Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it would appear that we are closer than I thought. :-)

Jesus Christ knew what was going to happen and knew this was the price – indeed, the only way -He would be paying to redeem His chosen. He wasn’t getting cold feet and wasn’t trying to get out of it. This was not a surprise, and He knew the Father would not be changing His mind. Further, He also knew of the glory that would be coming beyond that. He was committed to going to the cross.

But He knew that He would suffer, and suffer unimaginably; I believe that when He was on the cross, He literally experienced Hell. He dreaded it, and in Gethsemane, it was looming ever closer; remember that while He was God, he was also a man – a man that KNEW the horrors that were only hours away. (And the path to those horrors was not through Happy Happy Sunshineland.)

“Nevertheless, not My will, but Thy will be done.” For me, this provides even greater comfort and praise for our High Priest in Heaven; not only did He bear our sentence, which was so horrific that even He was in untold anguish (and He knew that glory was coming afterward), but He understands that we, as His followers, are not always going to want to do what He wants us to do, but we are doing it anyway. By this, I don’t mean “I don’t want to obey God, but I guess I have to,” but closer to, “God want me to do X. I really don’t want to do X. But I will do X because God wants me to.”

You brought this verse in defense of free will, “Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens the door, I will come in and sup with him.” from Revelation 3:20. You have to understand who Christ was addressing, the Laodicean church, He is knocking the the church door, not someone’s heart. If He were knocking on the door of your heart, you would refuse to let Him in because your heart is deceitful, wicked {Jer. 17:9} and dead in sin {Eph. 2:1}.

You say ‘I understand Ephesians quite well. Nevertheless, when Jesus came to me and spoke to me on the day I was saved, He asked me to accept him.” So you are telling us you heard an audible voice, that of the Lord, and He specifically asked you to accept Him?

Let’s define “free will.” There is no true “free will” except for those who are in Christ. The old man dead in trespasses and sins will NEVER of his own “free will” choose God in any way, shape or form. He will only exercise a will that desires more of the same. If by free will, you mean that a person is free to choose God, then the answer will be a negative. If by free will, we mean that a person has the freedom to choose what they desire, then yes, the answer will be positive because a sinner will ONLY and ALWAYS choose sin. You would never have chosen God had He not set His love upon you from eternity past. A dead man has no desire for life any more than a sinner desires God.

Now, once a person is a believer, then they have the ability to choose whether they will yield themselves to righteousness or whether they will choose to sin against a holy God in bodies that belong to God. If they choose the latter, then there will be discipline. You confuse God being the Controller and Sustainer of all with the claim that God is the Author of sin. He is not the Author of sin in any way.

Impeccability comes not from a denomination but from the Word of God.

TJM
____________________________________________________________________________
072591,

Actually, I will have to disagree with your last statement that…

“Jesus Christ made it clear He did NOT want to go to the cross but that He was going out of obedience.”

From before time began, God the Son knew what His purpose would be in coming to this world. To assume that He went from eternity down through the first years of earth’s existence ONLY to come to the Garden of Gethsemane and get “cold feet” at the last moment is preposterous. It is from a life of serving and suffering that He (The Master) calls us His servants to follow Him. How could He call us to follow Him if He was intent on trying to get out of going to the Cross, but insist that He only went out of obedience.

No, heaven forbid that Jesus Christ would try to find another way to pay for the sins of mankind. When He said, “Let this cup pass from me,” I believe He was saying that He knew the separation that was to come upon Him when He was separated from the Father. For the first and ONLY time in history, this would take place. It was something neither of them had ever known and could not have imagined the horror of being separated. It was this part of the cup that He struggled with. There was no struggle that He desired not to go to the Cross.

TJM

Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens the door, I will come in and sup with him.
Choose this day whom you will serve. There is no scripture that says free will does not exist.

I ask you to show me man has no free will and that he does not have that characteristic as one created in the image of God. That is the point Driscoll is making. Jesus was tempted, but did not sin. Adam and Eve choose to disobey God because they were deceived. Jesus is the second Adam and he was not deceived because he is the Son of God.

