# The Impeccability of Christ Harmonized with the Reality of His Temptations



## Ed Walsh

Greetings all,

I know this topic was discussed previously on the PB, but I am still struggling in my heart over the nature of Christ's temptations.

I have been teaching from Luke for the past six months and finally have arrived at chapter 4—the three final temptations of Christ. In the two previous weeks, we looked at the Incarnation in some depth, stressing that Jesus was a real man who lived his life in dependence upon the Holy Spirit like other men, with one major difference—that he was not given the Spirit by measure. (John 3:34)

I am utterly convinced that the doctrine of Christ's impeccability is the only correct position. The very thought that the Second Person of the Trinity could even possibly (theoretically) sin is horrendous to me. The idea almost makes me ill. For Christ to sin would turn the reality of God on its head. It would prove him to be less than God and our faith futile. But at the same time, I believe we must accept that Christ's temptations were real and severe to the nth degree. I do not think I need help with the simple fact that both things are true, but I want to "feel" his temptations as deeply as a flawed man can. I need your help.

Below is the text of an email I sent to the class members in preparation for next weeks lesson:

===============

Dear Group,

Some food for thought as we look forward to our next meeting:

What do you think of this?

I think it is wrong to believe that Christ’s divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. —R.C. Sproul​
To me, it is interesting that RC attributes sin to a human nature. Natures do not sin—persons sin. And Jesus' person was that of the Son of God.

Here's a definition that I hope you will consider over the next two weeks:

IMPECCABILITY OF Christ

The doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ not only was able not to sin, but that He was not able to sin. Thus, not only did He not sin, He could not sin. “He was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:330).

Christ had a human nature, and human nature is, considered in itself, capable of falling. But the human nature of Christ was personally united to the eternal Word, or Son of God, who was incapable of falling. It never had any existence apart from this union with the Word. Thus, when speaking of the theanthropic person,* it is both inconceivable and unscriptural to say that the God-man could have sinned. It is vain to say what the human nature of Christ could have done if left to itself. The fact is, it was not and could not be left to itself. The complex person of Christ could do nothing that was detrimental to the glory of the infinitely holy Son of God. The divine nature could never be a party to sin.

It is frequently urged that if Christ could not sin, His temptations were meaningless. But this does not follow. As Shedd points out, “Temptability and peccability may be in inverse proportion to each other, and this proves that the two things are entirely distinct and diverse.” It takes a stronger temptation to assail a virtuous person than a debauched person. The principle is clear: the less peccability, the greater the temptation’s force. Thus in the case of the most virtuous person of all, the God-man, temptation would have reached its highest degree.

The Scripture teaches the impeccability of Christ. Hebrews 13:8 says He is immutable. That could not be, if He had been capable of falling. Hebrews 4:15 says, “Christ was tempted in all points like as we are choris hamartias.” Choris hamartias means “apart from sin,” or “sinlessly” (compare the use of choris in Heb. 7:21; 9:18; 9:22). Christ’s temptations were unlike ours in that while He was assailed from the outside, there was nothing in Him to desire to embrace that outward temptation. He said, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30).

 Shedd and Berkhof defend the truth of Christ’s impeccability, though, sadly, no less a theologian than Charles Hodge repudiated it.

Cairns, A. (2002). In Dictionary of Theological Terms (pp. 224–225). Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International.​
What do you think?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

I enjoyed this and agree with what you wrote.  May I ask why you are teaching this class, and not your pastor?


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> May I ask why you are teaching this class, and not your pastor?



My pastor attends the group, sits next to me, and advises me privately. Also, I was an elder and Bible teacher in the OPC for many years.


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> I know this topic was discussed previously on the PB, but I am still struggling in my heart over the nature of Christ's temptations.
> 
> I have been teaching from Luke for the past six months and finally have arrived at chapter 4—the three final temptations of Christ. In the two previous weeks, we looked at the Incarnation in some depth, stressing that Jesus was a real man who lived his life in dependence upon the Holy Spirit like other men, with one major difference—that he was not given the Spirit by measure. (John 3:34)
> 
> I am utterly convinced that the doctrine of Christ's impeccability is the only correct position. The very thought that the Second Person of the Trinity could even possibly (theoretically) sin is horrendous to me. The idea almost makes me ill. For Christ to sin would turn the reality of God on its head. It would prove him to be less than God and our faith futile. But at the same time, I believe we must accept that Christ's temptations were real and severe to the nth degree. I do not think I need help with the simple fact that both things are true, but I want to "feel" his temptations as deeply as a flawed man can. I need your help.
> 
> Below is the text of an email I sent to the class members in preparation for next weeks lesson:
> 
> ===============
> 
> Dear Group,
> 
> Some food for thought as we look forward to our next meeting:
> 
> What do you think of this?
> 
> I think it is wrong to believe that Christ’s divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. —R.C. Sproul​
> To me, it is interesting that RC attributes sin to a human nature. Natures do not sin—persons sin. And Jesus' person was that of the Son of God.
> 
> Here's a definition that I hope you will consider over the next two weeks:
> 
> IMPECCABILITY OF Christ
> 
> The doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ not only was able not to sin, but that He was not able to sin. Thus, not only did He not sin, He could not sin. “He was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:330).
> 
> Christ had a human nature, and human nature is, considered in itself, capable of falling. But the human nature of Christ was personally united to the eternal Word, or Son of God, who was incapable of falling. It never had any existence apart from this union with the Word. Thus, when speaking of the theanthropic person,* it is both inconceivable and unscriptural to say that the God-man could have sinned. It is vain to say what the human nature of Christ could have done if left to itself. The fact is, it was not and could not be left to itself. The complex person of Christ could do nothing that was detrimental to the glory of the infinitely holy Son of God. The divine nature could never be a party to sin.
> 
> It is frequently urged that if Christ could not sin, His temptations were meaningless. But this does not follow. As Shedd points out, “Temptability and peccability may be in inverse proportion to each other, and this proves that the two things are entirely distinct and diverse.” It takes a stronger temptation to assail a virtuous person than a debauched person. The principle is clear: the less peccability, the greater the temptation’s force. Thus in the case of the most virtuous person of all, the God-man, temptation would have reached its highest degree.
> 
> The Scripture teaches the impeccability of Christ. Hebrews 13:8 says He is immutable. That could not be, if He had been capable of falling. Hebrews 4:15 says, “Christ was tempted in all points like as we are choris hamartias.” Choris hamartias means “apart from sin,” or “sinlessly” (compare the use of choris in Heb. 7:21; 9:18; 9:22). Christ’s temptations were unlike ours in that while He was assailed from the outside, there was nothing in Him to desire to embrace that outward temptation. He said, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30).
> 
> Shedd and Berkhof defend the truth of Christ’s impeccability, though, sadly, no less a theologian than Charles Hodge repudiated it.
> 
> Cairns, A. (2002). In Dictionary of Theological Terms (pp. 224–225). Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International.​
> What do you think?


