The Impeccability of Christ

[Pastor_Bob]

No, we don’t yield just because it is there. Sin is not force or coercion, it is a choice of the will. Choice denotes two or more possibilities. We sin because we willing yield to the temptation that lust produces.

You are not reading my posts carefully enough. Nowhere did I say we yield because it is there. We yield because an inner desire, often a God-given desire, corresponds with Satan's temptation. We often fulfill these desire outside of the boundary of God's will. Jesus had no such propensity to sin.

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

How could Christ be the express image of God’s person if He could have sinned? God cannot sin. His Son, who is the express image of His person, cannot sin either.

Heb 5 says that He learned through the things he suffered

7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

Surely we have to admit that this was not "Christ yesterday" as in before His incarnation.

I have to think that "Tempted in all points as we are yet without sin" does not mean "tempted to do the impossible for him - and of course it was impossible"

Pastor Bob
Jesus Himself states that He could not sin.


John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

The text does not say "could not sin" it states rather the result of his victory "no unrighteousness in him".

The issue is not whether his sinless and perfect work is "the same as us" the issue is whether the Bible is telling the truth when it says He was tempted EVEN though "God can NOT be tempted" and whether we will admit that being tempted is impossible if the temptation is "to do the impossible".

And again I ask - what is the downside to the alternative to your view?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are not reading my posts carefully enough. Nowhere did I say we yield because it is there. We yield because an inner desire, often a God-given desire, corresponds with Satan's temptation. We often fulfill these desire outside of the boundary of God's will. Jesus had no such propensity to sin.

As already pointed out this is not the only avenue for sin. Lucifer and Adam prove that sin is also possible when the starting point is a sinless nature and the person is then tempted.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

HP: I will let Scripture answer that for us. Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

God became man. What constitutes being made a man TCG?

Ahhh! But there was still a difference: we were born with a sinful nature/propensity to sin, but Christ was not born with such a nature. Therein lies the difference.

 

[TCGreek]

No - we have a sinful nature. Christ did not.

And why is this an inadequate answer to prove further the impeccability of Christ?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek, God became man. What constitutes being made a man TCG?
Heb 2:17 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.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

[/color][/font]

True - but it is a change. your argument is that no change was possible.

[/font]

Your argument is "no change" possible.

Seems like change happened.

God did not get hungry and could not be tempted.

Christ got hungry - Christ was tempted.

You are taking this to an illogical and unbiblical extreme. One could make the argument that everything Christ did was a "change" from what the Father did. Does this deny His immutability? Absolute not. God is holy - Christ is holy. God is righteous - Christ is righteous. God is just - Christ is just. God is immutable - Christ is immutable. God is impeccable - Christ is impeccable.

There is a big difference in "things" that change and the very attributes of God that make up His nature and character. These never change.

 

[BobRyan]

And why is this an inadequate answer to prove further the impeccability of Christ?

Because as shown with the sinless nature examples of Adam and Lucifer -- there is more than one avenue for temptation and then sin. And one of those paths starts with a sinless nature.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: And why is this an inadequate answer to prove further the impeccability of Christ?

HP: For starters, it goes beyond Scripture

 

[TCGreek]

TCGreek, God became man. What constitutes being made a man TCG?
Heb 2:17 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.

1. Let's try to avoid an obvious fallacy here: God became a man as far as flesh and blood is concern, but not with the propensity to sin.

2. Christ, if anything, was like Adam before the fall. All of us after Adam inherited a taste for sin. Christ didn't. So let's get that straignt.

 

[TCGreek]

Because as shown with the sinless nature examples of Adam and Lucifer -- there is more than one avenue for temptation and then sin. And one of those paths starts with a sinless nature.

in Christ,

Bob

Are you willing to package the infinite God in every respect to his finite creature, whether angel or man?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

And again I ask - what is the downside to the alternative to your view?

The downside, at least for me, is that it attacks the character of God. However, better men than me have held an opposing position. As long as we can agree that He was the sinless, spotless, Son of God that was offered as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world, then we can have wonderful fellowship.

I will agree to disagree on this issue.

Goodnight friends. :sleeping_2:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I don’t get it. A Sovereign God that cannot make a choice. What if all His choices are good? Would He be unchanging? How does the possibility of making a choice detract from His Holiness or His unchanging nature as long as the choices are always in accordance to love?

 

[BobRyan]

You are taking this to an illogical and unbiblical extreme. One could make the argument that everything Christ did was a "change" from what the Father did. Does this deny His immutability?

No. I am simply pointing that what was "impossible" for God (Christ yesterday) was being done by Christ in human form.

Being weak, unnable to speak, powerless, not knowing even enough to speak or have language, thirst, and yes even temptation.

All of that is impossible for God. The change is clearly there.

It is therefore hard to argue from "change alone" that we "see no change between Christ and God in terms of weakness that is impossible for God".

Absolute not. God is holy - Christ is holy. God is righteous - Christ is righteous. God is just - Christ is just. God is immutable - Christ is immutable. God is impeccable - Christ is impeccable.

God does not "learn through the things that He suffers" He "CAN not be tempted" and He does not cry out for someone else to save Him.

There is a big difference in "things" that change and the very attributes of God that make up His nature and character. These never change.

Christ changes, grows in character from infancy to adulthood.

Tempted in all points as we are --

Phil 2

6 who, although He existed in the form of God[/b], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, [b]taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Rom 8
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin[/b], He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

The downside, at least for me, is that it attacks the character of God. However, better men than me have held an opposing position. As long as we can agree that He was the sinless, spotless, Son of God that was offered as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world, then we can have wonderful fellowship.

I will agree to disagree on this issue.

Goodnight friends. :sleeping_2:

Understood -- but How is this an attack on God's character to say that Christ was victorious over real temptation?

While also stating that "God CAN not be tempted" so Christ had to also sacrifice and "empty Himself" being found inthe form of a man - so that He COULD be tempted?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: As long as we can agree that He was the sinless, spotless, Son of God that was offered as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world, then we can have wonderful fellowship.

HP: Does this mean that you will be the first to limit the wording of any and all doctrinal statements to this simple statement we can certainly agree upon, so our wonderful fellowship might be a possibility some day face to face?

 

[Ed Edwards]

thank you.

 

[charles_creech78]

Exellent point.

No way to answer it.

1Pe 2:21 For euen hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for vs, leauing vs an example, that yee should follow his steps 1Pe 2:22 Who did no SINNIE, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1Pe 2:23 Who when hee was reuiled, reuiled not againe; when hee suffered, hee threatned not, but committed himselfe to him that iudgeth righteously 1Pe 2:24 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his owne body on the tree, that wee being dead to sinnes, should liue vnto righteousnesse, by whose stripes ye were healed.

 

[charles_creech78]

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jesus had no inherited sin nature; the necessary result His virgin birth. Jesus had no inward lust to correspond with an outward temptation. Jesus was sinless, perfect, and spotless, and was so before the foundations of the world were ever laid.

You and I yield to temptation because inside of us there is a lust or desire that corresponds with the temptations we face and we sin. Jesus did not have such lusts of His own.

Amen, amen, amen

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Picture this in your mind. Two persons are having a discussion in a park. One person says that Christ was created a man but had no choice. The other states that Christ indeed was a man and as a man must have a choice. The one that stated that indeed a man must have a choice asks the other if in fact God could produce a man that had no choice. “Certainly God could create a man without a choice!” ( as he points to a statue of a man in the park.) “Just like that!”