We both agree that the Christ did not sin.
Now, to you point that God can not die. Well, if you mean die as in cease to exist, then He can not do that. But God did in the form of the God-man, the Christ. Ppl like Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer(I am not lumping you and Reynolds in with them, btw) reasoned that God could not take on sin and die upon a cross, so they stated that the Christ ceased to be God based upon those assumptions.
The Christ, in His humanity, still knew ppl's thoughts and hearts, was able to heal from far away, was able to forgive ppl of their sins, raise ppl from the dead, &c.,so it shows that He was fully God and fully human.
I never define "die" as "cease to exist"....I think that is, for numerous reasons, a bad definition.
Christ very much did die, but he never ceased to exist.
But the point was, that by your logic (that if Christ could sin than God could) then we would either also have to deny that he died, or assert that God is mortal.
It was a Reductio argument.
Also, I believe it can be argued that it was Christ's continuous communion with the Holy Spirit by which he was victorious over sin and had power to heal and work miracles etc...
Reading the gospels, Christ regularly prayed to the Father for miracles and called upon the Spirit in his ministry. He prayed to God to raise Lazarus, he cast out Demons through the Spirit and it was blasphemy against the Spirit (not the Son) to claim he did so through the power of Baalzebub. Christ even argued to his accusers "If I cast out demons by Baalzebul, how then do your sons cast them out?"
I do not believe he had miraculous powers simply kept in reserve and utilized at all times with merely a whim. That is the very thinking which resulted in the view that Christ's suffering on the cross was merely apparent which, is rightly rejected.
However, I do not see how it would not logically follow that his suffering was only apparent if we view his Incarnation incorrectly. I fear that Impeccability, so argued from merely his nature would imply that suffering was only apparent, even his death, perhaps, only apparent.
That would simply be God in a costume.
I believe, rather, that the person, the entity that was the second member of the Trinity became a man and took upon him flesh that could no more live perfectly or perform miracles or know everything than any other flesh. I believe all three members of the God-head were always intimately involved in the economy of Salvation, with Christ as it's central figure.
In this manner Christ truly serves as an example to be emulated by us.
We can look at his life and work and know we have (through the Spirit) the tools necessary to become more and more like him through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
We can know he was truly tempted and tested in all ways exactly like us, yet without sin, and that that temptation was not an orchestrated charade.
It removes from us the possibility of making the excuse that since we are not God, we can't be victorious over sin.
Once again, thanks SG!