Jesus had/has perfect and sinless humanity nature though, so unlike us, when we are tempted to sin, our sin natures actually relish the chance to do some sinning, but there was nothing within Him to latch on and actually bring that temptation to a sin state.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

My main thought is that you can have a great class on this topic, and encourage everyone to prepare, without taking at shot at R.C. Sproul. It simply is not necessary to bring him into it, especially in a criticizing way, and is more likely to distract from your teaching than add to it.

By the way... I can't recall where, but I once read or heard something from Sproul that agrees with your main point. It was a comment about how a person who never gives in to temptation must endure the most temptation of all. Once we give in, temptation has done its job and doesn't need to increase; but when we resist, temptation must keep coming and increase in severity. So Christ experienced a level of temptation we probably will never know.

If you do decide to bring up Sproul's position, at least recognize that he taught this point.


----------



## Dachaser

Jack K said:


> My main thought is that you can have a great class on this topic, and encourage everyone to prepare, without taking at shot at R.C. Sproul. It simply is not necessary to bring him into it, especially in a criticizing way, and is more likely to distract from your teaching than add to it.
> 
> By the way... I can't recall where, but I once read or heard something from Sproul that agrees with your main point. It was a comment about how a person who never gives in to temptation must endure the most temptation of all. Once we give in, temptation has done its job and doesn't need to increase; but when we resist, temptation must keep coming and increase in severity. So Christ experienced a level of temptation we probably will never know.
> 
> If you do decide to bring up Sproul's position, at least recognize that he taught this point.


We also can not know what the experience was for Jesus, as He was morally perfect and Holy, neither things any of us can claim to being.


----------



## BGF

Jack K said:


> My main thought is that you can have a great class on this topic, and encourage everyone to prepare, without taking at shot at R.C. Sproul. It simply is not necessary to bring him into it, especially in a criticizing way, and is more likely to distract from your teaching than add to it.


I did not read it that way. I took Ed's meaning to be, "here's what well-known reformed theologian RC Sproul says. Here is where I disagree". To disagree with someone is not necessarily taking a shot at them.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Jack K said:


> If you do decide to bring up Sproul's position, at least recognize that he taught this point.




I mentioned RC once in the email but do not plan to bring him up again. I meant no disrespect. My post also mentioned Charles Hodge as someone of a different opinion than mine (and Cairns.) I respect both men highly.

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## timfost

Ed Walsh said:


> Natures do not sin—persons sin. And Jesus' person was that of the Son of God.



I've been struggling with this question as well, and lean towards Him being peccable, although the union of natures in many ways makes Him impeccable. 

Here's one thing that gives me pause. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

_____

1. Jesus is a Person, not a nature by itself.
2. Jesus died on the cross.

Question:

Did His nature alone die for our sins?

The argument that says "since Jesus is a Person, not a nature necessitates impeccability" seems to be unable to account for the truth that Jesus died on the cross.

Does this make sense? I'm not sure if I'm communicating the problem clearly. I'd love your feedback.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

timfost said:


> I've been struggling with this question as well, and lean towards Him being peccable, although the union of natures in many ways makes Him impeccable.
> 
> Here's one thing that gives me pause. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
> 
> _____
> 
> 1. Jesus is a Person, not a nature by itself.
> 2. Jesus died on the cross.
> 
> Question:
> 
> Did His nature alone die for our sins?
> 
> The argument that says "since Jesus is a Person, not a nature necessitates impeccability" seems to be unable to account for the truth that Jesus died on the cross.
> 
> Does this make sense? I'm not sure if I'm communicating the problem clearly. I'd love your feedback.



Hi Tim,

That's a really good question. But, I don't know how to respond. I posted what I did because I need help on this subject.
It does seem to me that only persons die. A 'nature' can be rendered powerless, but not die per se.

I am still hopping for some real help on this question.

Ed


----------



## Ed Walsh

Ed Walsh said:


> The doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ not only was able not to sin, but that He was not able to sin. Thus, not only did He not sin, He could not sin. “He was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:330).



Here's the rest of Shedd's introduction to the doctrine I espouse.

William G. T. Shedd

Christ’s Impeccability​
The doctrine of Christ’s person is not complete without considering the subject of his impeccability. That he was sinless is generally acknowledged. But the holiness of the God-man is more than sinlessness. The last Adam differs from the first Adam by reason of his impeccability. He was characterized not only by the posse non peccare, but by the non posse peccare. He was not only able to overcome temptation, but he was unable to be overcome by it.

An impeccable will is one that is so mighty in its self-determination to good that it cannot be conquered by any temptation to evil, however great. A will may be positively holy and able to overcome temptation, and yet not be so omnipotent in its holy energy that it cannot be overcome. The angels who fell could have repelled temptation with that degree of power given them by creation, and so might Adam. But in neither case was it infallibly certain that they would repel it. Though they were holy, they were not impeccable. Their will could be overcome because it was not omnipotent, and their perseverance was left to themselves and not made sure by extraordinary grace. The case of Jesus Christ, the second Adam, was different, in that he was not only able to resist temptation, but it was infallibly certain that he would resist it. The holy energy of his will was not only sufficiently strong to overcome, but was so additionally strong that it could not be overcome.

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology. (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed., p. 659). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.​
Shedd's chapter on Impeccability is attached as a PDF. If you haven't read this chapter, I highly recommend that you download it and read it. Very good.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> 1. Jesus is a Person, not a nature by itself.
> 2. Jesus died on the cross.
> 
> Question:
> 
> Did His nature alone die for our sins?.



This comes down to that we are allowed to predicate either the divinity or humanity to the person of Jesus. So we can say Jesus is both omnipresent and not omnipresent. So Jesus did die, and it was the human nature which died, but His divine nature did not.


----------



## timfost

earl40 said:


> This comes down to that we are allowed to predicate either the divinity or humanity to the person of Jesus. So we can say Jesus is both omnipresent and not omnipresent. So Jesus did die, and it was the human nature which died, but His divine nature did not.



So if we can attribute both omnipotence and limits to Jesus, why not both peccable and impeccable?


----------



## timfost

Ed Walsh said:


> The last Adam differs from the first Adam by reason of his impeccability.



"16. Why must He be a true and righteous man? 

Because the justice of God requires that the *same* human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others."

This is where I get hung up...


----------



## Ed Walsh

timfost said:


> So if we can attribute both omnipotence and limits to Jesus, why not both peccable and impeccable?



Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is and always has been omnipotent. But, the man Christ Jesus, although God, lived his entire life as a man—a fully human man like us in every way except for sin. He lived his whole life in dependence upon the Holy Spirit's revealing to Him the will of his Father. He was a lot more like us than is often understood.

