# Reformed view: peccability vs. impeccability?



## NeedNotFret (Jan 28, 2009)

Is there an official reformed position on whether Jesus could have sinned? If not, what do reformed folks today generally hold to?

Thanks,
KLH


----------



## Skyler (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, if nothing that happened could have happened differently, and Jesus didn't sin, then it couldn't have been different, could it? 

Secondly, I believe the Reformed position is that Jesus did not have a fallen nature, correct?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 28, 2009)

"I and the Father are one." So it is an impossibility. 

If Jesus could have sinned, he would have demonstrated that he wasn't God's Son.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 28, 2009)

Jesus is one Person. That person cannot sin, because divinity is sinless, and Jesus has a divine nature. Nor is it proper to say that Jesus "might have been able to sin in his _human_ nature," because:

*persons Will (or Act); natures Are*. (possible attribution: Maximus the Confessor)


----------



## NeedNotFret (Jan 31, 2009)

Thanks Jonathan, Vic, and Bruce for your feedback.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 31, 2009)

Christ was impeccable. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin.

Some suggest that if there were no possibility of Him sinning then the temptations were not real temptations. But that argument doesn't hold water. Strictly speaking, one does not have to experience a desire to sin in order to be tempted. Christ certainly never had a desire to sin or give in to temptation, yet he was subjected to it, understands what it is, and understands our frailties regarding such.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 1, 2009)

NeedNotFret said:


> Is there an official reformed position on whether Jesus could have sinned? If not, what do reformed folks today generally hold to?
> 
> Thanks,
> KLH



Kevin,

Good question. I'm not sure I agree with the response that in essence asserts, "If God didn't ordain it, then it couldn't have happened. Therefore, no need to raise the question." God didn't ordain Adam's obedience to His stipulation regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet, most theologians are willing to describe Adam as in a state _posse non peccare_ (i.e., able not to sin). Consequently, the question of whether Jesus could have sinned is not inappropriate. 

I'm inclined to answer the question "Yes" and "No." On the one hand, I believe Jesus' humanity prior to his resurrection and exaltation was comparable to the First Adam's. He was without sin. But at the point of his incarnation, his humanity lacked the kind of ethical maturation that will characterize glorified humanity. Not surprisingly, we learn that Jesus could "grow in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) and "learn obedience" (Hebrews 5:8) during his state of humiliation. Accordingly, I believe we can characterize the pre-exaltation humanity of the Second Adam like that of the First Adam, viz., _posse non peccare et posse peccare_ (able not to sin and able to sin). 

On the other hand, Jesus was not merely a man. He was (and is) also God the Son. Since God cannot sin (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; James 1:13, 17), we can conclude that from the standpoint of His deity, Jesus was _non posse peccare_ (not able to sin). Nevertheless, I think it's important that we don't conceive of Jesus as overcoming temptation by simply relying on his divine nature. To paraphrase one man, Jesus did not dip his ladle into the well of his divinity when doing battle against the devil. To be sure, he, as a man, enjoyed the filling of the Spirit "without measure" (John 3:34). But he resisted the devil and became obedient unto death _as a man_. Wayne Grudem offers the following illustration:“The moral strength of [Jesus’] divine nature was there as a sort of 'backstop' that would have prevented Him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but He did not rely on the strength of His divine nature to make it easier for Him to face temptations.” (Grudem, _Systematic Theology_, 539).​There are a number of practical ramifications that flow from this understanding of Jesus relationship to sin and temptation. First, unless the Jesus Christ had faced real temptations and successfully endured those temptations as a real man not yet glorified, He could not be our Savior from sin. In order to become “the author of eternal salvation,” Jesus had to be “made perfect.” And in order to be “made perfect,” Jesus had to “learn obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8-9). In other words, He had to become like Adam—except that where Adam failed, He had to succeed. And that is precisely what He did (Rom. 5:19). 

Second, because the Lord Jesus faced real temptations and successfully resisted those temptations as a real man—not yet glorified—He can be our example and pattern for resisting the temptations we face. Sometimes it is difficult for us to view Christ as an example. We think of Him in His majestic divinity. Consequently, we view Him as a kind of superman—impervious to the kind of temptations we face. But the Scripture does not place Christ in a totally different category than us. Instead, the writer to the Hebrews encourages believers to “look unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of their faith" (Heb. 12:3). True, Jesus was not plagued with the remnants of a sinful nature as we are. Nevertheless, we should not view our Savior as some kind of super-human being whose experience was totally foreign to ours. 

