March 2026
What do Hebrews 2 and 4 honestly tell us about Christ being tempted as we are when we are born sinners, and Christ was not born a sinner? What is the position of the early church, and is it convincing?
I asked ChatGPT to comment.
According to ChatGPT, I am putting my finger on a real tension—one that theologians have wrestled with from the early Church onward. The concern is understandable: if Christ’s temptations are not like ours at a crucial point, in what meaningful sense can the Epistle to the Hebrews 4:15 say “in all points…like as we are”?
ChatGPT continues. Let me try to clarify where the disagreement actually lies and why the early Church didn’t think this was incoherent—even if you might still judge their solution unconvincing.
My response. I want to be corrected when I am wrong. So, I welcome that. What I pointed out in my article is that ChatGPT is inconsistent and has incorrectly inferred what the early church fathers did not actually affirm. ChatGPT just assumes its interpretation is correct based on unconvincing evidence and no direct evidence.
1. The key distinction that the early church fathers are making
The Fathers are not saying:
- Jesus had a totally different kind of experience
My comment. But it sounds like it.
They are saying:
- The arena of temptation is the same
- The source of temptation differs
My response. I do not see it. Saying Christ’s temptation was external is very different from claiming it was like ours, which is both external and internal. This sounds like more theological hair-splitting.
ChatGPT says, in their framework:
- We/humanity: tempted externally + internally (due to a fallen condition)
- Christ: tempted externally only
My comment. But we are tempted externally and internally, so how does Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are? This makes no sense at all. And I would claim that only an internal temptation is real temptation. External temptation alone is like being half-tempted to do something unlawful.
ChatGPT claims, but they (the early church fathers) would insist: External temptation alone is still real temptation, not a lesser category.
My comment. I do not buy it. I will need to read real quotes that make this clear because I know how ChatGPT misstates the early church fathers. This can either mean that Christ was not fully human or that humans are at a disadvantage from the start, for they are born either determined to sin or inclined to sin, and Christ was neither of these.
2. Your objection: “Then it’s not really comparable.”
According to ChatGPT, you’re essentially arguing:
- If Christ cannot sin, then temptation loses its force
- If humans (in some views) are born sinners who can only sin, then temptation also loses meaningful freedom
- Therefore, the comparison collapses between Christ and us
That’s a serious philosophical/theological objection—not a trivial one, according to ChatGPT.
3. How the early Church would push back according to ChatGPT
Writers like John Chrysostom or Athanasius of Alexandria would respond by reframing what temptation is: Temptation does not equal inner desire to sin
My comment. Either ChatGPT doesn’t understand what the early church fathers actually taught, or the early church fathers did not understand temptation. I believe that temptation is an inner desire to sin. “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14-15. Doesn’t this verse refute the idea that sin is not an inner desire to sin or to gratify the lust of the flesh?I will also need to read ChatGPT’s evidence from early church fathers who believed temptation was not an inner desire to sin.
Let me make one last point. It is better to say that temptation is not to sin, or for the sake of sin, but to gratify the desires of the flesh. We sin to gratify the desires of the flesh unlawfully.
Temptation is pressure, testing, trial, according to ChatGPT
So, the early church fathers would say:
- You don’t need a corrupt desire to experience temptation
- You only need:
- real suffering
- real alternatives
Think of:
- hunger urging you to misuse power
- fear urging you to avoid suffering
- pain urging you to abandon obedience
My comment. I would add this to the list. Lust of the flesh leading to gratifying those desires unlawfully. Why didn’t the early church fathers and ChatGPT mention this? This is what it means to be human.
Christ experienced all of that fully and intensely, but only externally, according to ChatGPT.
My comment. That admission fatally undermines ChatGPT’s argument. If Jesus did not experience an internal temptation, which is where the real issue resides in the heart, then he was not tempted as we are.
I repeat, James declares that we are tempted when we are drawn away by our own lusts and enticed. Then, when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. James 1:14-15. Is this not an inner desire? But John C. says this is not temptation, according to ChatGPT. How can that be understood? The early church seems to have deviated from this clear teaching, or ChatGPT has incorrectly interpreted John C.
4. The “intensity” argument (important to them)
Here’s a key move you may or may not find persuasive.