I understand Ephesians quite well. Nevertheless, when Jesus came to me and spoke to me on the day I was saved, He asked me to accept him. I know I was both called and elected, but that does not mean God overrode my free will to receive him or not on the day I was saved. If all is predetermined, then evangelism is a waste of time, because according to the Calvin doctrine of predestination, it won’t matter. Every one that God determines to be saved will be saved. Also,just because God knew of my salvation before the foundation of the world, does not mean I had no free will in the matter. I chose to accept His offer of grace through faith when he revealed himself to me.

If there is no free will then how can I chose to yield myself to the spirit and righteousness, instead of yielding myself to the flesh and the resulting death? How can I obey if God already foreordained that I disobey?

Thanks for the link junglemissionary, I will check it out. From what denomination does the doctrine of impeccability come from? Is that part of Calvin’s TULIP or is that a Catholic doctrine? It has been years since I have placed doctrine over walking in the Spirit and just being His son.

It just occurred to me to ask if any of you runnng this blog are born again? Are you born again? John 3.3

Alan, you said this a while back: “If Jesus was not capable of sinning, then he was not really obedient to the Father in all things, because he had no free will choice between sinning and obeying.”

The problem with your theory is the assumption that obedience only matters in cases where disobedience is an option. Where is that in … anything? If my car is physically incapable of going over 50 miles per hour, I would still be obeying the speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

In the garden of Gethsamane, Jesus Christ made it clear He did NOT want to go to the cross but that He was going out of obedience.

I would highly recommend you read the article at this link http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm. Dr. McCormick does an excellent job showing the truth of the biblical doctrine of impeccability.

TJM

Free will is not found in the Bible, there are no verses that say all you have to do is choose Jesus. There are verses that state the condition of the sinner, which I have already given in a prior comment and will give again, ‘And you were dead in your trespasses and sins’ and will remain so until God brings us to life, ‘even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us
alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) – Ephesians 2:1, 5

When Paul states we are dead in sin, he means just what the verse says, dead, unable to respond. How is one saved? By the supernatural power of God through the gift of faith {Read Ephesians 2:8-9}. Nowhere in Ephesians 2:8-9 do we find sinners being given the option to choose Jesus “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” To make a claim of choosing Jesus goes against this verse, for you are claiming a ‘work’ and then boasting of that work.

I can’t for the life of me understand why people aren’t getting this.

As for Christ being capable of sinning, impossible. He was not born with a sin nature we all have that is inherited from Adam. He was tempted from without, not from within. 2 Corinthians 5:21 states God made Him to be sin who knew no sin, and 1 Peter 2:22 says He committed no sin. Christ taught what comes out of the ‘heart’ of man in Matthew 15:19, heart means mind, the center of everything. The Lord had a pure mind, not tainted by sin’s curse of the fall of mankind. Does that mean he wasn’t a real man in the sense of flesh and blood? Absolutely not.

As for this ‘That was the whole point of God taking on the flesh of man, to show that man could be capable of choosing obedience to God by yielding to the Holy Spirit.’ Not so, Christ came to this world to die, to make atonement for those God chooses for eternal life.

I have only heard about 3 sermons by Mark, and have never read his books, as there are better things to read. Thanks for your analysis. If I happen to hear another sermon by him, or hear someone quote him I’ll be extra warry.

After reading numerous books written by Driscoll, and listening to countless hours of his sermons, i have to say that this post is not misleading in the slightest. Driscoll has mocked the true Jesus Christ of the Scriptures many times in many ways, far more seriously and blasphemously than what the Desert Pastor quoted here. What Driscoll has done repeatedly is denigrate Jesus’ sinlessness and holiness, making him out to be a worldly, fleshly man, re-imaging the All-Holy, All-Pure Almighty God come to earth in human flesh as a smart-mouth, wise-cracking, brawling, prize fighting party dude among other things. Having so re-imaged Jesus, it’s no stretch at all to portray Him as someone who not only thought about, but as Driscoll says WANTED TO have sex with some attractive women, (but because He had to remain sinless in order to fulfil His missional goals, couldn’t afford to do things like that). It’s that very portrayal of Jesus that places Him in a position of sin (looking at a woman with lust in your heart is already sin). Driscoll takes Jesus beyond temptation into actual inner sin as defined by God’s Word.

When a regular human being, and former sinner, is born again, he becomes a new creature. He no longer thinks as he used to. His mind is renewed after the mind of Christ. He no longer looks at a woman and think about her in the way he used to in his previously unregenerated state. Why? Because the God Who has regenerated him and given him the mind of Christ doesn’t think along those lines either. The difference in how a man used to think as an unregenerate, and how he thinks after he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is just one more testimony that the Jesus of the Scriptures and Driscoll’s “jesus” are not one and the same.