Several quotes from commentator Kent Hughes that I found very interesting:

We must keep several things in mind if we are to understand this and the epic combat that follows. Most essential is the realness or completeness of the incarnation of Jesus. Many Christians do not understand this though they affirm that they believe it, because nestled in their understanding of the Incarnation is the thought that though Christ had a human body, his mind was not completely that of a human. “How could God have a human mind and be God? Surely, the divine had to intrude.” Such thinking is an unwitting version of the ancient heresy of docetism—that Christ only seemed to be a man.

But the Scriptures affirm otherwise. In the words of the writer of Hebrews, Christ “had to be made like his brothers in every way” (2:17). Jesus did not merely resemble humankind in some qualities of humanity. Rather, in “every way”— “in all things” (NASB)—“in all respects” (Zerwick) he was made like us. Christ’s likeness was not simulated but absolute (cf. Philippians 2:7)—except that he had no sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15).
In actuality, when he became human he placed the exercise of his divine knowledge and power under the discretion of God the Father (cf. Philippians 2:5–11). So, we understand that his human mind progressively acquired a divine awareness as his Father willed it. Jesus implicitly expressed this when he said, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19), and again, “I do nothing on my own” (John 8:28).

At his temptation Jesus fully knew he was the Son of God, but he withstood the onslaughts of Satan as a real man, deriving his power to resist by depending upon God for strength. The temptations were real, and Jesus withstood them as a real man who was like us “in every way.” Significantly, the author of Hebrews concludes, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (2:18). His help to us comes from the reality of the Incarnation.​


----------



## RamistThomist

Oliver Crisp gives two observations on this debate:


Christ can be tempted to do certain things, but not all sorts of things (some temptations require the person to be in a prior state of sin). Shedd’s main argument is Hebrew 13:8. This applies to the whole character of Christ (116).


If I can fall prey to sin, this means I am deceived into thinking that the sin is a perceived good, yet we wouldn’t apply this to Christ.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> So if we can attribute both omnipotence and limits to Jesus, why not both peccable and impeccable?



Because the divinity of Jesus is impeccable, as all should assert. The subject of impeccability pertains to the human nature of Jesus specifically.


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> Because the divinity of Jesus is impeccable, as all should assert. The subject of impeccability pertains to the human nature of Jesus specifically.



But I should add that from Jesus' conception to all eternity the human nature subsisted in the person of Christ. We can as much think of separating our nature from us as we can consider Christ's nature apart from him. Even in eternity, we will have the same human nature as we do now only with the superadded aspect of sin removed.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> I've been struggling with this question as well, and lean towards Him being peccable, although the union of natures in many ways makes Him impeccable.
> 
> Here's one thing that gives me pause. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
> 
> _____
> 
> 1. Jesus is a Person, not a nature by itself.
> 2. Jesus died on the cross.
> 
> Question:
> 
> Did His nature alone die for our sins?
> 
> The argument that says "since Jesus is a Person, not a nature necessitates impeccability" seems to be unable to account for the truth that Jesus died on the cross.
> 
> Does this make sense? I'm not sure if I'm communicating the problem clearly. I'd love your feedback.


What would be there in the person of jests though that would be enticed to sin, to have the temptation become a real sin act? he is God, so God cannot be tempted, could be as a man, but He had no sin nature residing within Him to complete the going to sin act once tempted.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> This comes down to that we are allowed to predicate either the divinity or humanity to the person of Jesus. So we can say Jesus is both omnipresent and not omnipresent. So Jesus did die, and it was the human nature which died, but His divine nature did not.


What died was His physical Body, as the spiritual aspects of Him, His deity and humanity, still were living.


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is and always has been omnipotent. But, the man Christ Jesus, although God, lived his entire life as a man—a fully human man like us in every way except for sin. He lived his whole life in dependence upon the Holy Spirit's revealing to Him the will of his Father. He was a lot more like us than is often understood.
> 
> Several quotes from commentator Kent Hughes that I found very interesting:
> 
> We must keep several things in mind if we are to understand this and the epic combat that follows. Most essential is the realness or completeness of the incarnation of Jesus. Many Christians do not understand this though they affirm that they believe it, because nestled in their understanding of the Incarnation is the thought that though Christ had a human body, his mind was not completely that of a human. “How could God have a human mind and be God? Surely, the divine had to intrude.” Such thinking is an unwitting version of the ancient heresy of docetism—that Christ only seemed to be a man.
> 
> But the Scriptures affirm otherwise. In the words of the writer of Hebrews, Christ “had to be made like his brothers in every way” (2:17). Jesus did not merely resemble humankind in some qualities of humanity. Rather, in “every way”— “in all things” (NASB)—“in all respects” (Zerwick) he was made like us. Christ’s likeness was not simulated but absolute (cf. Philippians 2:7)—except that he had no sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15).
> In actuality, when he became human he placed the exercise of his divine knowledge and power under the discretion of God the Father (cf. Philippians 2:5–11). So, we understand that his human mind progressively acquired a divine awareness as his Father willed it. Jesus implicitly expressed this when he said, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19), and again, “I do nothing on my own” (John 8:28).
> 
> At his temptation Jesus fully knew he was the Son of God, but he withstood the onslaughts of Satan as a real man, deriving his power to resist by depending upon God for strength. The temptations were real, and Jesus withstood them as a real man who was like us “in every way.” Significantly, the author of Hebrews concludes, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (2:18). His help to us comes from the reality of the Incarnation.​


His humanity was the same as Adam had when first created, as being Virgin Born, He was not affected by the fall as all of us are, so His humanity was same as us, but he had no sin nature residing in Him.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Because the divinity of Jesus is impeccable, as all should assert. The subject of impeccability pertains to the human nature of Jesus specifically.


Which would not be able to sin, due to Him having no sin nature residing in Him, but sinless perfect humanity.


----------



## gjensen

I am not certain what the source of your Sproul quote is. 

Here is Sproul and Ferguson briefly discussing the topic. It starts at 57:30.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> What died was His physical Body, as the spiritual aspects of Him, His deity and humanity, still were living.



How was His humanity living when it was dead?


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> How was His humanity living when it was dead?



His human soul was not only alive, but in communion with The Father and Spirit much like those who died in faith who await the resurrection of their bodies on the last day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

and strictly speaking, human souls survive the death of the body.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> How was His humanity living when it was dead?


He was still alive in His soul/spirit though.


----------



## RamistThomist

timfost said:


> How was His humanity living when it was dead?



Souls continue to exist when the body dies. That's how we get the doctrine of the intermediate state, Rich man and Lazarus, etc.


----------



## timfost

BayouHuguenot said:


> Souls continue to exist when the body dies. That's how we get the doctrine of the intermediate state, Rich man and Lazarus, etc.





Dachaser said:


> He was still alive in His soul/spirit though.



I see what you mean. It just seems to be a funny distinction to make since none of us believe that the whole person ceases to exist after death.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> I see what you mean. It just seems to be a funny distinction to make since none of us believe that the whole person ceases to exist after death.