Third, because the Lord Jesus faced real temptations and successfully resisted those temptations as a real man—not yet glorified—He can fully sympathize with us in our struggle against sin (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). As J.C. Ryle remarks:“The sympathy of Jesus is a truth which ought to be peculiarly dear to all believers. They will find in it a mine of strong consolation. They should never forget, that they have a mighty Friend in heaven, who feels for them in all their temptations, and can enter into all their spiritual anxieties. Are they ever tempted by Satan to distrust God 's care and goodness ? So was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to presume upon God 's mercy, and run into danger without warrant? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to commit some one great private sin for the sake of some great seeming advantage ? So also was Jesus. He is just the Savior that a tempted people require. Let them flee to Him for help, and spread before Him all their troubles. They will find His ear ever ready to hear, and His heart ever ready to feel.” ​Your servant,


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 2, 2009)

Shedd writes:

Again, the impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in his person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, ‘The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?’ Rom 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man: On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Christ: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ John 8:46; and the confident affirmation of St. John: ‘In him was no sin.’ 1 John 3:5. There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,’ Gal 5:17.” _Dogmatic Theology_, II, 335-36.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 2, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Shedd writes:
> 
> Again, the impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in his person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, ‘The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?’ Rom 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man: On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Christ: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ John 8:46; and the confident affirmation of St. John: ‘In him was no sin.’ 1 John 3:5. There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,’ Gal 5:17.” _Dogmatic Theology_, II, 335-36.



Greetings, Jim.

The passages Shedd cites prove that Jesus never sinned and did not have a sinful nature. I don't disagree with that. I am not persuaded, however, these verses prove that the state of his humanity _prior to his exaltation_ was _non posse peccare_. I agree with Shedd that though Christ had two natures, he was a single person. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do sometimes speak of the limitations of Christ's humanity without implying the same of his deity. For example, in Mark 13:32, Jesus tells his disciples, "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Obviously, Jesus is not denying that, with respect to his divinity, he's omniscient. His comments have reference, rather, to his humanity. 

Theologians refer to this as the _genus idiomaticum_ (qualities of Christ's human and divine nature predicated of his person), which is a facet of the _communicatio idiomatum_ (properties or qualifies of each nature communicated to the person). If a limited knowledge (non-omniscience) may be predicated of the person of Christ vis-a-vis his human nature, then I see no reason why an ethical immaturity may not be predicated of the person of Christ vis-a-vis his human nature. 

Your servant,


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 2, 2009)

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your comments.

Apart from the verses that Shedd marshals in support, his following comment is what caught my attention:

"Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but _the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will_, but obeys it invariably and perfectly."

His not knowing the time of his return in His human will does not conflict the divine will. If according to Shedd, his human will is invariably and perfectly consistent with the divine will, q.e.d. he is impeccable.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 2, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your comments.
> 
> Apart from the verses that Shedd marshals in support, his following comment is what caught my attention:
> 
> ...



Jim,

Thanks for the clarifying thoughts. I'm not certain, nevertheless, how the admission that Jesus' ethical condition during his humiliation as _posse non peccare et posse peccare_ of necessity "antagonizes the infinite will." The First Adam did not antagonize God's ethical desire until he sinned. So although Christ was, like Adam, moral innocent yet moral immature (in the sense that he had not yet been glorifed), he, throughout his earthly life obeyed God's will "invariably and perfectly" _as a man_. 

I didn't say that Jesus' "not knowing the time of his return in his human will ... conflict[ed] the divine will." What I meant was that Scripture sometimes predicates human limitations to the person of Christ though he is fully God. There may be mystery here, but no conflict. 

For example, take Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane: "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42). Here, Jesus _wants_ the cup removed. As an innocent and holy man, he doesn't _want_ to face the wrath of God. Nevertheless, he elsewhere asserts, "Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart" (Psa. 40:7-8). And again, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34).

According to these verses, Jesus apparently wants two things: (1) not to drink the cup; (2) to drink the cup. There may appear to be a "conflict." But the "conflict" is not a contradiction. Rather, it seems to be an indication that Jesus possessed multiple levels of intention or desire. In this case, Jesus' desire to fulfill his Father's saving purposes (a desire with which he himself conspired and was in perfect harmony, see John 10:18) overruled his perfectly legitimate desire to avoid death and God's wrath, toward which he felt a holy aversion as a perfect man.

Your servant,


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 2, 2009)

Bob, I only mentioned your verse regarding Christ's "not knowing the time of his return" to say that it _too_ was consistent with Shedd's argument, not that you were suggesting a conflict.

I hesitate to be dogmatic on the issue, but I lean strongly to the impeccable view. As a possible additional resource for consideration, see

Philip J Fisk, "Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will and his defence of the impeccability of Jesus Christ," _Scottish Journal of Theology _(2007), 60 : 309-325 Cambridge University Press.

Peace, brother.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 2, 2009)

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification. I sympathize and agree with your hesitation to be dogmatic on this issue. We both agree that Jesus did not sin or have a sinful nature. Moreover, I affirm Christ's impeccability in relation to his divine nature. My suggestion that his human nature was like Adam's (_posse non peccare et posse peccare_) in the state of his humiliation is somewhat based on _inferences_ from statements in Scripture identifying him as the Second Adam (Rom. 5:14ff.; 1 Cor. 15:22ff.) and attributing to him the capacity to increase in ethical maturity (Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8). But I acknowledge that hypothetical doctrines based on inferences should not be pushed dogmatically nor affirmed in any way if they clearly contradict the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere. 

