k0de
Active member
A careful and thorough exegesis will show the hollowness of this justification.
Could Christ have sinned?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
From where did you cut and paste that?
k0de
Active member
The internet, [emoji16].
Right Divider
Body part
That much was obvious.
k0de
Active member
Knowledge at my fingers tips. Dangerously feeling something like Henry Ford. [emoji3][emoji91][emoji48]
Right Divider
Body part
Clete's point still stands. Your comment earlier was completely illogical.
k0de
Active member
We're both entitled to agree or disagree.
But, since I got your attention. And, you well know that I have high respect for your judgement and interpretation of the Bible.
Show me where in Bible that is say that Jesus sin?
Right Divider
Body part
I never said any such thing.
k0de
Active member
"Show me where in Bible that is say that Jesus sin?"
[emoji854][emoji16][emoji854][emoji848]
"Show me where in the Bible does it say that Jesus sin?
Ok where?
k0de
Active member
I'm on the rd right now and take a closer look when I get to my destination. But yes, my apologies I honestly misunderstood.
Thanks for catching that, and for pointing that out.
I see. So you thought I was saying that Jesus did sin. No wonder you reacted the way you did. (Does Islam teach that? If so, wow!)
I'm glad you see now that I didn't say that. The point is merely that if Jesus was INCAPABLE of sinning then there is no sense in which He could be tempted by Satan or anyone else and thus Matthew 4 and Hebrews 4 would both be falsified.
k0de
Active member
It has been my experience with the nation of Islam.
I understand your position now after reading what you wrote.
My apologies and much thanks to the group for catching my mistake.
Thank you!
Calvin picked up/brought a lot of false Catholic teachings, I hadn't seen he picked up this one. So will have to do a little research.
What Calvin brought was a reformed version of Augustinian doctrine. He was, after all, an Augustinian monk.
But don't miss understand my point. The doctrine of impeccability isn't false because it came from Calvin. It's wrong because it is based on the premise of immutability. In other words, it's wrong for the same reason that Calvinism is wrong. Both doctrines are based on the same false premise.
Here's a quote from one of the most famous Calvinist who ever lived...
The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability, or incapability of sinning: ‘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever’ (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. - "The Impeccability of Christ" by A.W. Pink
(Notice the contradiction: The INCARNATE Son could not change. How can anyone have ever believed this stupidity?)
That's his first and primary argument and it is always the primary argument for impeccability - always. He makes others from the premise of God's omnipotence but the Calvinist's version of omnipotence is ultimately based on their skewed doctrine of God's immutability. It all really does come down to immutability and that article by Pink is pretty much exactly the argument that anyone who believes in impeccability will make.
Clete
from gotquestions.org
There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.
To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:
1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.
2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.
The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.
Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.
Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).
There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.
To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:
1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.
2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.
The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.
Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.
Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).
Well I would not go that far, Calvin, just as Luther, brought in a lot of baggage from coming out of the Roman church. But they were headed in the right direction, the Holy Spirit was leading them, but they still had some wrong beliefs which held them back from a fuller understanding.
What do you mean, you "would not go that far"? What did I say that was in any way a matter of opinion?
As for Calvin and Luther, there's not a dimes worth of difference between what the two men taught and believed. Calvin was simply the one who formalized the doctrine into a systematic theology. It is, at bottom, a reformed version of Augustinianism. If you believe that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, you do so because of Augustine, not because of the bible. And most, if not all, of the doctrines that are distinctive to Augustinian doctrine (Calvinism or otherwise) are based primarily on the premise of God's absolute immutability. The doctrine of impeccability is no exception.
And I very much doubt that Calvin was even saved, never mind being led by the Holy Spirit. If he was saved and being so led, it was in spite of his multiple blasphemies. It wouldn't have taken the Holy Spirit anyway. The errors and abuses that the Catholic church was guilty of were glaring and obvious for anyone with an ounce of common sense to see (especially if they could read) and many did see it which is, in the end, what allowed Luther to keep his head attached.
Clete