My question would be just how was his soul then when released from the physical body? a single soul, with 2 natures or what?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> My question would be just how was his soul then when released from the physical body? a single soul, with 2 natures or what?


The soul of our Lord was immediately in the presence of God upon His death, just as would any believer's soul.

The divine nature of Our Lord is not confined to His physical body, but is always omnipresent.

Is that what you are actually asking?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The soul of our Lord was immediately in the presence of God upon His death, just as would any believer's soul.
> 
> The divine nature of Our Lord is not confined to His physical body, but is always omnipresent.
> 
> Is that what you are actually asking?


Yes, but the divine/human would still be in His soul. correct?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but the divine/human would still be in His soul. correct?


God is not composed of parts, as in the essences of _body _and _soul _comprising the created moral agent.

God is not composed of parts, possesses no additional substances, essences, and so on. Other than the accommodation of God to our finitude, the most anyone could properly claim is that the “soul” of God, _is God himself_ . When God speaks of Himself in this way it is to affect us with apprehension of His concern about what He is speaking. This means of communication is directing our attention to our very cores, for we are that which our _souls_, i.e. our minds with all our affections, are engaged in.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but the divine/human would still be in His soul. correct?



Jesus has two souls, so when you say the divine/human is *in* his soul, which soul are you talking about? And what does it mean for a divine/human nature to be *in* something?

Analogously, we can think of this in a problem with the two minds of Christ. Christ's divine mind stands in an asymmetrical accessing-relation to his human mind.


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> My question would be just how was his soul then when released from the physical body? a single soul, with 2 natures or what?



The human nature has both soul and body. The soul that was separated from the body was a human soul. The divine nature was never separated from His body even in death, though His human soul was separated from the body. In other words, this human soul was part of the human nature and was added to the divine. Hope that helps...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

gjensen said:


> I am not certain what the source of your Sproul quote is.



https://goo.gl/CiEhQm

I noticed that only two members downloaded the PDF by Shedd that I posted. It's really good. Here's the link
https://puritanboard.com/attachments/shedd_on_christs_impeccability-pdf.5561/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> "16. Why must He be a true and righteous man?
> 
> Because the justice of God requires that the *same* human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others."
> 
> This is where I get hung up...



Tim, I see where you're coming from. I think the critical point is to understand that saying that the human nature of Jesus *considered abstractly* is peccable is not by itself an affirmation of peccability, because the question is not about the peccability of abstract humanity, but the peccability of the concrete person. The assumed human nature was anhypostatic, and enhypostasized by the Logos himself. That's where the impossibility of peccability arises.

It is the same human nature which has sinned; but it is the human nature of _the Lord from heaven_. *That* makes the 2nd Adam different from the first, and a strong doctrine of impeccability is dependent on that fact.

(Of course there are other arguments in favor of impeccability, but they refer to the impossibility of the event of sin; the constitution of the theanthropic person is the argument that has to do with an intrinsic impossibility.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## RamistThomist

For Jesus to have the same human nature as us it to have all the essential properties of what it means to be a human. Since we aren't Barthians or Gnostics, sin isn't essential to humanity.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> For Jesus to have the same human nature as us it to have all the essential properties of what it means to be a human. Since we aren't Barthians or Gnostics, sin isn't essential to humanity.


Jesus was in the same humanity status as Adam was when he was created.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> The human nature has both soul and body. The soul that was separated from the body was a human soul. The divine nature was never separated from His body even in death, though His human soul was separated from the body. In other words, this human soul was part of the human nature and was added to the divine. Hope that helps...


So His Deity stayed "alive" while His physical body had died, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Jesus has two souls, so when you say the divine/human is *in* his soul, which soul are you talking about? And what does it mean for a divine/human nature to be *in* something?
> 
> Analogously, we can think of this in a problem with the two minds of Christ. Christ's divine mind stands in an asymmetrical accessing-relation to his human mind.


God does not even have a soul, so would not Jesus have but one soul, with Both natures residing in it?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> God does not even have a soul, so would not Jesus have but one soul, with Both natures residing in it?



Oh boy


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Oh boy


I was just asking, as God does not have a soul as we would define the term, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I was just asking, as God does not have a soul as we would define the term, correct?



Soul and mind are roughly synonymous. God has a mind. Therefore, God has a soul. You came very close just then to a form of Apollinarianism.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Soul and mind are roughly synonymous. God has a mind. Therefore, God has a soul. You came very close just then to a form of Apollinarianism.


God is Being though, and He has a mind, but not a soul in how we see humans having one, correct? The Father and the Holy Spirit have but the mind of God, Jesus had/has both the minds of God and Man, correct?


----------



## gjensen

Ed Walsh said:


> https://goo.gl/CiEhQm
> 
> I noticed that only two members downloaded the PDF by Shedd that I posted. It's really good. Here's the link
> https://puritanboard.com/attachments/shedd_on_christs_impeccability-pdf.5561/




Thank you.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

py3ak said:


> The assumed human nature was anhypostatic, and enhypostasized by the Logos himself. That's where the impossibility of peccability arises.



That. Indeed.

Worth a read:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> So His Deity stayed "alive" while His physical body had died, correct?



Deity cannot die. His human body and soul were separated. His human soul was in heaven when separated from the body.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

David,

You may find this helpful from Belgic 18:

"...conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should take both upon Him, to save both."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Deity cannot die. His human body and soul were separated. His human soul was in heaven when separated from the body.


I thought that he went to Hades though before he was resurrected physically again?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I thought that he went to Hades though before he was resurrected physically again?



Sure. But he isn't identical with his physical body.

I see what you are saying now. That's an explosive area in 1 Peter. Great men have disagreed.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure. But he isn't identical with his physical body.
> 
> I see what you are saying now. That's an explosive area in 1 Peter. Great men have disagreed.


I think part of the problem was that some translations state that Jesus went down into Hell, but was actually Hades


----------



## Ed Walsh

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see what you are saying now. That's an explosive area in 1 Peter. Great men have disagreed.



I'm not a great man, but didn't Jesus say to the thief on the cross that he would be with him _today_ in paradise?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ed Walsh said:


> I'm not a great man, but didn't Jesus say to the thief on the cross that he would be with him _today_ in paradise?



Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I believe Christ is Omni-present.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am having a problem with this Two Souls of Jesus thing. I have a lot to learn. I remember reading old books that even said there were 9 parts to God. Even in the Hypostatic Union. It was really messed up. Yes, I believe Jesus had a soul as a man. He noted God would not leave his soul in Hell through prophecy.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ed Walsh said:


> I'm not a great man, but didn't Jesus say to the thief on the cross that he would be with him _today_ in paradise?



Yeah. There's also the preaching to the souls in prison and the difficulties around that text. And then there is the debate on where exactly "paradise" is, which doesn't necessarily contradict Christ's going to preach to the souls in prison.

