The Impeccability of Christ

Christ had a choice and it was to come to do the will of the father. Christ is God who came in the flesh like to you and I. Without sinn. I agree with you he had a choice. Who's going to hold anything to God and tell him what to do. If you say that Jesus had no choice then you are saying God has no choice. If you believe that Jesus did not have a choice then you believe God is not one. Anything Jesus said to be done it would be done. I think it was JESUS choice to die on that cross for you and me and I thank him for that choice. He could of said yes and he could of said no. For he is God and beside him there is non other.

 

I agree - Jesus had free will, choice and could choose at any moment to stop the trial.

"Do you not think that I could call 12 legions of angels?" he said to Peter. He was arguing that IF He chose even then He COULD do anything! He did not have to go through with it.

But the argument here seems to be "oh no he couldn't - that would be impossible for it was not the Father's will and Christ could not go against it"

in Christ,

Bob

 

I am not the one arguing that "BECAUSE Christ had a sinless nature HE COULD not choose sin".

Those who make that argument have to answer the hard questions that it must survive.

Several others also have gone unnanswered.

1. God can not be tempted (James 1:13) but Christ WAS temtped in all points as we are (Heb 4:15).

2. you can not be tempted to do something that you can not do -- hence God can not be tempted.

in Christ,

Bob

in Christ,

Bob

 

All agreed - all true.

blessings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Many points have been raised and many went unanswered. Take this statement by BR. I do not believe it was answered.

It is an impossibility for the mind to will to do anything it conceives as a natural impossibility. Temptation deals in the realm of the possible, not the impossible. Take the temptation in the garden for instance. If it was absolutely impossible for the first pair to disobey, could have Satan tempted them to do so? Why or why not?

The possibility of contrary choice is absolutely necessary for morality of any kind to exist in any realm. No choice no morality. Temptation is a phenomena that exists in a moral world, not a necessitated one. It is utterly absurd to even consider objects not having the power of contrary choice of being moral or responsible for their actions.

Another point is that all our natural abilities come from our Creator God. It is He that hath made us. If God has no power of contrary choice, and contrary choice is impossible for Him, where did such a power come from?

Would any on the list deny that moral agents have the power of contrary choice? Is it not true that if one loses the power of contrary choice, no morality can be predicated of ones actions? Are not our mental homes filled with such individuals, men and women that we can no more rightfully blame or praise them due to the fact they unable to make a contrary choice in a moral sense, or at least are recognized as unable to do so?

Another unanswered question concerning contrary choice was in the matter of love. What is love? Can love be seen where no possibility of contrary choice exists?

Yet another unaswered point deals with the Sovereignty of God. God is All-Powerful. Can an All-Powerful God lack the ability of contrary choice? Can God be seen as Creative if no power of contrary choice exists?

 

Why did God choice to make man? To get glory out of us. Why did Christ come in a body of flesh like to you and I and was tempted in all point but without sin? To make away for us to excape it. How are you going to know what it is like till you have felt it your self. What did Christ say to the devil. Mat 4:6 And saith vnto him, If thou bee the Sonne of God, cast thy selfe downe: For it is written, He shall giue his Angels charge concerning thee, & in their handes they shall beare thee vp, lest at any time thou dash thy foote against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Iesus said vnto him, It is written againe, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. So the words are perfect that say God knows how to deliever the righteuss from temptation.

 

I've been trying to come up with a way to resolve the problem, to show that Jesus was truly tempted, but couldn't sin.

So I'm going to brainstorm here and ask you to pick this apart

There is no doubt that Jesus was tempted by Satan. We have the gospel account and Hebrews says so as well.

Remember, Jesus had been 40 days without food. He was starving, and very well could have humanly been near death. The desire for food must have been raging. He was probably in pain and distress, was physically vulnerable at that point. I can certainly testify that had I been in those circumstances the offer of food would have been a huge temptation to my flesh. Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus was tempted just like we are. So the temptation was real to his flesh. And the apparent purpose was so that Jesus would know what it's like for us humans.

Now, let us consider the nature and attributes of God. Among them are holiness and immutability. Jesus was sinless up to the Temptation, because it was his nature to be holy. We already know that God does not change, so had he sinned, there went another one of his attributes.

I believe that God--Jesus in this case--does not act contrary to his nature. The language seems to be inadequate here, because I don't want to imply that there are things God cannot do. Jesus did not sin because it is not his nature to sin. Whether he can or cannot is academic. He simply does not.

