Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, God bless you. Okay, listen up everyone, we're going to get started. This is lecture number 10. Lecture number 10, and we're going to probably have about 14 lectures all total in our course on Christology, the doctrine of Christ. This is lecture number 10. We're going to discuss the childhood of Christ, the miracles of Christ and the sinlessness of Christ. That's the childhood of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and the sinlessness of Christ. Let's take a look at Christ's childhood. First point I'd like to make here is that Christ lived a relatively normal childhood. Christ lived a relatively normal childhood. Look at John 2, verse 11. If you don't want to turn the pages now, you don't have to. You jot down John 2, verse 11, and look it up when you get a chance. John 2, verse 11, Jesus is... the start of his ministry about three and a half years, three and a half years before he died, the start of his public ministry, he performs a miracle, he turns the water into wine, and what does John say? John says, this beginning of his signs, Jesus did in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him. John seems to be saying this is the first miracle that Christ ever performed. Even if you go back further, in this passage, they ran out of wine, and Mary comes up to Jesus and says, Son, they have no wine. And in verse 4, Jesus said to her, Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come. What is he saying? He's saying, Hey look, hey look mom, it's not time for me to start performing miracles. The time hasn't come. You might be scratching your head and saying, well what's the big deal when he started performing miracles? And the big deal is the apocryphal work, the apocrypha basically means the false writings, the Gospel of Thomas. It wasn't written by Thomas and it wasn't a gospel because it wasn't good news. But the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas dates back probably about 150-170 AD. It was a radical writing and an unreliable document written by a forger. But it says that the child Jesus performed many miracles. One time he turned clay pigeons into real ones. Why? Because he probably felt like doing it. And then he also, he threw a tantrum and wiped out a, pretty much wiped out a town full of kids or whatever. He got kicked off and he said, I'm the son of God, you can't do this. blew everybody away. Whatever the case, all these supposed miracles of Christ, as far as the scriptures are concerned, if you believe the Bible is the word of God, then the apocryphal gospel of Thomas is bogus. Jesus apparently lived a relatively normal childhood. There is also, now in the New Age writings you can see pictures of Jesus on a book. The hidden teachings of Jesus. It will say something like that. It will have this Jewish guy with the long hair and the beard and mustache. And you say, man, that's a good picture of Jesus. Then you turn the book in the back and you expect to see a picture of the author. And they got the same drawing of Jesus, but now he's wearing one of them guru hats. OK? And they talk about how Jesus, Dorian knows, you know, between the age of 12 and the age of 30, what he did, and usually this information was given through channelers, one of Shirley MacLaine's friends, during one of their present lives, whatever, gets indwelt by a demon, basically, and speaks through her, supposedly, you know, Jesus dictated this to me, and they write down what Jesus did during those years, and he traveled to the East, And during that time he sat under the teachings of many great gurus and the whole nine yards. I'll say two things about that. Number one, there is no record of Jesus ever traveling to the east. For all we know he went to Egypt to the west when Herod was king. But he spent, for all we know, probably like most Jews, spent all his life in the Palestine area, what is now Israel. and there's no record of him traveling to the east and if he ever had traveled to the east and heard any teachings from the eastern gurus, the hindu teachers or the buddhist teachers because both hinduism and buddhism predates christ even if he had heard any of these teachings he definitely did not hold to it because he does not teach reincarnation I had a guy at work once tell me, oh Yeah, I saw some lady on television and she was saying how the Bible teaches reincarnation. I said, the Bible doesn't teach reincarnation. He said, it does. She said it. She said it does. She proved that it does. I said, the Bible does not teach reincarnation. He turned to me in a rage. He said, it does. Like that's why I said, look. I said, Frank, don't be talking about a book you ain't never read. And that's the key, man. When you read the Bible, it does not teach... Hebrews 9.27 says, it is appointed for man to die once. And after this comes the judgment. And you're not given a second try, a third try, a fourth try, a fifth try. Some of these New Agers, I mean, they are so well read in the Bible that they teach that Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist. That's