THE PECCABILITY VIEW
As already stated this view holds to the idea that it was entirely within the range of possibility that the Lord Jesus Christ could have succumbed to temptation, and thus could have stepped outside the will of His Father at any time between His birth and His death on the cross. This means that during the whole earthly ministry of our Lord the eternal purpose of God was up for grabs, and that the redemptive plan hung in the balance while Jesus faced the tempter in the wilderness. This view further represents the earthly sojourn of Christ as having been one long, constant struggle on His part to avoid yielding to the enticements of Satan. It pictures the matchless Son of God as being on a constant alert in order to escape being tricked by Satan into departing from the perfect will of His Father.
The question naturally arises as to just what Scriptural proof - if any - can be cited by the proponents of this view. In order to give a strictly fair and impartial answer to this question, this writer attempted to do some research into their writings. But there
seems to be very little material in print concerning this position. It is as though its advocates are mildly embarrassed for holding this ground - or at least would prefer not to stress their views in print
However, those who believe in the Peccability. of Christ have often given expression to the idea while speaking or writing about other things concerning the Person of Christ. On the basis of these statements therefore, we can establish the main foundations upon which they think to stand.
At the outset, it is not only interesting but highly significant that the postulates of this position depend largely upon so-called logical argument, rather than upon clear and acceptable exposition of Scripture.
[3] Moreover, their Scriptural proof is almost exclusively confined to one verse of Scripture, namely. Hebrews 4:15 (which will be expounded later in this paper).
[4] In pointing to this verse, they always give particular emphasis to the sentence: He was tempted in all points like as we are. They then argue that to deny the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus is to deny the clear teaching of this verse. From this initial statementwhich is by no means irrefutable they further argue that if Jesus could not have sinned, then His temptation was a farce, and hence, it served no purpose.
In answering these two arguments, we point out first that this verse does not clearly teach the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus, as we shall see when we develop the verse more fully. Secondly, with regard to whether or not any purpose could have been served by temptation in which the tempted One could not yield, we will also see that a great three-fold purpose was served.
