The Impeccability of Christ

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"

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

HP: For starters, it goes beyond Scripture

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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".

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

thank you.

 

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.

 

Amen, amen, amen

 

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!”