But I also belive that the title of this article is misleading.

Christ was tempted in real ways. He comitted no sin. Both are absolutely glorious truths, especially when seen together!! I love this teaching with all my heart! The fact that both are true is unfathomable to me. I believe we must take special, spirit filled care to guard both truths. One could make a good case for error on Mark’s part in this sermon – he was stressing the first truth – and seems to have flirted with compromising the second.

But saying that he has mocked the sinlessness of Christ is a judgement of his intent that is pure sensationalism.

The argument as to whether it was possible for Christ to sin or not has never been a test of orthodoxy.

Here is the glorious thing: He didn’t sin! and for this I praise the Lord!

I posted a while back (in fact, shortly after this post from Desert Pastor) explaining the difference between Satan tempting Jesus and Jesus “being tempted.” Because there is a difference. Jesus was tempted with sin, but He was not tempted by sin. You can read more about it here.

I am sorry that I missed the previous post somehow. I will seek to succinctly answer your thoughts. First, having worked with drug, sex and alcohol addicts, I have listened to them and find they normally fall into two categories. A) They are where they are because of somebody else’s fault which is blameshifting, or B) They have fallen to the bottom of the pits of degradation and only have one way to look – UP! There are a few minor variations on each of these two extremes.

Second, you said addicts are “a group most certainly not prone to listening to the gospel message as would be preached in the average suburban church.” This is not the fault of the hearer, but of the minister who fails to preach the entire counsel of God. The average “gospel message” is not being listened to in suburban churches either as evidenced by the apostasy that is starting to fill the pulpits of the land and the extreme lack of holy living among God’s people.

Merville, I would ask you if you have taken the time to read the article I posted that you can reach through the three links in a previous comment? I believe that will help you to greatly understand the vital doctrine and truth of the impeccability of Jesus Christ.

My friend, you misunderstand if you think that I do not believe Jesus was tempted. However, as the articles will show clearly, Jesus was not tempted as we consider temptation which as James says is unto sin. I believe in the total veracity of Scripture, but that does not mean that we have to believe that Jesus had the potential to sin or that He COULD have sinned.

This is false teaching and undermines the doctrine of substitution in that Jesus Christ became the Perfect Sin-Bearer for He alone was Perfect in every aspect of His being. At NO point, did He lay aside his Godhood in order to assume the potential of sin as a man.

Sadly, such a teaching that Jesus Christ, the Perfect Sinless Lamb of God could possibly have sinned leads to further errors. It also leads ministers down a slippery slope that soon allows them to justify their own actions, words and thoughts before others and in the privacy of their own heart. After all, if Jesus was tempted and could have chosen to sin just like us well “He understands how we feel and knows we are just frail creatures of clay!”

To conclude for now, I would hope that if strayed into a realm of doctrine not being taught by Scripture, that I would have godly counsel from true Biblical friends who would desire to point me back to the truth. I would pray that I would not have people just standing on the sidelines patting me on the back saying, “Well, The Desert Pastor, is building a great work, he must be doing something right. We will just overlook some of his foibles, after all, he is just a man.” THAT would NOT be “Christian Brotherly Love” and would not be a justifiable reason for not rebuking me for my sin and error which is leading people astray.

Feel free if you have any further questions and comments to respond at any time.

The Desert Pastor

Thanks for stopping by. I would highly recommend you read the following three articles to get a Biblical picture of the doctrine of impeccability. It is a vital truth. To think otherwise is to allow the mind to wander down paths it does not belong such as preachers like Mark Driscoll have done. A faulty understanding of impeccability vs. peccability will and can ultimately lead to the acceptance of secret sins in the mind.

Part 1
Part 2
Conclusion

Exactly! I can tempt you with something, but you can be un-tempted by it. I fleshed this out a bit more over at my own blog, if you care to read more.

Please allow me to try to explain.

1) We (christians including Christ because He came as a Man can be “tempted” by someone or by a situation that presents itself to us (IE: externally – apart from us, apart from our sinful wills etc).

For example: You are on diet and are currently eating healthy foods. But I knowing this, bring before you your favorite dish of food which you know is very unhealthy and I place it in front of you….. But now you have no desire to go back to your former sinful gluttony….. so the reality is “you were tempted – but only by me”.

