He stuck by his wife, they became "one flesh" so if he would have left her alone in her sin, it would have been devistating. They would have been ripped apart, separated.
Maybe whatever choice he made, it would have been sin?
Well, I never said Adam didn't have a sin nature, so it makes no sense to me to try to show how a sin nature was "added on." I guess I misunderstood your question/point.
I've always believed Adam could sin from the very beginning. I think when he sinned, then the tendency to sin and inability to not sin was passed on to all humanity. I think Jesus was able to not sin because He was God and because He was able to resist sin even with the human urges/tempations He had. At least, that's what I think now.
Concerning separating the "could not" from the "would not" sin:
Jesus as 100% man had the Spirit of God; Jesus spoke the true and perfect Word of God, He did not receive the Spirit by measure, and in this was also fully God. He came from above in the nature of God and all things were given in His hand. That said: . On one hand Omnipotent God “could” and did truly come to earth in the nature of a man, in the Person of Jesus Christ, 100% flesh and blood man, and “could” as a truth be tempted to sin in this nature of a man, as this is a truth of the nature in which man exists from creation. (Something to look at is Jesus existed before creation as God, but not as a man.) Although, this subject (mystery) easily begins going beyond my comprehension; Jesus limited Himself in becoming man in order to truly fulfill the law, and Jesus Christ in His righteousness did fulfill it as a 100% man for this to be truth, but He did it IN the Spirit/Nature of God. It seems if to say Jesus “could not sin” it might be mistaken as a denial of Him being truly 100% man. I am not implying that you would ever say that Hank :saint: , but just trying to clarify. Your point of internal/external is well taken and looked at by me in the light of the “eternal.” (I agree with what I’ve heard concerning this, said, “That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.”)
On the other hand, Jesus was also 100% God and therefore “would not sin” as that is the true nature of God, (that He is only Good.) and part of the truth is Him having the 100% Spirit of God in the nature of a man. In that light, He would be incapable of sinning, and therefore, with the two natures combined I feel it could also be properly said that He “could not sin.”
1)Could Jesus sin? Yes and no. (One Person having two natures is a mystery to me, but true none the less.) 2)Would Jesus sin? No!
But don't you believe that Jesus was tempted?
The Bible clearly says that He was.
Therefore, He was subject to sin.
Unlike every other man who has ever lived He defeated sin completely, not only for Himself but for everyone who accepts Him as their Lord and Savior.
Not in the sense of being tempted to sin as we are, BB.
Christ cannot sin and could not sin and therefore the testing in the wilderness was no real temptation to sin.
It was more of a test on satan's part to try to cause Christ to sin... of which he failed miserably.
Scripture says He was tempted in "every way" as we are.
Temptation stems from desires of the flesh.
Temptation is not sin.
Christ had human flesh that was corruptible and ultimately died.
To state Christ was not tempted, and He could not have sinned is to deny the plain teachings found in Scripture.
In saying Christ could have sinned, one has much bigger problems.
They put Him on the same level as the false gods of mythology who were prone to mistakes.
Christ said He could do nothing except that which He saw His Father doing and that He came to do the Father's will
Now, if one claims that Christ could have sinned, that one is in all essence claiming that God sins.
For Christ can do nothing except that which He sees the Father doing.
What you seem to be indicating sounds like Apollinariansim. This was the teaching of bishop in Laodicea around 361 A.D. It is the idea that Christ has a human body but not a human mind or spirit.
Heb 2:17 clearly rejects this notion. Christ was made like His brethren in all things, This was necessary because Christ had to be fully man if He was to deliver man completely because the human mind and spirit must be delivered from sin as well.
I agree that Christ did not have a sin nature. He was not positively bent toward sin like the unregenerate man. The Bible seems pretty clear though that He was completely man, even experiencing our temptations in the same manner in which we experience them.
This is one of those paradoxes that we must embrace in faith. Christ was human, but he was not corrupted by sin.
But if Christ couldn't sin, then Satan's attempts would of course fail, no matter how hard Satan tried. That doesn't make it much of a test. It's like saying you are trying to make butter into cream by just looking at it. It will not happen.
Besides, the bible doesn't say it was a test of Satan; it says the Spirit drew Jesus into the wilderness where He was tempted/tested. Jesus is the direct object of that - not Satan.
The fact that Jesus said at age 12 "I must be about my Father's business," and the fact that during the last 4 years of His ministry (which I believe started at 12 years of age) Jesus stated He could do nothing except what He saw the Father doing, tells me He could not sin.
He did not say He came to prove that He could choose to sin or not to sin.
He said He came to do the will of God and could not do otherwise.