One day I was driving out to Montauk for the sunrise with a group of students from youthgroup as well as some friends. During the drive one of them asked me this profound question, "Could Jesus have sinned?" Let's take a look at the question what the Bible has to say concerning it. The Question At Hand
The question of the impeccability of Christ is not whether or not He sinned. The New Testament puts that discussion to rest with passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, and 1 Peter 2:22.[1]The question then that concerns the impeccability of Christ is whether or not He could have sinned when He had been tempted. Lewis and Demarest are right when they say that this conversation is completely hypothetical and I also agree with them that this conversation is profitable because it helps people think through some of the issues related to Christ’s two natures. [2] Joseph Sahl in the book “Vital Theological Issues” poses the question concerning the debate “Is such a discussion purely an academic exercise with no genuine significance? After all, the Lord Jesus Christ did not sin and in fact He remained sinless, so what is the difference whether He was posse non peccareor non posse peccare? Actually the problem makes a big difference.”[3]In this paper we will discuss and look at and respond to some objections to the impeccable view. At the beginning I would like to make known that I do not feel that some of those who would hold to a position different from mine are not truly saved but have come to a different conclusion concerning the topic. We need to approach such topics with grace and mercy and be open to discussion and questions concerning our views. Defining Terms The first thing that we should look at is some definitions of the viewpoints that will be addressed, which are the impeccability view or non posse peccare(not able to sin) and the peccable viewpoint or posse non peccare(able to not sin). The Impeccability view holds that Jesus could not have sinned because of His divine nature. This is from the fact that Jesus was fully God while also fully man and His divine nature made it impossible to sin. The Peccable view holds that even though Jesus did not sin He able to. The way that Ryrie puts it is “able to not sin” as opposed to Impeccabilities “not able to sin”. [4]I feel that Sahl defines it simply by saying “Peccability refers to Christ’s being liable to or prone to sin, and impeccability speaks of His not being liable to sin and being incapable of sinning.”[5]The views come are linked to the temptation passages found in the Synoptic Gospel accounts.[6]The debate has to do with the Hypostatic Union, which is the union between Christ’s two natures, His divine and human natures. Sinlessness is to have never sinned. John E. McKinley describes sinlessness as such, “Sinlessness means that the person has never sinned, but he has always done right. Sinlessness is an entailment of impeccability, but sinlessness does not entail impeccability since mutable beings (e.g., angels, Adam and Eve before the fall) could be potentially sinless and then cease to be so if they should sin. A peccable person may be sinless, but an impeccable person must be sinless.”[7] Temptation as defined by the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology is the enticement to sin.[8]When talking about temptation it is easy to make the assumption that temptation is the equivalent of sin however as Leslie T. Hardin warns us “ We must accept the axiom that temptation does not equal sin.”[9]This is something we must remember, especially when talking about Jesus’ temptation. The Peccable Arguments The peccable position holds to the view that Jesus could have sinned but was able to not sin. The arguments that they use are laid out well by Michael McGhee Canham and are as follows, 1. The Full Humanity of Christ 2. The Temptability of Christ 3. The Free Will of Christ[10] The Impeccable Arguments The impeccable position holds to the view that Jesus was unable to sin. As Canham points out this view is held by a majority of evangelicals in the past and present.[11]Again Canham lays out the arguments given by the impeccable positions and they are as follows, 1. The Deity of Christ 2. The Decrees of God 3. The Divine Attributes of Christ[12] While these are the main arguments put forth by Canham they are by no means exhaustive. For example R.C. Sproul brings to question Christ’s relation to being the Second Adam and in what sense did He obey the law if the possibility for Him to sin was not there.[13] A Closer Look at the Peccable Position First we will examine the peccable positions arguments. The first argument presented by Canham as supporting arguments for peccability is the full humanity of Christ. This argument appeals to the fact that Jesus was fully human and therefore was able to sin even though He did not. The first problem with this argument is that it leaves out the fact that Christ was fully man and fully God. R.C. Sproul says this, “At his birth, Jesus’ human nature was exactly the same as Adam’s before the fall, with respect to his moral capabilities.”[14]This statement would seem to be pulled from Romans 5:12-21 which talks about Jesus being the last Adam.[15][16]However we can not forget the difference between Christ and Adam which is that Adam was merely human while Christ was both fully human and fully God. Lewis and Demarest make this point concerning the kenosis and the fact that Christ was fully human, “Did not the kenosis make sin for Jesus a “possibility?” There is a logical possibility of sin only if we abstract his human nature from the divine nature. Even the kenosis, however does not erase Jesus’ divine nature. It meant a limited use of his divine capabilities and a use of his human powers in harmony with the Father’s desires. With the limited use of the divine powers, had there been a time when the human nature would have yielded to sin, the divine nature would have prevented this. Given the person union of the two natures, the one nature cannot be abstracted from the other.”