a pretty tough one to pull off, but Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist, and John the Baptist only died about a year before Christ. So that's a real tough one to pull off. But whatever the case, there's no evidence, no record of him traveling to the East, and even if he did travel to the East, which is doubtful. His teachings were not the same. The gurus teach, Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism teach that God is the universe. Not that God created the universe. God is the universe. God is also not a personal God. He is an it. He is a force. He's like electricity. He's a force. He's not a personal being. that we can enter into a love relationship with, or that would give us moral commands. So the God of Hinduism and Buddhism is not the God of the Bible, and Jesus' teachings have nothing in common with them. So let's look a little bit at the childhood of Jesus. Look at Luke chapter 2 and verse 40. I'm only going to say it once, John, because I don't know. Luke chapter 2 and verse 40. This is talking about Jesus and it says, and the child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom and the grace of God was upon him. The all-wise God. How in the world could the all-wise God increase in wisdom? Well, that's our understanding of the hypostatic union and the kenosis. All those last two lectures that we covered. It's like a vehicle with a truck with two tanks of gas. It can be both on empty and full at the same time because it has two tanks. Jesus has two natures. And his human nature was increasing in wisdom and he chose at that point not to tap into his divine omniscience. His divine all-knowledge and his all-wisdom. So Jesus grew in strength and wisdom as other children do. If you would have looked at Jesus when he was a little boy, you know what he would have looked like? He would have looked like a little boy. He would have looked like a little boy. Now, I'm sure people would scratch their head sometimes and say, man, you know, he never does anything wrong. It's like I said one time that maybe Mary and Joseph would go out one night and they decided to drop him off with their relative Elizabeth. And so they drop Jesus off and Jesus, she's babysitting for him and she says, you know, I don't have to do anything, I just leave this kid alone and he's not disobedient at all. So she walks up to him and pinches his cheek, pinches her creator's cheek and says, and again, don't write this down, this isn't in the Bible. This is just a little joke I'm writing, a little joke I'm saying. So she pinches his cheek and says, Jesus, you're such a little angel. And then our Creator looks up and says, Lady, how many times do I have to tell you? I'm sure you might awake too. What is the most, let me say that again, in the Bible, the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, but probably the entire Bible, what is probably the most demanding, the book that probably demands our obedience more than any other book. And this book demands our being so much, so to the point, so harsh, and basically says, if you can't prove your faith by your works, as far as I'm concerned, you're not even saved. James. And who was James? He was that half-brother of Jesus. They both had the same mother, Mary, but James had the human father, Joseph. Can you imagine, James, you know why he would write a book like that? You're growing up with your life, no matter how righteous you are, no matter how godly of a Jewish little boy you are, no matter how good you are, Mary and Joseph and everybody else are always taking him as son and saying, James, why can't you be more like your brother Jesus? Jesus never does that stuff, James. And then of course James is saying, boy, I'd like to get Jesus alone and pop him. I see him when he wiped out these other kids. No, not that. That was the phony book, the Gospel of Thomas. But whatever the case, Jesus grew in strength and wisdom as other children do. 2,000 years ago, if you walk through a manger, if you look in that manger, you see a little baby. You see a little baby there with Mary and Joseph. And the shepherds found out about the baby because of what the angels told them. That this was Yeshua. This was Jesus. the Jewish Messiah, and the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But if you would have looked there, you would have seen a little baby boy, just like other little children. But who would have known, who would have thought that this child was who the prophets said would come to redeem the nation of Israel and to save mankind from their sins. But Jesus brought strength and wisdom as other children do. However, he grew a little bit more rapidly in his wisdom than other children. Do look at Luke chapter 2 verses 41 to 50. Think about what you were doing at age 12, around this time of the year. I remember at age 12, I think it was the day before Christmas. I was probably right about 12 years old. I was sitting down watching a football game and Raiders were playing and me and my brother were Raider fans. Daryl and Monica couldn't get anything