin upon mankind is weakened and doesn't indict all but only some.

Then we end up with those who believe they were not under Romans 5:6, that they were not hostile and enemies in their minds toward God, they reject they were 'like the rest' of Eph. 2:4, and tout that they were a person always seeking God, doing good and that they have always loved God.

Really?

I may be wrong, but I think it is wrong to believe that Christ’s divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. If that were the case, the temptation, the tests, and his assuming of the responsibility of the first Adam would have all been charades. This position protects the integrity of the authenticity of the human nature because it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf. It was the human nature uniquely anointed beyond measure by the Holy Spirit.

Source- http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

Boy, and you had me thinking I was the only person who ever believed Jesus had the ability to sin.

 

[convicted1]

Then what is the point of the Holy Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil?

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

I think some folks are missing the point. To be a perfect sacrifice for MAN, Jesus had to overcome sin and the devil as a MAN. He had to show that if a man is obedient to God and allows himself to be led of the Holy Spirit he could conquer Satan and sin.

This is why God had to come down from heaven and become a man.

Jesus lived just like a saved or born again person, he overcame sin by reading the Bible and praying, by trusting in God every moment. He had to actually struggle and fight against temptation just as we do, temptation didn't just bounce off of him.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus "suffered" being tempted, he could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities (weakness)", he was tempted IN ALL POINTS like as we are, yet without sin.

If there was no possibility that Jesus could sin, all of this would have been meaningless, there would have been no test, and no point for coming to earth as a man to conquer the devil.

The point you're missing, Brother Winman, is that Jesus, in His heavenly form, could not be nailed to the cross and die. Yet, in the form of sinful flesh, He could. He came in the volume of the book, to do Thy will, O Father. What was the will of the Father? That Jesus would bear their sins upon His flesh, nail them to the cross, that whosever believes upon Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus, being God manifested in the flesh, was God nonetheless. And God can not sin.

Just because Jesus was tempted, doesn't make those temptations any less "temptacious" by His inability to give into them and choosing to sin. By Him not sinning, or better, not having the ability to sin in His flesh, shows how much He really is God.

 

[HisWitness]

The point you're missing, Brother Winman, is that Jesus, in His heavenly form, could not be nailed to the cross and die. Yet, in the form of sinful flesh, He could. He came in the volume of the book, to do Thy will, O Father. What was the will of the Father? That Jesus would bear their sins upon His flesh, nail them to the cross, that whosever believes upon Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus, being God manifested in the flesh, was God nonetheless. And God can not sin.

Just because Jesus was tempted, doesn't make those temptations any less "temptacious" by His inability to give into them and choosing to sin. By Him not sinning, or better, not having the ability to sin in His flesh, shows how much He really is God.

Really by not being able to sin--he endured FAR more than any man will ever endure in temptations..man reaches a certain point (without God helping)that Man gives in to Temptation because he is too weak to overcome.

Christ on the other hand in not being able to sin--suffered the full and most severest form on temptation---He NEVER gave in--so He reached a point of temptation that Man has NEVER known or ever will know.

 

[Winman]

The point you're missing, Brother Winman, is that Jesus, in His heavenly form, could not be nailed to the cross and die. Yet, in the form of sinful flesh, He could. He came in the volume of the book, to do Thy will, O Father. What was the will of the Father? That Jesus would bear their sins upon His flesh, nail them to the cross, that whosever believes upon Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus, being God manifested in the flesh, was God nonetheless. And God can not sin.

Just because Jesus was tempted, doesn't make those temptations any less "temptacious" by His inability to give into them and choosing to sin. By Him not sinning, or better, not having the ability to sin in His flesh, shows how much He really is God.

Sorry Willis, I disagree. Scripture says Jesus "suffered" being tempted. Temptation did not simply bounce off of him, he was not impervious or oblivious to temptation, scripture said he had to "resist" sin. It was a real battle, in fact it was the greatest battle ever fought by any man. This is why Jesus said he has "overcome".

The clearest example is Jesus sweating blood in the garden. As a man, he did not want to die, he did not want to be tortured and nailed to the cross. He actually prayed that there might be some other way to redeem man.

Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Note that Jesus said his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Why would Jesus be sorrowful to obey his father's will? Because as a man he had the instinct to survive, he did not want to be beaten and tortured, nailed to a cross and die, just as no man would desire this to happen to him.

Note that Jesus actually asked his Father, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me". Now why would Jesus pray such a thing if your view is correct? That does not make a bit of sense. Obviously Jesus was showing his human nature here that did not want to die.

Now, thank God, Jesus submitted to the will of his Father. But it was not Jesus's will to die, otherwise it would not make sense to say, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Now that is hard to get around, Jesus made it clear his will was quite different from his Father.

