Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
It seems to be getting lost in the discussion that, as has been conceded, what may be predicated of either nature is predicated of the Person. If you insist that the human nature of Christ could have sinned, then it is inescapable that His Person was capable of sin. You are left with the result that under such a hypothesis that the Son of God could have Personally sinned. I trust that such a supposition is reprehensible to all.
Bob,
I fail to see how the supposition that the Person of Christ vis-a-vis his human nature in the state of humiliation could have sinned BUT DID NOT SIN (yea, courageously and gloriously resisted temptation and triumphed over sin!) could be reprehensible. Apparently, it didn't appear reprehensible to Charles Hodge.
Above, you write, "The Man Christ Jesus not only came forth from the womb sinless but He came forth from the womb as the Theanthropos. Jesus, the Person, having both divine and human natures, cannot Personally sin." I'm not certain I follow your logic. You don't deny Christ's humanity. But you seem hesitant to ascribe certain aspects of Christ's humanness to his person.
When the Theanthropic Christ "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52), did the person grow in wisdom or just the nature? When Jesus "learned obedience through the things he suffered" (Heb. 5:8), did his person learn or just his nature? If you answer both questions in terms of the latter alone, how can growth in wisdom and holiness be impersonal? Doesn't morality assume personality? If you concede that the Theanthropic person vis-a-vis his human nature matured ethically (my position), then why would you find it hard to conceive of the person vis-a-vis his human nature having the capacity to sin but remaining perfectly sinless?
I realize that we may have to agree to disagree on this point and that's okay with me. I'm just trying to understand better your concern.