going, the quarterback for the Raiders, so they put in an unknown guy at the time, Kenny Stabler, who became a great quarterback in the NFL. This unknown guy drove the Raiders down the field, they were losing 6-0, and with just a few minutes left in the game, drove them down the field, they took a 7-6 lead. And then all of a sudden, the Steelers were coming back, they got the ball to midfield, and it was 4th down. Terry Bradshaw had thrown three incomplete passes. And so now, but at this time, there's about 30 seconds left in the game. The Raiders win this playoff game, they move on, and they can get closer to the Super Bowl. They hadn't won a Super Bowl yet at that point. And, 4th down and 10, and Bradshaw goes back to pass, throws the pass to one of his receivers, George, I believe it was George Agasson of the Raiders, leaps up and slams it down. As soon as his feet hit the ground, all the Raiders jump up and they're all celebrating. Well, just before the ball hit the ground, Frank O'Harris scooped it up, caught it, and went all the way for a touchdown. They called it the Immaculate Reception. And my brother and I had jumped up in the air, our feet came down, and when we saw Frank O'Harris running with the ball, our knees dropped to the floor. Okay, so that's Bill Fernandez and his brother Mark Fernandez in New Jersey. That's what we were doing at age 12. What was Jesus doing at age 12? We're going to see Jesus was spending his time on things of greater importance than mourning another great or loss. Take a look at Luke chapter 2 and verse 40, no, 41 to 50, just picks up right after that passage. And his parents used to go to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of Passover, as all good Jews did. And when he became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast. And as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. And his parents were unaware of it. It was supposed him to be in a caravan, so they were traveling with a lot of people, and they figured, well, he's going to be in there with the little boys talking radio football with them. They supposed him to be in the caravan and went a day's journey and they began looking for him among their relatives and acquaintances. And when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for him. And it came about that after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. Can you imagine giving a big long talk to them? This little 12-year-old kid asks you a question and you look at him and you think to yourself, I don't know what he's talking about. He's beyond me, you know. It says, and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. So that means he was answering a few questions of his own. He probably asked a question to one of the Jewish scholars and one of the Jewish rabbis said, Oh, you think you're smart, huh, kid? Well, nobody knows that answer, but answer this, if you think you're so smart. And then the kid answers it, and all of a sudden, they start thinking, scratching their heads, and all of a sudden, the rabbi looks, and all the students are taking notes. And so, anyway, he says, and when they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, son, why have you treated us this way? Your father and I have been anxiously looking for you. Now thank God Joseph didn't take the belt out because I could imagine trying to give God a whooping. And he said to them, why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I had to be in my father's house? By the way, you know how all these, like Last Confession of Christ, they make these movies where he's trying to find his true identity. Hey, when Jesus was 12 years old, he knew who he was. He was already referring to the Father in such a way that he had a special relationship with the Father like nobody else did. In other words, he knew he was God by the time he was 12 years old. Okay? And they didn't, and by the way, he cross-references that with John 5, 17 and 18, and that's where it says that because he was referring to God as his own Father, the Jews understood him to be making himself equal with God. And they did not understand the statement which he had made to them. and he went down with them and came to Nazareth and he continued in subjection to them. With the women's lib movement, they said we don't want to submit to husbands, we want equal rights. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands, but the Bible still says they're equal. It's just a different role. You think Mary and Joseph were equal to Jesus? No. Jesus was their God. Jesus is their God. But still, Jesus submitted to them when they were his parents. Of course, Joseph being his step-father. Then in verse 51, "...and he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and he continued in subjection to them, and his mother treasured all these things in her heart." You know, all the evidence was piling up, piling up, and making, bringing, putting meat on the skeleton of the teachings that the angels had given her earlier when she was getting ready to conceive our Lord. in her womb. And then of course verse 52 says Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men. And so Jesus had wisdom there at age 12. He amazed the teachers of the Old Testament, the Jewish rabbis, the Old Testament teachers. And Jesus was already aware of his unique relationship with God the Father. And he did not get this information from some guru back east. But that's Christ's childhood. Take a real brief look at Christ's miracles. Take a look at the Gospel of Mark, chapter 1, verse 34. A little bit of an overview of the type of miracles that He performed. Mark 1, verse 34. And that reads, And He healed many who were ill with various diseases and cast out many demons. And He was not permitting the demons to speak because they knew who He was. And so it talks about Christ healing many people with their sicknesses and casting out demons. We learn throughout the scriptures that He rose the dead. He gave sight to the blind. John chapter 9, a man born blind. He gives them sight. He makes the lame walk. He raises the dead. He raised Himself from the dead. He walked on the water. He turned water into wine. The list goes on and on of these tremendous miracles that Christ performed. I agree with Miller J. Harrison. I believe that Christ did not tap into His divine powers while He was on earth. Well, then how did He perform these miracles? I believe that Christ voluntarily laid aside the privilege to use certain divine powers But then he allowed the Holy Spirit to work unhindered through him. In fact, I should have jotted down some of the passages, but he constantly said things, that he was there representing the Father, that the Father was working through him, and he could not say anything unless the Father had told him. And he seems to be implying over and over again, especially in John's Gospel, seems to be implying over and over again that he was doing these things based on God's power. Now, Warfield takes a different view, that most, that some of the miracles he performed was through the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. He depended on the Father, and the Father enveloped him with the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit worked through him, performed the miracles. But at other times he used his own divine power, and I don't hold that view. Then you got some guys, Joshua Dowell does a lot of real good work, but he speaks out both sides of his mouth on this. He'll say that Christ did use his divine power. when he was on earth, he allowed the Holy Spirit to work through him, but then he'll use some of the miracles to directly prove that Jesus is God. No, they didn't directly prove that Jesus is God, because God's working through him as a stamp of approval on his teachings, and Jesus taught he was God, therefore Jesus is God. But it wasn't him using his own divine powers, at least I don't believe that he was. If you disagree with me on that point, no big deal. If Warfield could hold to that view, obviously it's not heretical. Warfield was a great, great man of faith. And so there's a lot of people that would disagree. But whatever your view is in that area, make your mind up and be consistent with it. But he voluntarily laid aside the privilege to use certain divine powers, but then he allowed the Holy Spirit to work unhindered through him. and his miracles confirm his message that he is God. Look at John 2, verses 18-21. John 2, verses 18-21. Jesus just got through cleansing the temple. We're not talking about going in there with a carpet sweeper or a vacuum cleaner. He cleansed the temple by taking the people that were ripping the people up, the money changers and all, and he took them and he physically booted them out of the temple. He got very physical with these people. Verse 18 reads, the Jews therefore answered and said to him, what sign do you show to us, seeing that you do these things? In other words, the Jewish religious leaders, the high priests, they had the kind of authority where they could boot guys out of the tent and tell them, look, you're unethical, get out of here. Of course, they were getting a cut, so they weren't doing it. But they said, Jesus, what authority do you have? You've got to show us a sign, something to prove your authority to do this. Jesus answered and said to them, destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, it took 46 years to build this temple and you will raise it up in three days? But he was speaking of the temple of his body. See, Jesus was predicting his resurrection. Jesus said, you want a sign? I'll give you a sign. Show me and three days later I'll rise from the dead. But Christ's miracles confirmed his message that he's got. Yes, they were works of compassion. Yes, he cared about the people he healed, okay? But there are times, brothers and sisters, when he allows godly people to suffer. The day's going to come when he's going to wipe all that stuff out. He's going to wipe away every tear, and all pain and all suffering is going to be gone. But now he does allow people to suffer. But at times, because he had compassion, he has compassion, and he chose, in