So you were still tempted – but only by me, and not by a sinful desire. That is what the theologians call “external temptation”.

2) Secondly, and conversely on the other hand we can also be tempted by our own sinful desires (“internally” our own desires)

There are two types of temptation. “External (Someone else) ” and Internal (personal – the heart)”

The Lord Jesus Christ never was, because he had no sinful desires! Eating and being hungry is not a temptation (His temptation in the desert) , but gluttony is sinful.

James 1:13-14
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Christian friends, God does not tempt neither is He tempted!

Our Lord Jesus Christ though tempted (externally) never had sinful or illegitimate desires as His mind, His will, His motives yes even His emotions perfectly conformed to the will of God – so whilst He was tempted at every point (externally) He was without sin!

Does this not cause us all to love and praise Him more!

I think the Bible makes abundantly clear how off beam Mark Driscoll is.

For a good sermon on this subject listen to
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4501104850

Wishing you every blessing
In Christ

CH – Pastor from England

Yes. And surely they disappear from the Mars Hill website afterwards.

1. Jesus being 100% human was tempted (examined perhaps, thanks 4pointer) with all the same things we humans are tempted with, and that he could have thoughts but not dwell on them and therefore not sin.

2. Jesus being 100% God as well was tempted but being that he was God and therefore sinless, did not even let these thoughts enter his mind.

I don’t really think anybody is saying Jesus sinned, so have I boiled down the base conflict being discussed correctly?

I’m new to this thread, but the language used and the exaggerations made about what MD actually said are shocking. From the snippet you provided it appears that MD believes Jesus could have been tempted in his mind but not “dwelled” on the thoughts and therefore not sinned. You guys, CD, 4P, DP, disagree, and say that the actual thought itself would have been sin. Discussing this specifically in a biblical context would, IMO, been more enriching to believer’s than what has been displayed.

Would you have titled the article something different in hindsight?

The doctrine of imputation as taught by the Bible:

II Corinthians 5:21: “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

Calvinist teaching on imputation as I understand it:

Adam’s sin was transferred to mankind; (2) man’s sin was transferred to Christ; and (30) Christ’s personal righteousness was transferred to believers.

My impression after reading the Steve Camp post on imputation, as quoted by Mark Driscoll, is that I believe Mark was guilty of preaching the scripture quite literally, rather than making clear that Jesus was the perfect sin sacrifice, because he was fully human but lived a sinless life, despite all the human temptations He faced.

However, Christ did not literally become personally a pedophile, etc; for any length of time on the cross, in taking the sin of the world upon Himself. He certainly could not have done that and been able to say to the man next to Him on the cross, “ Today you will be with Me in paradise.” Certainly if we think about it logically, sin cannot impute righteousness. That would be like saying that an innocent animal, who actually had nothing to do with committing a person’s sin, was personally the sin that the person did, instead of being the object of an unblemished sacrifice God required before Christ’s death on the cross.

My own take is that in recent years we have taken the teaching about having a PERSONAL relationship with Christ so far, in Christianity in general, that it’s become all about us and our need to be validated in our sins, rather than turning from them.

This is why I believe there are so many otherwise sincere pastors that genuinely love the Lord, but have mistakenly made Christianity more of an exercise in personal indulgence, (what some call ‘greasy’ grace), as a method of soul winning, and keeping their converts, rather than balancing that properly with the need for genuine repentance, sanctification and restoration.

In doing so, they fall into the narrowly defined identificational gospel camp, i.e. that Jesus identifies with our sins to the point that He overlooks them because He knows how it feels, rather than calling us to follow His example, and at least make a genuine attempt to turn from our sins. The first way is not only extra-biblical, it stunts the growth of the new convert by giving him/her no incentive to change or to stop practicing what God considers sin.

That is more the issue I see as the underlying problem with folks like Driscoll, who pragmatically attempts to put Jesus on our level, and in the bargain reverence for God is lost.

I hope I have worded this clearly, as far as my belief that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, and was tested and tempted as we are, but unlike us, remained sinless. All the more reason for we Christians, who ourselves still constantly sin, to respect and reverence the depth of character and sacrifice that must have taken.

Thanks for hearing me out, and God bless.

Please excuse the typos