In any case, I'm humble about drawing conclusions.


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> I'm not a great man, but didn't Jesus say to the thief on the cross that he would be with him _today_ in paradise?


Some hold that Paradise was a part of Hades , where the saved awaited the messiah to come and deliver them out from there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Some hold that Paradise was a part of Hades , where the saved awaited the messiah to come and deliver them out from there.


That is a debate about when the reuniting of the human Soul and resurrected body will take place. 

I am interested in this two souls of Jesus discussion. Do you sense that was answered? It is somewhat involved here.

I am not addressing David. Sorry David. 
I am asking Jacob.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is a debate about when the reuniting of the human Soul and resurrected body will take place.
> 
> I am interested in this two souls of Jesus discussion. Do you sense that was answered? It is somewhat involved here.
> 
> I am not addressing David. Sorry David.
> I am asking Jacob.



Orthodox Christology demands that Jesus have two minds (human and divine). That is a corollary to his having two natures. So far, so good.

The trick with having two souls is that we don't normally think like that. But in most philosophical discussions, soul is roughly synonymous with the mind. But if we aren't careful, it gets difficulty. 

Thomism says the soul is the animating principle/rational form of the body. While I think Thomism is wrong on almost everything, that's not a problem. But how does Jesus' divine soul factor in? Is it, too, an animating principle? It's hard to see how, since God doesn't have a body to animate.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That doesn't explain enough Jacob. Soul is defined by pneuma in many places. We have seen it more associated with spirit if I am not mistaken. Man is physical and soul. His mind is in there somewhere. I am not a trichotomist. Take your time.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That doesn't explain enough Jacob. Soul is defined by pneuma in many places. We have seen it more associated with spirit if I am not mistaken. Man is physical and soul. His mind is in there somewhere. I am not a trichotomist. Take your time.



I agree with all of that. What exactly was your original question?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Does Jesus have two souls?


----------



## RamistThomist

God has a soul. He is spoken of as having every divine property normally ascribed to a soul. The soul has intellectus, voluntas, and other such properties. 
1. God has intellectus.
2. God has voluntas.
3. These are aspects of the soul (admittedly, they are all identical with the divine essence, but that raises issues of simplicity which we need not go into here).

Jesus has every divine property of the Godhead. Therefore, Jesus has two souls.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is a debate about when the reuniting of the human Soul and resurrected body will take place.
> 
> I am interested in this two souls of Jesus discussion. Do you sense that was answered? It is somewhat involved here.
> 
> I am not addressing David. Sorry David.
> I am asking Jacob.


God does not have a soul in the same sense as we do though, for God has a mind, but He is also Spirit/Being period.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That doesn't explain enough Jacob. Soul is defined by pneuma in many places. We have seen it more associated with spirit if I am not mistaken. Man is physical and soul. His mind is in there somewhere. I am not a trichotomist. Take your time.


Man is Spirit, the aspect of him that can commune and have a relationship with God, soul, the aspect of his mind/will. and the physical body itself.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> God has a soul. He is spoken of as having every divine property normally ascribed to a soul. The soul has intellectus, voluntas, and other such properties.
> 1. God has intellectus.
> 2. God has voluntas.
> 3. These are aspects of the soul (admittedly, they are all identical with the divine essence, but that raises issues of simplicity which we need not go into here).
> 
> Jesus has every divine property of the Godhead. Therefore, Jesus has two souls.


God just has the mind aspect though...


----------



## fredtgreco

I do not think God has a soul. A soul is created - hence it is the animating principle in man, created by God and put in man. The Confession speaks of Christ having a "reasonable [rational] soul." Note that it is not plural, but singular. God is a Spirit, and does not have parts.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

fredtgreco said:


> I do not think God has a soul. A soul is created - hence it is the animating principle in man, created by God and put in man. The Confession speaks of Christ having a "reasonable [rational] soul." Note that it is not plural, but singular. God is a Spirit, and does not have parts.


God has the aspect of a Mind, but not a soul, as he does not require to have such a thing.


----------



## RamistThomist

I am simply saying God has the properties of will and intellect (admittedly they are identical given divine simplicity). Faculty psychology normally locates these in the soul. And given that God has these properties, and given that God is mind, then saying God has a soul matches with biblical language about God's soul.

P1. Of course, God doesn't *have* these properties in a Platonic sense. God doesn't participate in the form of intellect.

P2. nor does God have them in the Thomist sense (because Thomism is wrong).

P3. And since God is incorporeal, he doesn't *have* them somewhere in his body.

I am not going to die on the hill of God's having a soul. Mind and Soul are roughly synonymous in the pre-modern tradition, so I rest content with that.

Nevertheless, the bible speaks of God and soul. They might be anthropomorphic, but let's resist the urge to call it such for as long as we can.

Lev. 26:30. And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my *soul* will abhor you.

Ps. 11:5. The Lord tests the righteous, but his *soul* hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> God has the aspect of a Mind, but not a soul, as he does not require to have such a thing.


What does that even mean?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

fredtgreco said:


> I do not think God has a soul. A soul is created - hence it is the animating principle in man, created by God and put in man. The Confession speaks of Christ having a "reasonable [rational] soul." Note that it is not plural, but singular. God is a Spirit, and does not have parts.


That. Indeed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

What is the difference between S/spirit and S/soul (I capitalize soul because if applied to God, it would be identical to everything in God)?


----------



## fredtgreco

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am simply saying God has the properties of will and intellect (admittedly they are identical given divine simplicity). Faculty psychology normally locates these in the soul. And given that God has these properties, and given that God is mind, then saying God has a soul matches with biblical language about God's soul.
> 
> P1. Of course, God doesn't *have* these properties in a Platonic sense. God doesn't participate in the form of intellect.
> 
> P2. nor does God have them in the Thomist sense (because Thomism is wrong).
> 
> P3. And since God is incorporeal, he doesn't *have* them somewhere in his body.
> 
> I am not going to die on the hill of God's having a soul. Mind and Soul are roughly synonymous in the pre-modern tradition, so I rest content with that.
> 
> Nevertheless, the bible speaks of God and soul. They might be anthropomorphic, but let's resist the urge to call it such for as long as we can.
> 
> Lev. 26:30. And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my *soul* will abhor you.
> 
> Ps. 11:5. The Lord tests the righteous, but his *soul* hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.