[17] This argument seems to forget that Jesus was also fully God. Hebrews 13:8 shares this awesome truth about Jesus, that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus does not change and we see in John chapter one that He was there in the beginning and is God.[18]If God can not sin then Jesus, who is fully God, can not sin. Another way that this argument is supported by the thought that if Christ is fully human then He must be capable of sinning, if He is not able to sin then He is not truly or fully human. However we must remember that Jesus was unique in that He was not born with a sin nature like we have been. Along with this argument it has been said that if Christ could not sin then He must not have been fully man. This is easily disproved since scripture clearly shows Christ’s humanity. [19]Jesus was tempted from without and not from within and since He had no sin nature He had no sinful desires to entice Him to sin.[20] The second argument used by the peccable position is the temptability of Christ. They would argue that because Jesus was tempted the possibility to sin must have been present. Sahl puts it well in regards to this argument that “ temptation to sin does not necessitate susceptibility to sin.”[21]This line of argument also concludes that if the potential for Christ to sin was not there then He does not and can not fully sympathize with mankind and mankind’s sympathetic high priest as seen in Hebrews 4:14 and 15. Sahl again points out that the susceptibility to sin is unrelated to the ability to sympathize. He would also hold to the idea that because Jesus was tempted and did not sin that He is the most qualified to comfort, aid and console those who have fallen to temptation. [22]Warren Wiersbe defines temptation as follows, “A temptation is an opportunity to accomplish a good thing in a bad way, out of the will of God.”[23]When we look at the temptation account in the synoptic gospels we see that that is exactly what Satan is enticing Christ to do. Satan tempts Jesus to take His throne and show His power before His time has come, to use His deity for His own personal gains and not for what the Father has willed Him to do. This is a serious temptation and one that would appeal to his humanity but His deity and His infinite power keeps Him from sinning.[24]Sahl quotes Walvoord in his article and uses the analogy of a rowboat attacking a battleship. It is impossible for the rowboat to conquer the battleship. He uses this analogy to show that “while the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation; and if that power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”[25] The final argument that Canham presents for the peccability position is the free will of Christ. Canham says that because Christ is the last Adam He had a free will like what Adam had. This free will would not have been free had Christ not been able to sin. Logically this argument makes sense at first gloss. It would be easy to say that because Christ had a free will like all mankind does that He could have easily chosen to sin. I think a question concerning this is Christ, who is God, can choose to sin He would be doing something that is inconsistent with Himself as God and would then cease to be God. We can take a look at Christ’s time praying in the garden the night of His betrayal. He asked God if there was anyway to take the cup from Him but not His will be done but the Fathers.[26]Jesus had free will but choose to do the will of the Father. A Closer Look at The Impeccable Position We will first look at the first argument that those who hold to the impeccable position would present in saying that Christ was not able to sin and that is His deity. H.D. McDonald says that “Some of Jesus’ direct claims put Him without question on God’s side. He declared His Sonship with God as His Father, which those who heard understood as being an assertion of equality with God (John 5:18). This very equality with God He unhesitatingly maintained (John 10:30). The honor due to God he regarded as due to Himself (John 5:22,23).”[27]Sahl states that “The scriptures, by affirming Christ’s deity, also affirm His impeccability.” [28]Jesus, because He was God was impeccable. Now some would come to that statement and point out James 1:14, which tells us that God, is not tempted. This question can be answered by what Ryrie has to say on the matter “The fact that He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh allowed Him to be tested. Elmer Towns tells us that “Christ desired to do the miraculous and to glorify Himself, which was the thing that Satan asked. Hence when Christ was tempted it was not with inherent evil nor did it involve evil desires within Him. He wanted to do the things suggested by Satan, but to do them was outside the plan of God.”[29]Towns’ point is that because Christ was fully God His desire was not a sinful desire, such as mankind’s, but was a pure desire to bring glory to Himself. To do so however, would have violated the nature of the kenosis, which would mean that one nature was acting independently over the other.[30] We can not dismiss His deity in place of His humanity because it is His deity that makes Christ impeccable. Groups such as the Way International would like to look at verses such as James 1:14 and say that because Christ was tempted He was not God but only a man since God can not be tempted. [31]However I think that scripture is very explicit in showing that Christ’s deity. Ryrie tells us that Christ possesses the attributes that only God has (this will be discussed further later on), He performed works that only God can do, was given the names and titles of deity, and claimed to be God.[32]Jesus did things that only God can do such as forgive sin, giving people spiritual life, raise people from the dead, and cast judgment. Canham points out that the very fact that Jesus was God demands the retention of a belief in His full though not exclusive impeccability.