his sovereign will, to heal. certain people. His miracles were works of compassion, but the main thrust of them was that his miracles confirmed his message that he's got. Peter understood this. Peter and John. They heal a guy outside the temple in Acts. What do they do? They just say, well, praise God, he's healed. Great. Fantastic. Now you can go about your business. You are healed. Let's go, John. Let's go get a bite to eat and call it a day. No. He said, no. Peter looked around and said, hey, now we've got an audience. And so he decided to tell them about this power that he received from Jesus Christ through the indwelling Holy Spirit. And he preached. In other words, the message was much more important. So his miracles confirmed his message that he is God and obviously that he has the authority over the temple. Look at John 20, verses 30-31. His miracles provide evidence for our belief. We do not exercise blind faith. We do not exercise blind faith. Blind faith means you believe despite all the evidence against your belief. All the evidence is on our side. The evidence is not on the side of the world. There is no evidence that we evolved from monkeys. There is no evidence that we came from primordial soup. The evidence is on the side of the Christian Christ. provided for us the greatest evidence of his claims when he rose himself from the dead. But John says this, many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. And so the miracles of Christ confirm the message that He is God and our Savior and provide evidence for our belief even though there were still works of compassion as well. So keep that in mind about Christ's miracles. Now I want to spend the remainder of the lecture talking about Christ's sinlessness. Christ's sinlessness This is why Peter in one of his epistles talks about Christ as being the Lamb without blemish. Because Christ is without sin. Look at 2 Corinthians 5.21 2 Corinthians 5.21 2 Corinthians 5.21 reads, He made him, that means God the Father made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus Christ knew no sin, He did not sin. He performed no sin, yet God made Him sin on our behalf. He credited, remember we talked about imputation, crediting something to someone's account. He credited to Christ's account our sin, so that Christ took our punishment and our penalty for us, so that if we trusted Him for salvation, His righteousness is given to us as a free gift. But it says that Christ knew no sin. Look at Hebrews 4 and verse 15. Hebrews 4 and verse 15, a very important passage, and that reads, For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, for one who has been tempted in all things, as we are, yet without sin. Let me repeat that. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, for one who has been tempted in all things, as we are, yet without sin. Jesus Christ was tempted, But he did not sin, he committed no sin. So now when we talk about Christ's sinlessness, all conservative evangelical scholars agree that Christ committed no sin. Christ committed no sin. That we're agreed on. Where the disagreement is going to come is, was Christ peccable? Did he have peccability, which means that he was able to sin even though he didn't sin, or was he impeccable? Did he have impeccability where he could not sin? Okay. So that's what we're going to deal with. Before we get to that, I just want to talk about four views of Christ and sin. Four views of Christ and sin. Two of them are the bogus views, and then the other two are views... By the way, if you come up to me after the lecture today and say, I believe Christ was peccable, which I disagree with. It's no big deal. I don't care if you hold that view. A lot of people do. Erickson's a good theologian. He held to it. He holds to it. Hodge held to it before he died and went to heaven and then Christ traded him out. No. Lots of good guys have held to either view. Walter Martin held one view at one time and then switched to the other view at another time. But four views. First view is that Christ was just a man. He wasn't God. Christ was just a man. He sinned like all of us. Pretty much your basic liberal view. They won't talk about it a whole lot, but that's basically... Okay, so that's your liberal view. Christ was just a man who sinned like we all sin. Second bogus view would be a view of Christian scientists. That Christ was sinless. Christian scientists, Unity School of Christianity holds to this too. Christ was sinless, but then again sin is non-existent. Sin is an illusion, so we're sinless too. So Christ was sinless, but we're sinless too. Sin is non-existent, it's just an illusion. Okay? Now views number three and four are peccability and impeccability. That's what I want to spend a little bit of time on. Hopefully we'll get done early. It looks like we will. And we can ask some questions in the whole nine yards. There's the view of peccability. Christ could have sinned, but did not. Peccability. Christ could have sinned, but did not. And impeccability, Christ could have sinned but did not. And impeccability, Christ could not