I think we need to be very careful when stating theological principles in as tricky a subject as the Person and Natures of Christ. Failure to do so is what causes problems. One example in this thread's subject: failure to distinguish between the anhypostatic and enhypostatic with respect to Christ's human nature causes an error with respect to His impeccability. When the Bible speaks of God's "soul" (_nephesh_) it is speaking of His individual "living-ness" so to speak. God is the source of life (_nephesh_) and He makes Adam a living being (_zosan psyche _- 1 Cor. 15:45) by breathing life into him (close relation between "breath" and "soul"). Christ indeed has two wills, but does not have two (created) souls.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

fredtgreco said:


> I think we need to be very careful when stating theological principles in as tricky a subject as the Person and Natures of Christ. Failure to do so is what causes problems. One example in this thread's subject: failure to distinguish between the anhypostatic and enhypostatic with respect to Christ's human nature causes an error with respect to His impeccability. When the Bible speaks of God's "soul" (_nephesh_) it is speaking of His individual "living-ness" so to speak. God is the source of life (_nephesh_) and He makes Adam a living being (_zosan psyche _- 1 Cor. 15:45) by breathing life into him (close relation between "breath" and "soul"). Christ indeed has two wills, but does not have two (created) souls.



I get all that, which I was i somewhere above said I wasn't going to die on that hill. And while God doesn't have a soul in the same way we do, Scripture's does speak that way and I tried to address those passages.

I was also coming at it from the Richard Muller angle where his textbook lists soul as having (Or being) will and intellect, and God certainly has those properties.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jacob,

If it is not a hill you want to die upon, why continue to press the point? 

Just making a statement, "_Jesus has two souls_" in a response, pressing even further by "_which soul_", without no modicum of trepidation, is what started this sidebar discussion in this thread.

If you want to qualify that statement within some philosophical boundaries, go right ahead. Would that this had been done at the time of the original declaration. Or perhaps you made that bold declaration in hopes of stimulating what has proceeded therefrom?






I fail to see how such a naked declaration, "_Jesus has two souls_" is edifying. Rather it is confusing to anyone with an understanding of the simplicity of God and even a terrible potential stumbling block to those possessing less knowledge about the matter. A wee bit of fear and trembling should accompany our words when it comes to such weighty matters.

As I noted, any notion of the "_soul of God_", if we are going to use the phrase at all, must be simply that the _soul_ of God _is_ God _himself_. That is quite different from saying God possesses a soul, which is what your original declaration plainly reads, given you took no time to qualify your statement.

AMR's _soul _is not AMR himself. It is a part of what AMR actually is. AMR is a body and a soul. A dichotomy of two parts. More importantly, AMR is not a trichotomy (body, soul, spirit). _Spirit_ and _soul_ are synonymously used when speaking about the created moral agent.

Accordingly, *Our Lord is not right now sitting at the right hand of God the Father with two souls*. Rather His glorified body and soul exists at that seat in the human nature of Jesus, along with the mystical union of the divine nature of the Second Person of the Godhead, both natures neither separated, confused, mixed, or divided, but united in one indistinguishable subsistence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> any notion of the "_soul of God_", if we are going to use the phrase at all, must be simply that the _soul_ of God _is_ God _himself_. That is quite different from saying God possesses a soul, which is what your original declaration plainly reads, given you took no time to qualify your statement.



I thought I specifically made that clear. I said God does not *have* a soul like we have one (if only because we are substance dualists, he is not).

And given divine simplicity, everything in God is God, which means Mind = God, Will = God, and if the bible uses the word Soul, well, at the very least it doesn't seem unreasonable to use soul as a predicate of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought I specifically made that clear.


You did, albeit following your opening declaration:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-of-his-temptations.95514/page-2#post-1167339

Which is the point I have been trying to make. Your actual _specifics_ followed plenty of head-scratching by others, including the staff, when you made that opening "two souls" post. Naked profundity serves no one well, brother.

If you are going to make such statement, which I assume you know will be met with questions for clarification, why not simply tease out what you mean in the first instance and save us all plenty of time?


----------



## RamistThomist

When I originally said it, I was operating under the two-minds Christology. And I was under the assumption that most people in the West, Christian or not, shared the view that soul more or less overlaps with mind. Further, the biblical texts where it says God's having a soul.

Because of these assumptions, I didn't bother to spell out everything I believed. While I stand by my original comments 100%, I now realize that not everyone was on the same page regarding philosophical presuppositions. Mea culpa.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> When I originally said it, I was operating under the two-minds Christology. And I was under the assumption that most people in the West, Christian or not, shared the view that soul more or less overlaps with mind. Further, the biblical texts where it says God's having a soul.
> 
> Because of these assumptions, I didn't bother to spell out everything I believed. While I stand by my original comments 100%, I now realize that not everyone was on the same page regarding philosophical presuppositions. Mea culpa.


A _mea culpa_ seasoned with a "_yeah, but_" that Scripture didactically claims God has a soul? 

So others, unlike yourself, are misinterpreting these passages that you see to be as _locus classicus_ to your assertions.

If this is not a hill you are willing to die upon, please hesitate a wee bit to claim evidence to the contrary.

AMR


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> A _mea culpa_ seasoned with a "_yeah, but_" that Scripture didactically claims God has a soul?
> 
> So others, unlike yourself, are misinterpreting these passages that you see to be as _locus classicus_ to your assertions.
> 
> If this is not a hill you are willing to die upon, please hesitate a wee bit to claim evidence to the contrary.
> 
> AMR



I am not saying they are misinterpreting them. I am responding to the reaction, "God doesn't have a soul." To which I said, "True, he doesn't have a soul like we do, but the Bible doesn't make the statement you make."


----------



## RamistThomist

Is soul and spirit the same thing?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is soul and spirit the same thing?


My understanding is that the soul are the mind/will/emotional aspect of man, and the Spirit is that aspect that communes with God, has fellowship with Him, and is dead in all until born again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> My understanding is that the soul are the mind/will/emotional aspect of man, and the Spirit is that aspect that communes with God, has fellowship with Him, and is dead in all until born again.



Sounds a lot like what I just said.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sounds a lot like what I just said.


We would be in the definite minority here holding to that position then, as I think the traditional Reformed/Calvinistic approach holds to just body/soul, as spirit and soul to them would be same thing.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> We would be in the definite minority here holding to that position then, as I think the traditional Reformed/Calvinistic approach holds to just body/soul, as spirit and soul to them would be same thing.



Sorry, I need to clarify. I agree that the soul includes (not in a compositional, spatial sense) mind/will/etc. That's Reformed Orthodoxy (see Muller's dictionary). And if God has properties x, y, and z.....



But reject trichotomism.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sorry, I need to clarify. I agree that the soul includes (not in a compositional, spatial sense) mind/will/etc. That's Reformed Orthodoxy (see Muller's dictionary). And if God has properties x, y, and z.....
> 
> 
> 
> But reject trichotomism.


So you would see the mind.will as being aspects of the soul, but you would not see the spirit as another aspect of us?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So you would see the mind.will as being aspects of the soul, but you would not see the spirit as another aspect of us?



If the soul is another substance (and I am a substance dualist of sorts), then I deny that the spirit is yet a third substance.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> If the soul is another substance (and I am a substance dualist of sorts), then I deny that the spirit is yet a third substance.