So, you answer, it's not academic. But we're trying to find an answer that may be impossible to discover this side of heaven. Of the three possibilities--Jesus could have sinned but chose not to; Jesus couldn't have sinned; or Jesus did not because it would have been contrary to his nature--the latter makes the most sense to me.

And it does not force us to speculate or stretch scripture to fit.

 

Oops. Just ran across something that may undermine my previous post. Gee, I'm already picking apart my own opinion.

In Titus 1:2, he writes: "...In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began..."

I'm not a Greek student, so can one of you see if this is a good translation?

So, is this a semantic thing, an anthropomorphism, or are there really things God can't do?

Either way, I still think the idea of God acting according to his nature is a pretty good explanation.

 

Was Christ born with a sinful nature like the rest of humanity?

 

?

HP: I will answer your question as soon as we can get on the same page as to what constitutes a sinful nature. Define it as you see it with any scriptural references you believe make your definition correct.

 

1. Our sinful nature is that disposition toward sin because of the disobedience of Adam, which we all inherited (Rom 5:12).

2. Should this be applied to Jesus at His birth?

 

HP: Is that nature ‘sin’ or a tendency or proclivity to sin? Is it moral depravity or does it consist of depraved natural sensibilities?

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:12 does not say that we inherit a sinful nature due to Adam. It says that death passed upon all men because "all have sinned."

 

1. The nature itself is not "sin," but it's a tendency to sin because of moral corruption.

2. What does it mean that death passed to all?

3. What does it mean by "all have sinned"?

 

HP: I like what you say basically, if we understand that a tendency to sin may have been caused by moral corruption of another, but morality is a personal issue that only ‘morally’ corrupts the individual himself. Moral corruption cannot be passed on because it is 'moral' in nature and must involve the individual's will in the formation of a selfish intent.

When one sins it has all sorts of evil impact on the natural body and sensibilities. What is passed on is the physical consequences of sin as well as evil influences. Others are affected by our examples. That is clearly understood. Just the same, all the evil influences passed from one to their posterity of others is in the form of influences upon the mind or natural tendencies to sin via the sensibilities. If we fail to make a clear distinction between the sensibilities and the intents of the will itself, we will fail to properly place guilt and morality where it belongs. It is not morally wrong to be tempted to evil via the natural propensities, or even to be tempted via the influence and example of others. We may have all sorts of influences to sin both internal and external, yet they in and of themselves are not moral in nature. Morality is birthed when we allow those influences or proclivities to control our will in the formation of selfish intents as oppose to benevolent ones.

James was clear that sin was not birthed until the will acted in accordance to the lustful desires. To have a lustful desire is not necessarily sin. One can have strong desires due to natural proclivities, but sin is not conceived until the will forms a selfish intent influenced by that lust.
Morality is not predicated of the sensibilities. They are influences upon the will which can certainly influence the will in making moral choice. Nothing is moral outside of an intent formed by the will. Intents are individualistic in that every man is accountable for his own intents and no one else is responsible for them neither can another be blamed for my intents.

How are we doing so far? Am I making the separation between a proclivity, tendency, or influence to sin with sin itself to you? Can you distinguish between a depraved sensibility and morality?

 

What is the meaning of "because all sinned"? Then we can deal with the other questions.

 

HP: It does no good to just plow on until we come to grips with what is sin and morality, and how they are separated from proclivities, influences, or tendencies. I am not stalling on your question. I am trying to answer in a way that we arrive at what is sin. If we do not have a clear understanding of what it means to sin, and be able to clearly distinguish between morality and influences, how are we going to conclude the meaning of “because all sinned?”

 

Adam was our representative head and when he sinned we all sinned in him and that is why we have a sin-nature, a tendency to sin, irrespective of what we mean by "sin."

 

HP: It is one thing to simply repeat what someone has told you and another to prove it by Scripture. Show the list from the Word of God that such is the case.

The federal headship theory is not supported by Scripture.

 

So far so good.

However as James 1:13 points out "God can not be tempted"

You have just admitted that Christ WAS tempted just as scripture says --right then and there your "couldn't sin" argument ended.

Christ Himself prayed "that this cup would pass" showing that HE COULD refuse "Nevertheless NOT MY will but THY will be done" and when pressed on this point told Peter "I CAN CALL 12 legions of Angels" to destroy the wicked and rescue -- if He chose to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.

2. Romans 5:12 to begin with. Let's start with that:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

3. Each verb is an aorist verb, signifying a snapshot action, and all humanity was a part of the snapshot action.