[33]These things give claim to Christ’s deity, which shows that He was fully God making Him impeccable. The second argument that the impeccable position holds to according to Canham is the decrees of God make Christ impeccable. God had decreed that redemption would be accomplished by Christ, if Christ had sinned then the plan would have failed, necessitating that Christ be impeccable to ensure God’s decreed plan of redemption.[34]Scripture tells us that God’s plans can not be thwarted or changed and therefore if God had made Christ central to His plan of redemption then it would make sense for Christ to be impeccable. [35]Sahl makes the statement that “The eternal plan of God assures that Christ must be impeccable.”[36] The final argument presented by Canham is the divine attributes of Christ. Since Christ was fully God, as seen above in the discussion about His deity, He naturally has the same attributes as God. These attributes include eternality, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence.[37]Jesus was eternal, he existed in eternity past which we find in John chapter 1 verse 1. Hebrews 13 verse 8 tells us that Jesus Christ was the same yesterday, today, and forever, He does not change or is Immutable. If Christ, who was God does not change, because He is eternal, and before the Incarnation was impeccable then that attribute would not change. Sahl says that “When on earth, He was the same as He was in eternity past-the sinless, eternal Son of God.”[38]Christ was Omnipresent meaning that He was everywhere present which we see Jesus claim to be in Matthew 18 verse 20 and again chapter 28 verse 20. Jesus was Omniscient or all knowing and He made claims that only could be made if He was Omniscient such as found in Luke chapter 6 verse 8, chapter 11 verse 17, John chapter 4 verse 29. We see a peculiar mix of Omnipresence and Omniscience when Jesus addresses Nathanael for the first time found in John chapter 1 verses 43 to 51. The final attribute put forth by Ryrie is Omnipotence or being all-powerful. This goes back to the discussion concerning the works that only God can do. Sahl says that Christ’s chief desire is to do the Father’s will and because of that chief desire and His omnipotent capability it assures His impeccability. Some Passages For Discussion Philippians 2:1-11 From this passage we get the kenosis. Lewis and Demarest ask the question “Did not the kenosis make sin for Jesus a “possibility”?”[39]The kenosis needs to be understood not as Christ laying down some of His divine nature so that He could be fully human because by doing so He would cease to be God. According to Canham “If Jesus ever ceased to be God, then He was never God because eternality is a defining characteristic of deity.”[40]Jesus retained all of Hs diving nature and all that goes with it but yielded independent exercise of His divine attributes. Canham also points out that the kenosis, or emptying of Himself, is not a subtraction but an addition of humanity but comes to the conclusion that because of this addition of humanity that Christ was both peccable and impeccable. In His human nature He was peccable and in His divine nature He was impeccable and to deny either Canham says is to deny either Christ’s humanity of deity.[41]I do not agree with Canham’s assessment of the topic although He does bring up some valid points but I think Lewis and Demarest answer the question when they said “Given the personal union of the two natures, the one nature can not be abstracted from the other. So long as Jesus’ divine nature was present, His yielding to temptation was not possible actually or empirically.”[42] James 1:13-15 People have used this passage not only for the peccability of Christ but also to deny the deity of Christ as well.[43]This verse would also seem to e a contradiction with other scripture as well such as the temptation accounts found in the gospels because we see Jesus Christ, who is God, being tempted. So how would we go about explaining this? We need to look at the whole of the passage. For normal man, not one who was fully man and fully God, temptation stems out of our evil desires or sin nature, which we have been born with. It is this desire that lures us and entices us to sin, which we see explained in verse 14. What we must not forget is that Jesus Christ did not have this sin nature like we as humans do. While being fully human Christ was not born with a sin nature therefore He was not enticed or lured out by His own sinful desires. When He was tempted they were particularly suited for a God-man and were designed to test a God-man in a way no other has ever been tested.[44]Warren Wiersbe makes a great point when discussing this passage, “ If we are not careful, the testings on the outside may become temptations on the inside. When our circumstances are difficult, we may find ourselves complaining against God, questioning His love, and resisting His will. At this point, Satan provies us with an opportunity to escape the difficult.” [45]As we will see in the next section that this is exactly what Satan does to Christ during His temptations, give Him an opportunity to get all the glory without experiencing the suffering. Matthew 4:1-11 / Luke 4:1-12 It would only be appropriate after looking at the passage that says that “God can not be tempted” to look at the temptation accounts. As was said earlier we need to understand that temptation does not necessitate the ability to sin. When Satan was tempting Jesus He was not appealing to His sinful desires that were lurking within Him but was suggesting He do things that He was able to do as God. These were not inherently sinful but were things that would bring glory to God except that they would be done outside of the Father’s plan which would have been disobedience to the Father’s will. Leslie Hardin explains the temptation accounts like this, “Knowing Jesus’ role was to suffer vicariously for Israel’s sins and then be enthroned and exalted, Satan offered Jesus the exaltation of glory and authority without suffering.”