sin and therefore did not sin. Impeccability, Christ could not sin and therefore did not sin. My view is impeccability. My view is not infallible though. So, though I hold to impeccability, I could be wrong. And it's just no big deal, but it is something, it's a good subject matter for theologians to argue about, since we're a bunch of wannabe theologians. We could discuss the issue at all. But take a look at James 1.13. James 1.13. I just want to show you something here. Remember in Hebrews it talks about Christ is tempted in all ways like we are. It seems to be a contradiction with this verse. This verse reads, let no one say, this is James 1.13, let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself does not tempt anyone. How come one says he's tempted always like us and this one says he's not? Well, you've got to look at the context. The context there is being tempted by your own sinful lust. Verse 14, But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then he says in verse 15, Then when lust is conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. You see, when Satan tempts us He works on our inward lusts. Now with Adam and Eve, of course, it was different there because they had not even sinned yet. With us, He works on our lusts and arouses our lusts and basically turns it all over to ourselves and we don't even need any help from that point on. The last temptation of Christ. One of the biggest bogus things about that movie, the movie was bogus throughout, it was a new age Jesus who became a God rather than Jesus who is God. But one of the bogus things there, he's on the cross and he's getting tempted towards having sexual immorality. Now, number one, not only is that bad theology, You can put the world's biggest pervert on a cross and the last thing on earth he's going to do is have sexual fantasies. Even for a guy who worships sexual immorality, when you're dying on a cross, a horrible death like that, you're not going to be thinking about sexual immorality. That's number one. But number two, it's just bad theology. You see, could Christ be tempted to having sex? Yes, he could. But not from his own inward lust. His lust wouldn't make that temptation. A pimp could come up to him and say, hey, for X amount of dollars you can buy my prostitute for a night. See, somebody could tempt Christ from the outside. Satan could tempt Christ from the outside, like he did. So, number one, the key thing there is Christ could be tempted from the outside, but he would not be tempted by his own sinful lust, because he had none. Okay? Keep that in mind. Now, Adam and Eve at first were tempted from the outside, and then sinned, and then they had it. their own inward lust because they had their sin nature came into the picture and we inherited their sin nature and right on down the line. So some will say well because of that although Christ can't be tempted from his own inward lust like the last temptation of Christ had it Christ was like the first Adam but even the first Adam didn't have sinful lust But he still was tempted from the outside and could sin, therefore Jesus could sin. Well, the thing is though, Jesus was what? Much more than just a man. Yes, he was a man, but he was not a mere man. Adam was the perfect man before he sinned, but he was only a mere man. Jesus was not a mere man. Jesus is a man who was also fully God. God cannot sin. All conservative evangelical theologians agree with that. Man can sin. Okay? Obviously that's mere man. Okay, we'll go right back. Mere God cannot sin. Cannot sin? Oh sure, just laugh at the teacher. Don't tell him. I haven't had I haven't had much experience with sin, so I had a hard time spelling it. I can see nobody's getting an A in this class. Okay, mere God, if God is only God and doesn't become a man, mere God cannot sin. Mere man can sin. Now when you combine the two, some guys say, well, like Erickson, because he is a man, He could have sinned. See, sin is rebellion against God. So then you come up with, well, can God rebel against God? I favor, I think when the divine nature and the human nature unite in one person, I believe the divine nature overrides the human nature at Aries. And the thing is, too, is though, it is possible for a mere man to not sin. It would have been possible that Adam and Eve would have went on without sinning. It was possible to not sin. You can still be human and not sin if you're not fallen human. We must sin because we inherit the sin nature. Jesus did inherit a sin nature so it's possible for him to not sin. But for God it is not possible. not possible to sin. So I think if he's going to be both God and man, you've got to include, you've got to say, well then if he's God, it's not possible for him to sin. If it was impossible for man to not sin, then it would be impossible for God to become a man. Because they'd be mutually exclusive. They would contradict each other. But it is possible for man to not sin. So I think when you combine these two, I think that the divine nature of Christ dictated that Christ could not sin. Now, some people argue