The reason folks do not understand is because they do not understand Jesus must defeat sin and Satan as a man. Jesus had no advantage over any man, he had to depend on the word of God, prayer, and the Holy Spirit, just as any born again Christian would.

 

[jonathanD]

I think what is of consequence is what he did...not what he might have done. Bruce Ware explains what he did very well with an illustration. Let's say that a man was swimming across the English Channel. He is followed by a boat full of rescue swimmers who are monitoring his every move. He swims successfully from one side to the other and the rescue swimmers reach the other side by boat. Now, could he have drowned? No, there were swimmers right there. Did he not drown because of the rescue swimmers? No, he did it on his own power.

 

[convicted1]

Here's Wayne Grudem's take on this very subject, that seems to sum it up quite nicely:


Here's the link to it:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scroll down to page 537.....

"4. Could Jesus Have Sinned? The question is sometimes raised, “Was it possible for Christ to have sinned?” Some people argue for the impeccability of Christ, in which the word impeccable means “not able to sin.”8 Others object that if Jesus were not able to sin, his temptations could not have been real, for how can a temptation be real if the person being tempted is not able to sin anyway?
In order to answer this question we must distinguish what Scripture clearly affirms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what is more in the nature of possible inference on our part. (1) Scripture clearly affirms that Christ never actually sinned (see above). There should be no question in our minds at all on this fact. (2) It also clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted, and that these were real temptations (Luke 4:2). If we believe Scripture, then we must insist that Christ “in every respect has been tempted as we are yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). If our speculation on the question of whether Christ could have sinned ever leads us to say that he was not truly tempted, then we have reached a wrong conclusion, one that contradicts the clear statements of Scripture.
(3) We also must affirm with Scripture that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13). But here the question becomes difficult: if Jesus was fully God as well as fully man (and we shall argue below that Scripture clearly and repeatedly teaches this), then must we not also affirm that (in some sense) Jesus also “could not be tempted with evil”?
This is as far as we can go in terms of clear and explicit affirmations of Scripture. At this point we are faced with a dilemma similar to a number of other doctrinal dilemmas where Scripture seems to be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at least very difficult to combine together in our understanding. For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we affirmed that God exists in three persons, and each is fully God, and there is one God. Although those statements are not contradictory, they are, nonetheless, difficult to understand in connection with each other, and although we can make some progress in understanding how they fit together, in this life, at least, we have to admit that there can be no final understanding on our part. Here the situation is somewhat similar. We do not have an actual contradiction. Scripture does not tell us that “Jesus was tempted” and that “Jesus was not tempted” (a contradiction if “Jesus” and “tempted” are used exactly in the same sense in both sentences). The Bible tells us that “Jesus was tempted” and “Jesus was fully man” and “Jesus was fully God” and “God cannot be tempted.” This combination of teachings from Scripture leaves open the possibility that as we understand the way in which Jesus’ human nature and divine nature work together, we might understand more of the way in which he could be tempted in one sense and yet, in another sense, not be tempted. (This possibility will be discussed further below.)
At this point, then, we pass beyond the clear affirmations of Scripture and attempt to suggest a solution to the problem of whether Christ could have sinned. But it is important to recognize that the following solution is more in the nature of a suggested means of combining various biblical teachings and is not directly supported by explicit statements of Scripture. With this in mind, it is appropriate for us to say:9 (1) If Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed united in one person. (3) Although there were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesus experienced in his human nature alone and were not experienced in his divine nature (see below), nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had sinned, it would have involved both his human and divine natures. (4) But if Jesus as a person had sinned, involving both his human and divine natures in sin, then God himself would have sinned, and he would have ceased to be God. Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God’s nature. (5) Therefore, if we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible. The union of his human and divine natures in one person prevented it.
But the question remains, “How then could Jesus’ temptations be real?” The example of the temptation to change the stones into bread is helpful in this regard. Jesus had the ability, by virtue of his divine nature, to perform this miracle, but if he had done it, he would no longer have been obeying in the strength of his human nature alone, he would have failed the test that Adam also failed, and he would not have earned our salvation for us. Therefore, Jesus refused to rely on his divine nature to make obedience easier for him. In like manner, it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his human nature alone (though, of course, it was not “alone” because Jesus, in exercising the kind of faith that humans should exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of “backstop” that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptations, and his refusal to turn the stones into bread at the beginning of his ministry is a clear indication of this.
Were the temptations real then? Many theologians have pointed out that only he who successfully resists a temptation to the end most fully feels the force of that temptation. Just as a champion weightlifter who successfully lifts and holds over head the heaviest weight in the contest feels the force of it more fully than one who attempts to lift it and drops it, so any Christian who has successfully faced a temptation to the end knows that that is far more difficult than giving in to it at once. So it was with Jesus: every temptation he faced, he faced to the end, and triumphed over it. The temptations were real, even though he did not give in to them. In fact, they were most real because he did not give in to them.
What then do we say about the fact that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13)? It seems that this is one of a number of things that we must affirm to be true of Jesus’ divine nature but not of his human nature. His divine nature could not be tempted with evil, but his human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted. How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us. But this distinction between what is true of one nature and what is true of another nature is an example of a number of similar statements that Scripture requires us to make (see more on this distinction, below, when we discuss how Jesus could be God and man in one person)." [Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine (537–539). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.]