So the soul and spirit to you when used in the scriptures would be referring to the very same aspect of us?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So the soul and spirit to you when used in the scriptures would be referring to the very same aspect of us?



Negatively, they wouldn't be denoting different substances.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Negatively, they wouldn't be denoting different substances.


What aspect in us then gets born again, and is still dead in lost sinners?
Cannot be the soul, as both lost and saved have them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What aspect in us then gets born again, and is still dead in lost sinners?
> Cannot be the soul, as both lost and saved have them.



Our ontology isn't structurally different than the lost. To say we "have something" that they don't in terms of addition or substance is Roman Catholicism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Our ontology isn't structurally different than the lost. To say we "have something" that they don't in terms of addition or substance is Roman Catholicism.


We do have natures that are new in Christ, is that not something different though?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> We do have natures that are new in Christ, is that not something different though?



I thought you were saying we have something extra.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought you were saying we have something extra.


That extra comes once we are saved is my understanding.


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> We do have natures that are new in Christ, is that not something different though?



We have a new center or heart, but we still have a sinful nature. The "I" in us is radically changed, but the old nature remains the same. Paul stresses the new heart as his true self, separate from the sin that dwelleth in him. Paul summarizes this concept in Romans 7:20, "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer *I *who do it, but sin that dwells within me." See how Paul separates his sinful nature from the real Paul. What he calls "I."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

The natures of Adam's progeny are not abolished by the grace received in regeneration or sanctification. Rather our natures are being perfected by said grace.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The natures of Adam's progeny are not abolished by the grace received in regeneration or sanctification. Rather our natures are being perfected by said grace.


Would the rebirth though involve the spirit aspect coming alive again to God, and the soul/mind/flesh still at times striving to have our own way and resist God ways?


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> We have a new center or heart, but we still have a sinful nature. The "I" in us is radically changed, but the old nature remains the same. Paul stresses the new heart as his true self, separate from the sin that dwelleth in him. Paul summarizes this concept in Romans 7:20, "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer *I *who do it, but sin that dwells within me." See how Paul separates his sinful nature from the real Paul. What he calls "I."


The sin nature resides in what we call the flesh, correct?


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature resides in what we call the flesh, correct?



Not exactly. I think it would be more proper to say that the flesh is a synonym for the sin nature. It is Paul's customary way of describing the nature man. I like to call it _man as he comes from the can._

This is from Barnhouse.

*THE FLESH*​
A good concordance will reveal immediately a long list of things that are connected with the flesh, all of which are hateful to God: the affections of the flesh, confidence in the flesh, the deeds of the flesh, the desires of the flesh, the faith of the flesh, the religion of the flesh, the prayers of the flesh, the worship according to the flesh, the god of the flesh.

When we put all of these things together we have a picture of the normal, natural man, untouched by the Spirit of God. The unsaved man, our text says, minds the things of the flesh. It should be noted here that there is no mention of a life of crime and iniquity, but merely that the unsaved man minds the things of the flesh.
<some text skipped>
The acts of the unsaved man proceed from the thoughts of his flesh; they are all alien to the life of God, and therefore cannot please God. The unsaved man lives for self, even though he is giving his life for the service of others.

Barnhouse, D. G. (1963). God’s Heirs: Romans 8:1–39 (p. 25). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.​


----------



## Dachaser

Ed Walsh said:


> Not exactly. I think it would be more proper to say that the flesh is a synonym for the sin nature. It is Paul's customary way of describing the nature man. I like to call it _man as he comes from the can._
> 
> This is from Barnhouse.
> 
> *THE FLESH*​
> A good concordance will reveal immediately a long list of things that are connected with the flesh, all of which are hateful to God: the affections of the flesh, confidence in the flesh, the deeds of the flesh, the desires of the flesh, the faith of the flesh, the religion of the flesh, the prayers of the flesh, the worship according to the flesh, the god of the flesh.
> 
> When we put all of these things together we have a picture of the normal, natural man, untouched by the Spirit of God. The unsaved man, our text says, minds the things of the flesh. It should be noted here that there is no mention of a life of crime and iniquity, but merely that the unsaved man minds the things of the flesh.
> <some text skipped>
> The acts of the unsaved man proceed from the thoughts of his flesh; they are all alien to the life of God, and therefore cannot please God. The unsaved man lives for self, even though he is giving his life for the service of others.
> 
> Barnhouse, D. G. (1963). God’s Heirs: Romans 8:1–39 (p. 25). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.​


This would be what the Niv 1984 called the Sarx it would seem.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Would the rebirth though involve the spirit aspect coming alive again to God, and the soul/mind/flesh still at times striving to have our own way and resist God ways?


I am not following what you mean by "the spirit aspect coming alive again" in the above. When exactly was this spirit aspect alive before "rebirth"?

The person being regenerated is wholly passive at the instant of regeneration. Once so regenerated, man becomes active, and his exercise of faith receiving Christ's righteousness (_His_ righteousness, not _ours_—an _alien righteousness_—is the man's own action.

This process of regeneration, having definitive sanctification as its product, _quickens_ the person to newness of life. The stone heart is taken away, replaced by a new heart of flesh, the Spirit is put within us, and God's law is written upon our hearts. The regenerated person is now sanctified and separated unto God.

Owen's _Mortification of Sin_ teaches us well about where the seat of sin resides:

The body in the close of the verse {_nb_: Romans 8:13} is the same with the flesh in the beginning: “_If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye ... mortify the deeds of the body_,” — that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle hath all along discoursed of under the name of the flesh; which is evident from the prosecution of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. *The body, *then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part,* is the seat and instrument, *the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby, Romans 6:19. It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression, that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with ... the “old man,” and the “body of sin,” Romans 6:6; or it may synecdochically express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.​
The above describes the common way of explaining the references to "_flesh_" and "_body_" in much literature, especially the Puritans. References so made refer to a _moral_, not a physical being; something that pervades the nature of the moral creature, having the seat of its power is in the body. The use of _flesh _is accorded a spiritual quality. Why? Because sin is separation from God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am not following what you mean by "the spirit aspect coming alive again" in the above. When exactly was this spirit aspect alive before "rebirth"?
> 
> The person being regenerated is wholly passive at the instant of regeneration. Once so regenerated, man becomes active, and his exercise of faith receiving Christ's righteousness (_His_ righteousness, not _ours_—an _alien righteousness_—is the man's own action.
> 
> This process of regeneration, having definitive sanctification as its product, _quickens_ the person to newness of life. The stone heart is taken away, replaced by a new heart of flesh, the Spirit is put within us, and God's law is written upon our hearts. The regenerated person is now sanctified and separated unto God.
> 
> Owen's _Mortification of Sin_ teaches us well about where the seat of sin resides:
> 
> The body in the close of the verse {_nb_: Romans 8:13} is the same with the flesh in the beginning: “_If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye ... mortify the deeds of the body_,” — that is, of the flesh. It is that which the apostle hath all along discoursed of under the name of the flesh; which is evident from the prosecution of the antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh, before and after. *The body, *then, here is taken for that corruption and depravity of our natures whereof the body, in a great part,* is the seat and instrument, *the very members of the body being made servants unto unrighteousness thereby, Romans 6:19. It is indwelling sin, the corrupted flesh or lust, that is intended. Many reasons might be given of this metonymical expression, that I shall not now insist on. The “body” here is the same with ... the “old man,” and the “body of sin,” Romans 6:6; or it may synecdochically express the whole person considered as corrupted, and the seat of lusts and distempered affections.​
> The above describes the common way of explaining the references to "_flesh_" and "_body_" in much literature, especially the Puritans. References so made refer to a _moral_, not a physical being; something that pervades the nature of the moral creature, having the seat of its power is in the body. The use of _flesh _is accorded a spiritual quality. Why? Because sin is separation from God.