that, well, an impeccable person, a person who could not sin, therefore could not really be tempted. It was fake. It wasn't a real temptation. The illustration is often given, and I think it's a good one. Just as an unbeatable army could still be attacked, so too Can an impeccable person still be tempted? The fact that you're tempted, that someone's trying to get you to do something means you are tempted. Whether or not you fall towards that temptation... Supposing you're a guy who loves his wife so much, you are so loyal to your wife that you would never even think of being unfaithful to her, and some woman tries to tempt you to have sexual relations with her. And suppose you looked at her and said, look lady, I'm married, leave me alone. And you walk away, okay? And by the way, I don't mean to be chauvinistic more times than not in those situations, at least from the ones that I've seen through counseling in the whole nine yards. It's almost always the guy that's the aggressor in the whole nine yards. But supposing this guy, it doesn't even, in his terminology, tempt him in the least. And he says, get away from me lady, I'm faithful to my wife. And he goes his own way and doesn't think anything of it again. The fact is he was still tempted. She still tempted him even though the temptation had no strength with him in that point. Now, even an impeccable person could be tempted just as an unbeatable army can still be attacked. God cannot sin. God is good by nature. And God can only do what is consistent with His good nature. God can only do what is consistent with His good nature. Now this gets into a lot of deep philosophy. This isn't a philosophy course. We're not dealing with some of the big philosophical dilemmas, so we're not going to get into that. But I just want to mention that Erickson's view of packability, he tries to explain it, and I think he gets himself into a little trouble. Let me see if I can read an excerpt from page 563 of his work here. By the way, I refer to this guy, it makes it sound like I got more good out of Erickson than I got bad. So I don't want to give you the idea that I think he's off the wall because he's not. But listen to what he says. He starts out, he says, certainly God cannot sin, but Jesus is God. And you hold the view that Jesus could sin, so what are you talking about? Certainly God cannot sin, and indeed cannot even be tempted. Thus, if Jesus were to sin, I would hold that mere God cannot be tempted, but God who was also taken on humanity, could be tempted, but still would be God, and therefore cannot sin. Thus, if Jesus were to have sinned, his deity could not have been involved. Unless we are to adopt some form of historianism, the conclusion seems to be that the Incarnation would have terminated short of the actual sin. See, this is what kills me. How could the Incarnation terminate short of the actual sin. Sounds like to Jesus, and that's exactly what he's saying, he doesn't hold it. At the very brink of the decision to sin, where that decision had not yet taken place, but the Father knew it was about to be made, the second person of the tree would have left the human nature of Jesus, dissolving the incarnation. Quite possibly to sever the union, should such a situation arise, was a pre-incarnate decision of the second person of the Trinity, which was made as part of the decision to become incarnate and accept the limitations of such a state. Real, real weak here. Rather, Jesus would have survived, but would have slumped to mere humanity and sinful mere humanity at that. So he's saying, he's putting Jesus in a pre-incarnate state, making this decision that if I do become a man and then the human nature is about to sin, I'm going to pull out. And so the divine person is still sinless, but the human person isn't. And he goes right on to, he's going through this whole thing to try to keep away from the story that Christ is two persons, a human person and a divine person. It sounds like he's actually holding an historian view. Christ is two persons and if the human person is going to sin and the divine person leaves, he's still got the human person. So, his view of peccability leads to some real trouble. Other views of peccability don't get into that deep of water. They just say, well, Christ could have sinned, but he didn't sin. But how they would explain how God could sin That's a pretty tough thing to explain. Erickson makes a try and I think he borders on heresy when he does. And so I think it's much safer to hold a view of impeccability. Christ could not sin and did not sin. And just as an unbeatable army could still be attacked, An impeccable person could still be tempted, but he would not fall to that temptation. And so my view is that I hold to his impeccability, so I would not be dogmatic on that. It looks like it ended up... I did take 41 minutes, so it looks like we don't have time for questions and answers, at least on the film. We're going to cut the tape now. If you've got questions, you can ask me after the tape is over, but not too long, because the Super Bowl is today.