[46]It was a suggestion of taking the easy way out for Jesus, to gain the glory without having to experience the suffering. Praise God that He was obedient. Ryrie tells us that this testing is very important to the believer concerning temptation. He tells us that the result of Christ’ temptation is that Christ is able to be sensitive and understanding of our temptation because He has experienced it. He also gives us an example of how to have victory over temptation. He explains “Only a God-man High Priest can do both – sympathize because He was genuinely tested and empower because He is God.”[47] Romans 5:12-21 The final passage that I feel needs to be examined a little further is Romans chapter 5 verses 12 through 21. This is the passage that compares Jesus to Adam, calling Jesus the last Adam. Sahl points out that this comparison does not imply or demand peccability.[48]This comparison is showing that just as through one man, Adam, sin entered the world and because of it death but now through Christ life has become available through the one man. Wiersbe says, “Adam’s sin brought judgment and condemnation but Christ’s work brings justification. When Adam sinned, he was declared unrighteous and condemned. When a sinner trusts Chris he is justified – declared righteous in Christ.”[49] I agree with Sahl that this comparison by no means implies peccability but is showing how the act of one man brought condemnation and the act of the Christ as the second Adam brings righteousness and life. Closing Statements While both sides of the argument have some strong cases for their position I feel we can safely say that Christ was impeccable. When discussing this topic with others we need to be careful not to look only at one aspect of Christ we have to consider both His humanity and His deity when concerning the matter. This illustration has helped me in understanding the concept of impeccability and Christ being tempted while still being able to sympathize with us as believers. Say there is a football team that has never been beaten and in fact has never been scored on or given up a single yard to the opposing team. They play against team after team but continue to be unconquerable. The other teams try their hardest game after game but the result is always the same, utter defeat without gaining a single inch against this team. Does this mean that their efforts were not real or serious? By no means but the other team is just that much better. While this example may be a silly and simple way to illustrate it I feel it puts in a way that is somewhat easier to understand. I am encouraged by Ryrie’s explanation of the results of Christ’s temptation in that we truly do have a High Priest who is sympathetic to our temptations because He has fully experienced them. Sahl said is well, “Could Christ have sinned? When a child of God is asked that question, he can take comfort in the fact that the Scriptures declare that the God-man is the impeccable Savior. When on earth, He was the same as He was in eternity past – the sinless, eternal Son of God.”[50] Bibliography: Books: Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, ©2001 Demarest, Bruce A., and Gordon R. Lewis. Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, ©1987-©19 Hardin, Leslie T. The Spirituality of Jesus: Nine Disciplines Christ Modeled for Us. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2009 McDonald, H D. Jesus--human and Divine. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983 McKinley, John E. Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ's Impeccability and Temptation. Paternoster Theological Monographs. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2009 Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999 Towns, Elmer L. The Gospel of John: Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN.: AMG Publishers, ©2002 Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 3rd ed. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, ©2008 Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Mature: Growing up in Christ. 2nd ed. Nt Commentary. James. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008 Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Right: How to Be Right with God, Yourself, and Others. 2nd ed. [be Commentary Series]. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008 Zuck, Roy B. Vital Issues Series. Vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995 Websites – http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/ http://www.theway.org/GodSays.php?page=GodSays_14&lang=en Canham, Michael. “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate.” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114. Accessed April 7, 2017. https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [1]2 Corinthians 5:21 – For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God. Hebrews 4:15 – For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 1 Peter 2:22 – He commited no sin, neither was any deceit found in His mouth. [2]Bruce A. Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, ©1987-©19 page 345 [3]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 83 [4]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth(Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999)page 304 [5]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 83 [6]The temptation narrative can be found in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13 [7]John E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ's Impeccability and Temptation, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2009) page 4 [8]Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, ©2001page 1171 [9]Leslie T. Hardin, The Spirituality of Jesus: Nine Disciplines Christ Modeled for Us(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2009), 39. He makes this statement in discussion of Hebrews 4:15 which says “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that being tempted does not equal sin. [10]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [11]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [12]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [13]http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/ [14]http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/ [15]This verse talks about Jesus being the last Adam and explains how sin came into the world through one man the free gift was also brought into the world by one man, Jesus Christ. [16]Warren Wiersbe in his commentary on Romans 5:12-21 talks about how this passage is a contrasting of Christ and Adam. How Adam’s one act brought death to humanity and how Christ’s one act of obedience brings life to mankind. Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Right: How to Be Right with God, Yourself, and Others. 2nd ed. [be Commentary Series]. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008pages 63-68 [17]Bruce A. Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, ©1987-©19346 [18]Elmer Towns says in his commentary on John “Not only does John emphasize the eternal preexistence of the Word, he also notes the intimacy of fellowship that existed between the Word and God.” He also says that the idea of preexistence is conveyed by the statement when all things began, the Word already was.” Elmer L. Towns, The Gospel of John: Believe and Live(Chattanooga, TN.: AMG Publishers, ©2002) page 2. [19]A read through of the Gospels would display that Jesus experience human life to the fullest and experienced its limitations. He grew hungry (Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:2), He grew tired (Matthew 8:24), He grew thirsty (John 19:28). [20]See Dr. Ken Gardoski’s notes on the subject. [21]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 85. [22]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 86 [23]Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Mature: Growing up in Christ, 2nd ed., Nt Commentary. James (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008) page 46 [24]Sahl tells us that these temptations were certainly real and strenuous and while similar to what ordinary humans would experience they were infinitely greater in magnitude. [25]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 85 [26]Found in Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46 [27]H D. McDonald, Jesus--human and Divine(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983)57 [28]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 89 [29]Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 3rd ed. (Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, ©2008), 211 [30]Towns talks about this subject a little bit more and says that God wanted to manifest Himself with glorious acts that would bring Him glory but doing so would abdicate His purpose for coming into the world. He also brings definition of desire that seems fitting. He says that a desire in normal circumstances does not mean evil until it is directed at the wrong thing; then it becomes lust. Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, 3rd ed. (Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, ©2008), 211 [31]http://www.theway.org/GodSays.php?page=GodSays_14&lang=en [32]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth(Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999) page 284- 286 [33]Canham holds to a hybrid view on the subject that Christ’s peccability inhibits his impeccability but admits that a wholly peccable view is dismantled by the fact of Christ’s deity. [34]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [35]References would include Job 42:2 and Isaiah 14:27 [36]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995) page 91 the problem with this statement in the discussion of impeccability is that I do not think it necessitates impeccability. God plan will not be thwarted (see footnote 35) so would it not make sense then that if Christ could sin that He simply would not because of God’s plan of redemption. [37]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth(Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999)page 285 [38]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995)page 91 [39]Bruce A. Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, ©1987-©19page 346 [40]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [41]Michael Canham, “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuti Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics, and the impeccability debate,” The Masters Seminary Journal11, no. 1 (Spring 200): 93-114, accessed April 7, 2017, https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11f.pdf. [42]Bruce A. Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, ©1987-©19page 346 [43]An example of such a group would be The Way International who deny that Jesus was God. [44]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth(Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999) page 305 [45]Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Mature: Growing up in Christ, 2nd ed., Nt Commentary. James (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008) page 45 [46]Leslie T. Hardin, The Spirituality of Jesus: Nine Disciplines Christ Modeled for Us(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2009), page 43 [47]Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth(Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999) page 306. – He also explains that as humans those who go through similar temptations can be sympathetic to other who go through the same ones, however they are powerless to really do anything about it. [48]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995)page 88 [49]Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Right: How to Be Right with God, Yourself, and Others. 2nd ed. [be Commentary Series]. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008 page 65 [50]Roy B. Zuck, Vital Issues Series, vol. 4, Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Enduring Issues of Theology(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, ©1995)page 91
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
LennyFollower of Christ, Youth Pastor, snowboarder, guitar player Archives
November 2019
Categories |