Paul seems to stating to us that our flesh is the corrupted nature received due to the Fall of Adam, and that we are sinful in thought/desires and in our deeds. This also seems to be in line with us having a wicked and deceitful heart, a baseness to us, that apart from the saving grace of God being applied towards us, would have us living in this state of spiritual disconnect to God.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The sin nature resides in what we call the flesh, correct?



That would be hard to square


Dachaser said:


> Paul seems to stating to us that our flesh is the corrupted nature received due to the Fall of Adam, and that we are sinful in thought/desires and in our deeds. This also seems to be in line with us having a wicked and deceitful heart, a baseness to us, that apart from the saving grace of God being applied towards us, would have us living in this state of spiritual disconnect to God.



The difficulty is that you said "the spirit was coming alive," which implied that before it was dead, it was alive before that (presumably before conversion).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That would be hard to square
> 
> 
> The difficulty is that you said "the spirit was coming alive," which implied that before it was dead, it was alive before that (presumably before conversion).


The aspect of our humanity that while alive when Adam was created by God, but died when the fall of Adam happened. I meant when the Lord redeems us, at that point the aspect of humanity that Adam was had alive now would come back to life is us once again.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The aspect of our humanity that while alive when Adam was created by God, but died when the fall of Adam happened.



That seems to give the abstract property "humanity" sentient properties of its own. In other words, our humanity was somehow alive in Adam while our persons didn't yet exist.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Dachaser said:


> God does not even have a soul, so would not Jesus have but one soul, with Both natures residing in it?



The man Christ Jesus had a truly human soul, not one which was part human and part divine. He also had a divine nature, but that was distinct from his human nature, and so distinct from his human soul, which is part of the human nature. You can say that God doesn't have a soul, as God is a Spirit, and to say he has a soul might imply that the soul is a part of the Divine Nature, whereas the Divine Nature is indivisible. But I'm not sure it is necessary to make that distinction. Soul and Spirit are roughly synonymous I think (not soul and mind - the mind is a part of the soul but not synonymous with it), so to say God does not have a soul is not in my view useful further than pointing out that God does not consist of divisible parts, as we know that God is a Spirit. I also think it's unhelpful or even inaccurate to say Christ has 2 souls - he has 2 natures - human and divine - and the human nature consists of body and soul.

Hope this is some way helpful - bottom line is that we definitely cannot make Christ's soul to be part human and part divine.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> But I'm not sure it is necessary to make that distinction. Soul and Spirit are roughly synonymous I think (not soul and mind - the mind is a part of the soul but not synonymous with it), so to say God does not have a soul is not in my view useful further than pointing out that God does not consist of divisible parts, as we know that God is a Spirit.



That's all I was trying to get at. If soul and spirit are synonymous, and God is Spirit, then per Leibniz's Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles, God is also soul. It also seems weird to say that God is a soulless being.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's all I was trying to get at. If soul and spirit are synonymous, and God is Spirit, then per Leibniz's Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles, God is also soul. It also seems weird to say that God is a soulless being.



Yes I think if you had said "God is a soul" rather than "God has a soul" you would probably have got less reaction (though people may have thought it was a slightly odd way of expressing things) - and I am sure it was what you meant, as I note you were reacting to a statement which could have been construed as saying that Christ's soul includes both natures, which it does not.


----------



## RamistThomist

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> Yes I think if you had said "God is a soul" rather than "God has a soul" you would probably have got less reaction (though people may have thought it was a slightly odd way of expressing things) - and I am sure it was what you meant, as I note you were reacting to a statement which could have been construed as saying that Christ's soul includes both natures, which it does not.



I meant to get to that, but one can't say everything at everytime. It comes down to this:

P1: If God has a soul, or a spirit, or anything, it seems that we are saying God has it in the same way we do, which is obviously not the case.


----------



## timfost

py3ak said:


> Tim, I see where you're coming from. I think the critical point is to understand that saying that the human nature of Jesus *considered abstractly* is peccable is not by itself an affirmation of peccability, because the question is not about the peccability of abstract humanity, but the peccability of the concrete person. The assumed human nature was anhypostatic, and enhypostasized by the Logos himself. That's where the impossibility of peccability arises.
> 
> It is the same human nature which has sinned; but it is the human nature of _the Lord from heaven_. *That* makes the 2nd Adam different from the first, and a strong doctrine of impeccability is dependent on that fact.
> 
> (Of course there are other arguments in favor of impeccability, but they refer to the impossibility of the event of sin; the constitution of the theanthropic person is the argument that has to do with an intrinsic impossibility.)



Ruben,

I don't have time to adequately reply as I would like, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to help me with this. I've also read most of your paper on the subject as well as Shedd. I'm not there yet, but these interactions have been helpful.

Thanks again!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

timfost said:


> Ruben,
> 
> I don't have time to adequately reply as I would like, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to help me with this. I've also read most of your paper on the subject as well as Shedd. I'm not there yet, but these interactions have been helpful.
> 
> Thanks again!



You're very welcome, Tim, I appreciate your kind words.


----------



## Dachaser

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> The man Christ Jesus had a truly human soul, not one which was part human and part divine. He also had a divine nature, but that was distinct from his human nature, and so distinct from his human soul, which is part of the human nature. You can say that God doesn't have a soul, as God is a Spirit, and to say he has a soul might imply that the soul is a part of the Divine Nature, whereas the Divine Nature is indivisible. But I'm not sure it is necessary to make that distinction. Soul and Spirit are roughly synonymous I think (not soul and mind - the mind is a part of the soul but not synonymous with it), so to say God does not have a soul is not in my view useful further than pointing out that God does not consist of divisible parts, as we know that God is a Spirit. I also think it's unhelpful or even inaccurate to say Christ has 2 souls - he has 2 natures - human and divine - and the human nature consists of body and soul.
> 
> Hope this is some way helpful - bottom line is that we definitely cannot make Christ's soul to be part human and part divine.


Correct, as my understanding is that Jesus had a human soul only.


----------