Jesus, as man, always had His deity, and it supercedes His human nature. He, as He was praying in the garden, was praying through His man. Yet, in His deity, He knew He had to do that which was foreordained of God, to bear our sins upon the cross. For the joy set before Him, Christ endured the cross".

 

[Winman]

Here's Wayne Grudem's take on this very subject, that seems to sum it up quite nicely:


Here's the link to it:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scroll down to page 537.....



Jesus, as man, always had His deity, and it supercedes His human nature. He, as He was praying in the garden, was praying through His man. Yet, in His deity, He knew He had to do that which was foreordained of God, to bear our sins upon the cross. For the joy set before Him, Christ endured the cross".

Very interesting article Willis, but it is still speculation. I base my view that Jesus could have sinned by his own words which I have already shown.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Again, Jesus himself implied it was possible for him to lie when he said "and IF I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you"

Now Jesus knows doctrine and Jesus does not make mistakes. If Jesus wanted us to know it was not possible that he could lie, he could have easily said so. Jesus could have said, "I cannot lie". But that is not what Jesus did, he actually introduced the idea that if he were to deny his Father, he would be a liar. I cannot imagine why he would introduce such an idea if your view is correct. Why would he ever suggest such a thing? It doesn't make sense.

Not only that, but it does not make sense for the Spirit to lead Jesus out into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil if he could not sin. What possible kind of test could it be? What would it prove? NOTHING. So, again, I don't think this view makes sense.

And then there was Jesus's statement to Peter in the garden;

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

This question demands a YES answer from Peter. So Jesus is showing that he did not have to give himself up if he did not want to. Jesus had the option of calling on his Father and being rescued from these soldiers who came to take him. And what's more, Jesus clearly implies also that his Father would grant his request and send more than 12 legions of angels.

Now, that might turn some folks world upside down, but this is clearly what Jesus implied here, there is no mistake. God had determined that Jesus would give himself up to be crucified, but Jesus was not LOCKED into this, and neither was the Father. Therefore it must be understood that Jesus obeyed by CHOICE, as did the Father.

And that is the question, did Jesus never sin by choice, or because he lacked the ability to sin?

Well, you can't say that Jesus lacked the ability to say, "I know him not", because Jesus said these very words;

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

We will have to agree to disagree. What is important is that Jesus never sinned and therefore he could be the Lamb of God without spot or blemish who could die for our sins and save us.

 

[convicted1]

Brother Winman, here's another worthy take from William G.T. Shedd:

Christ’s Impeccability Proven from the Constitution of His Person


The truth and self-consistence of the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability appear, also, from a consideration of the constitution of his person.

Christ’s person is constituted of two natures: one divine and the other human. Divine nature is both intemptable and impeccable: “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13); “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). Human nature, on the contrary, is both temptable and peccable. When these two natures are united in one theanthropic person, as they are in the incarnation, the divine determines and controls the human, not the human the divine (see pp. 617–18). The amount of energy, therefore, which the total complex person possesses to resist temptation, must be measured not by the human nature but by the divine; and the amount of energy to resist temptation determines the peccability or impeccability of the person. Jesus Christ, consequently, is as mighty to overcome Satan and sin, as his mightiest nature is. His strength to prevent a lapse from holiness is to be estimated by his divinity, not by his humanity, because the former and not the latter is the base of his personality and dominates the whole complex person.

Consequently, what might be done by the human nature if alone and by itself cannot be done by it in this union with omnipotent holiness. An iron wire by itself can be bent and broken in a man’s hand; but when the wire is welded into an iron bar, it can no longer be so bent and broken. And yet iron, whether in a bar or in a wire, is a ductile and flexible metal; and human nature, whether in a God-man or a mere man, is a temptable and fallible nature. A mere man can be overcome by temptation, but a God-man cannot be. When, therefore, it is asked if the person named Jesus Christ and constituted of two natures was peccable, the answer must be in the negative. For in this case divine nature comes into the account. As this is confessedly omnipotent, it imparts to the person Jesus Christ this divine characteristic. The omnipotence of the Logos preserves the finite human nature from falling, however great may be the stress of temptation to which this finite nature is exposed. Consequently, Christ while having a peccable human nature in his constitution, was an impeccable person. Impeccability characterizes the God-man as a totality, while peccability is a property of his humanity.

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (660–661). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.