“As for the temptation, the traditional locus for that is also in Maximus in his discussion of 2nd Cor 5:21 where he indicates that Christ takes up our corrupted human nature in the incarnation, experiencing our passions and temptations even though he personally performs no sinful acts. Christ is impeccable even though he truely experiences our temptations.”
Perry’s brief comment raises a number of potential implications. I wonder in which directions he’d develop his statement.
1.If the Logos assumes our corrupted human nature, then doesn’t this mean that Jesus experienced corrupt passions?
In other words, does Jesus, on Perry’s view, experience sinful feelings, but refuses to act on those feelings? And if that is not what Perry means, then how can he avoid that consequence given his presuppositions?
A feeling can be a sinful feeling, even if you decline to act on it.
2.Don’t we need to draw a basic distinction between licit and illicit temptations?
For example, the temptation to overeat is not sinful. Food is a natural good. The desire for food is a natural good.
On the other hand, the temptation to molest a child is sinful. Likewise, what about the temptation to murder somebody? Even if I resist the temptation, it was a sinful impulse, was it not? An inclination to do evil. An inclination to do wrong.
Certain temptations are only tempting to a sinner. To someone already infected (as it were).
3.Likewise, temptations may be person-variable. If I’m a recovering junkie, then I’m tempted by drugs in the way that someone who was never hooked on drugs is not. Certain temptations involve an acquired taste.
So I’m curious about the range of passions and temptations which Perry’s Christology ascribes to Jesus.