What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?

Upvote:-2

The debate uses the terms peccable/impeccable. On the one side, people who argue for the peccability of Christ hold that Jesus wasn't really tempted or fully human unless he could have failed. On the other side, those who argue for the impeccability of Christ argue that Jesus being God could not sin. Then there are a few heretics (technical term) in between these positions and argue that Jesus could sin in his humanity but not in his divinity. The technical term for this heresy is Nestorianism (note that there is some debate whether the Nestorians actually taught the heresy named after them). By far, the majority position favors the impeccability of Christ.

Upvote:-1

The ability to sin is only the attribute of a person who is wholly human but Jesus is not a human person but a divine person who took on human nature ( Hebrews 2:14, John 1:1,14).

Jesus is called "the Last Adam" ( 1 Cor. 15:45) because there would be no second, third or forth adams (in case he fails). The fact is that he will not fail in his mission because he is unable to fail for he is not only human but also God by nature ( Colossians 2:9).

THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

Premise 1: Temptation means “the desire to do evil.”

Premise 2: Satan tempted Jesus. This means “ Satan is causing Jesus to desire evil.”

Premise 3: Was Jesus tempted? Based on the definition of “Temptation,” the answer is NO.

Conclusion: Jesus did not have the desire to do evil.He cannot desire it for he is not only human by nature but also God by nature which means he is impeccable (i.e. unable to sin).

Consider this:

Psalms 78:18 And THEY TEMPTED GOD in their heart by asking meat for their lust.

It does not mean that God desired evil but rather, the people did try to let him to desire it.

Upvote:0

We believe in One God, three persons. For God the son to be one, that is unified, He cannot sin. He has to be perfectly loving and perfectly just, both of which are inconsistant with sin.

So I prove the opposite here.

But he did give in to sin and testing in the only way that was perfectly loving and just: in perfect obedience to God the Father, he allowed sin to work its destruction upon His own body, so as to have a righteousness (that of perfect obedience even unto an unjust death], that was not essential to his nature, one which He could and would share, one with which to clothe His children.

Upvote:1

The argument comes both from the fact that Jesus was fully human, and from the Hebrews 4:15, which says (in the King James)

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This outlines the fact that even though Jesus is fully God, He was also fully human. He felt all our infirmities and weaknesses, and yet, as God overcame them.

A complete theological statement would be "because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin."

Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.

More post

Search Posts

Related post