ABSTRACT
In this chapter I examine an argument for the conclusion that Christ could not be both peccable and tempted. I discuss two replies to that argument: one that denies the premise “If a person is X, then that person is capable of sinning” and one that denies the premise “If a person is capable of sinning (peccable), then that person is not impeccable” by defining ‘peccable’ and ‘impeccable’ such that they are consistent. These responses are consistent with Conciliar Christology. I conclude that the Temptation Argument does not show the conjunction of Conciliar Christology and the Impeccability Thesis to be false.