Thanks for the sharpening discussion,


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Feb 7, 2009)

Bob,

I have been thinking about your argument that Christ could not be our example in temptation if He did not have the possibility to sin. However, you are not comparing a perfect Pattern here as Christ was born with no sin nature and we are so you could say He had an advantage over us that we could never aspire to.

Secondly, I think we are looking at this the wrong way. The reason Christ is able to succour us in temptation is not that He experienced the temptation to sin and resisted it. As I read the Scriptures I am told to overcome sin as per Rom 6 and John 15 by abiding in the True Vine ie Christ. Therefore the fact that He could not sin ever comforts me as I know that if I abide in Him when I am tempted to sin then I can overcome it. However, if i abide in Him and He could sin then that is not much use to me. I need a certain Rock to hang on to.

Blessings


----------



## Gesetveemet (Feb 7, 2009)

NeedNotFret said:


> Is there an official reformed position on whether Jesus could have sinned?
> 
> Thanks,
> KLH


 I would say *no* there is *not* an *"official reformed position"* on whether Jesus could have sinned. I know several Reformed brethren who believe His temptations would not have been _real_ if there was not a _possibilty_, and that Jesus (freely selected of His own will and after careful consideration) choose not to sin.





.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 7, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> Bob,
> 
> I have been thinking about your argument that Christ could not be our example in temptation if He did not have the possibility to sin. However, you are not comparing a perfect Pattern here as Christ was born with no sin nature and we are so you could say He had an advantage over us that we could never aspire to.



Brother Ferguson,

Thanks for your input. As I stated above, I believe in both the impeccability of Christ (viewed from the perspective of his divine nature) and the peccability of Christ (viewed from the perspective of his human nature, being analogous to the First Adam's nature prior to the Fall rather than being analogous to the glorified saints' nature in heaven). The parallels between Adam and Christ as well as the various indications that Jesus' human nature was morally innocent but not morally mature in that he is said to have grown in wisdom and to have learned obedience during his humiliation. So the ultimate basis of my position is not any perceived practical ramifications per se. Rather, its based on my reading of doctrines and texts of Scripture. That being said, I do believe affirming that Jesus' human state during his humiliation was _non posse peccare et posse peccare_ helps to bring us one step closer to identifying with his resisting temptations. I acknowledged that there's still a difference. Note carefully:
Sometimes it is difficult for us to view Christ as an example. We think of Him in His majestic divinity. Consequently, we view Him as a kind of superman—impervious to the kind of temptations we face. _But the Scripture does not place Christ in a totally different category than us_. Instead, the writer to the Hebrews encourages believers to “look unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of their faith" (Heb. 12:3). _True, Jesus was not plagued with the remnants of a sinful nature as we are. Nevertheless, we should not view our Savior as some kind of super-human being whose experience was totally foreign to ours_ (emphasis added). ​Granted, Jesus didn't have the weight of remaining sin. Moroever, he enjoyed the fullness of the Spirit. In this sense, Jesus' psychological or spiritual make up was different than ours. Nevertheless, if we only view Jesus in terms of his deity or in terms of an already glorified human being, it pushes his experience even farther away from ours. Deity cannot be tempted. So the fact Jesus could be tempted shifts our focus to his humanity. This is where the writer to the Hebrews directs our attention:
ESV Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 *looking to Jesus*, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 *Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted*. 4 I*n your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood*.​


> Secondly, I think we are looking at this the wrong way. The reason Christ is able to succour us in temptation is not that He experienced the temptation to sin and resisted it. As I read the Scriptures I am told to overcome sin as per Rom 6 and John 15 by abiding in the True Vine ie Christ. Therefore the fact that He could not sin ever comforts me as I know that if I abide in Him when I am tempted to sin then I can overcome it. However, if i abide in Him and He could sin then that is not much use to me. I need a certain Rock to hang on to.



I'm not sure how my view takes one's eyes off of Jesus or in any way diminishes his example. Once again, I affirmed that because Jesus was fully God he couldn't sin. Moreover, I affirmed that he did not sin, not just as God the Son but as Jesus the Messiah. That brings me great comfort. It also brings me confort to know that Jesus can in some sense and to some degree really identify and sympathize with me in the tempations I face. 
ESV 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.* 16 *Let us then with confidence draw near* to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.​It's more difficult for me to conceive of Jesus being able to sympathize with our weaknesses if he himself was absolutely impervious to temptation. But if he had to grow spiritually and resist temptation (as Adam was commissioned to do), then I, as a not yet glorified saint, can find some point of contact with which to identify. 

Nevertheless, as I indicated to Jim above, I'm not terribly dogmatic about my position. It's based somewhat on inference. It's only dangerous if I were to deny the other side of the coin, namely, that _his divine nature_ ultimately precluded the possibility of sinning. 

Hope this helps. Thanks for your input.


----------