Some Fathers (and later thinkers) argue: Christ’s temptations were actually stronger, not weaker. Why? Because:
- We often give in early
- He never gave in at all
So, he endured the full force of temptation to the end. This line of thinking appears later in a more developed form, but it’s consistent with the trajectory of early thought.
My comment. ChatGPT is correct in stating that I may not find this argument persuasive. And that is correct. I think their arguments make Christ’s temptation significantly less severe than ours, not more severe.
It is true that we give in to temptation frequently and Christ never did. Why? Because he was never tempted internally like we are. This line of thinking makes Christ’s temptations weaker, not stronger.
I actually think this line of thinking is ridiculous. Sorry, but that is what I honestly think.
5. The “impeccability” issue (your core concern)
You’re raising what later theology calls:
- Could Christ sin? (peccability)
- Or was it impossible for Him to sin? (impeccability)
The early Church leaned strongly toward:
- Christ could not sin, because of who He is (the divine Son)
But they did not conclude:
- Therefore, His temptations were fake
My comment. Of course, they would never say his temptations were fake, even when it is obvious that his temptations were simply a charade. It is ridiculous to suggest that Christ was tempted to sin when it was impossible for him to yield to temptation and to sin.
ChatGPT continues: instead, they held:
- The person is divine (cannot sin)
- The experience is human (can be tested)
According to ChatGPT, this is mysterious, and they knew it.
My comment. This is the usual fallback position for the Augustinian Calvinists when they can’t reasonably explain the inherent contradictions of their theological doctrines. They will often claim that it is a mystery. But it is no mystery; it is a falsehood. The mystery is that anyone would actually believe any of this.
6. According to ChatGPT, where your critique has real force
Your objection gains traction, especially when applied to later systems:
If someone says:
- Humans are unable not to sin (strong Augustinian/Calvinist view)
- Christ is unable to sin
Then yes—you get a symmetry that can feel problematic.
At that point, “temptation” risks sounding like:
- a formality in both cases
That’s a legitimate philosophical pressure point, according to ChatGPT.
My response. And this is where we are today. It doesn’t just feel problematic. It is problematic for anyone who thinks. The truth makes sense and is reasonable. Much of this nonsense is so unreasonable that it boggles the mind that any thinking theologian would suggest any of this.
7. Why the early Church didn’t feel the contradiction as sharply
Before Augustine of Hippo, many Fathers did not hold as strong a view of human inability as later Western theology did.
My response. ChatGPT should have said that almost every church father, if not all, believed in libertarian free will and in the innate ability to obey God’s laws. For ChatGPT to write that “many Fathers did not hold as strong a view of human inability as later Western Theology did, is a giant understatement meant to cloud the truth.
So their picture was more like:
- Humans: weakened, but still capable of resisting (with help)
- Christ: fully obedient, without corruption
That reduces the symmetry problem you’re pointing out.
My comment. That is partially true; it reduces the problem, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate it. Was Christ weakened? If not, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are.
8. A different way to frame the issue (that may help)
Instead of asking: “Was Christ tempted in exactly the same way as us?” The early Church asks: “Did Christ fully enter the human condition of testing?”
My comment. That is not the issue, so it changes the subject, and that is it. The question I asked remains valid and needs a biblical, reasonable answer, which I have not yet heard.
Their answer to the question, ‘Was Christ tempted in all points as we are?’:
- Yes—completely
- But without sin, so that He could heal it
My comment. This is another unsatisfying response. Again, either ChatGPT misrepresents the early church fathers on this subject, or the early church fathers held an incorrect view of the matter and struggled to explain it satisfactorily.
If it satisfies you, then you can choose to accept it.
9. Bottom line, according to ChatGPT
Your concern is not incoherent—it’s actually one of the classic pressure points in Christology and anthropology. The early Church’s answer, in its simplest form, is:
Temptation is real testing and pressure, not necessarily inner corruption. Christ experienced that fully, even though He had no sinful inclination and could not fail.
Whether that resolves the tension for you is another matter—but that’s the logic they were operating with.
My comment. I am supposed to believe Jesus was tempted as we are, but he could not yield to the temptation to sin. But when we are tempted, we have no power to resist the temptation, so we sin automatically. Seriously, how can anyone actually believe that Jesus knows what we go through when we are tempted? It is impossible for him to sin and impossible for us not to sin. I can’t accept this incoherent and irrational explanation. How about you?
Lastly, ChatGPT provided no quotes from the early church fathers to substantiate its position.
