On Twitter

« Which is the fifth commandment? | Main | Sunday's Hymn »
Monday
Aug042008

Theological Term of the Week

uploaded-file-88373
 
Still stuck on the “im” words.
 
impeccability
Used of Christ, it refers to the doctrine that Jesus Christ was incapable of sinning.
  • From the Bible:
    For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell….

    For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…. (Colossians 1:19, 2:9 ESV)
    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.  (Hebrews 13:8 ESV)
  • From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, page 538:

    (1) If Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract of theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed in one person. (3) Although there were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesus experienced in his human nature alone and were not experienced in his divine nature…, nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had sinned, it would have involved both his human and divine natures. (4) But if Jesus as a person had sinned, involving both his human and divine nature in sin, then God himself would have sinned, and he would have ceased to be God. Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God’s nature. (5)T herefore, if we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible. The union of his human and divine natures in one person prevented it.

  • From W. G. Shedd:
    Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as His natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable

Learn more:
  1. GotQuestions.org: Could Jesus have sinned (peccability or impeccability)?
  2. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: Impeccability
  3. Bruce Ware: Illustrating the Impeccability of Christ: Could Not vs. Would Not
  4. Arthur Pink: The Impeccability of Christ
Related terms:
Do you have a theological term that you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it, giving you credit for the suggestion and linking back to your blog when I do.
 
Clicking on the Theological Term graphic at the top of this post will take you to a list of all the previous theological terms in alphabetical order.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Thanks for a very clear, concise explanation of this term, Rebecca.

August 7, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDorothy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>