FOLLOWING IS MY INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ON THE IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST (NAMELY, THAT JESUS CHRIST NOT ONLY DID NOT SIN, BUT THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE OF SIN). lORD WILLING, I WILL POST THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS - 1 EVERY OTHER WEEK. - PASTOR DAVID PAULEY

Introduction

Indeed, all that has to do with Jesus Christ is of immeasurable importance and is worthy of focused meditation and prayer. The impeccability of Christ is certainly no exception. William G. T. Shedd addressed the importance of this subject when he wrote, “The doctrine of Christ is not complete without considering the subject of His impeccability.”[1] In fact, the doctrine of impeccability is of far greater importance than some might imagine, not only because of what it says about Christ Himself, but because of its tremendous impact on several other key doctrines of Scripture. This thesis will seek to provide a biblical and theological defense of the doctrine of the impeccability of Jesus Christ and its relation to and impact upon other essential Christian doctrines through an examination of relevant biblical texts and a compiling and comparing of the various contributions of generally conservative and orthodox theologians.

Although few doctrines have been a greater source of disagreement within biblical Christianity, surprisingly little has been written on impeccability throughout church history. Not until the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries have there been any significant contributions to this doctrine. One author writes of the paucity of material on this doctrine, “Certainly the subject of Christ’s impeccability never occupied a prominent place in the history and development of church doctrine. This may be quite well established by examining some of the leading works on the history of doctrine.”[2] A review of the writings of the early church fathers, and medieval, reformed and Puritan theologians along with various historical theologies, including those by William Cunningham, Louis Berkhof, Adolph von Harnack, J. N. D. Kelly and Geoffrey Bromiley will evidence that this doctrine has played a rather insignificant role during most of the first two millennia of church history. So barren was the field of writing on this matter at the start of the twentieth century that Howard Zabriskie wrote in his doctoral thesis on impeccability, “It is my conception that nothing of a detailed nature has ever been written on the subject."[3] From 1937 until the present only a few noteworthy pieces have been published on the doctrine of the impeccability of Jesus Christ, and virtually nothing of note has been written defending His peccability. The few works that have been written include: W. E. Best’s The Impeccability of Christ and Christ Could Not be Tempted, William L. Bank’s The Day Satan Met Jesus, Gene A. Youngblood’s The Doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ, David Boyd Long’s Could God Incarnate Sin?, Robert Lanning’s The Impeccable Sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and Howard Zabriskie’s The Impeccability of Christ. The last two of these works are a thesis and a dissertation respectively. A few works on the temptations of Jesus Christ have dealt with impeccability less directly, including some works that date back prior to the twentieth century. These include W. Graham Scroggie’s Tested by Temptation in 1923 and Carl Ullman’s The Sinlessness of Jesus in 1882. A detailed survey of modern journal articles reveals even fewer options from which to glean information. Notable articles include Michael McGee Canham’s “Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuit Peccare,” Arthur Pink’s “The Impeccability of Christ,” and Joseph Sahl’s “The Impeccability of Christ.” Several of these books and articles are rather short treatments of the subject and none of them even comes close to exhausting all that could be said on the subject. A survey of the bibliographies in these works also reveals the general rarity and paucity of material regarding the doctrine of impeccability.

After these sources are exhausted, one is forced to turn to systematic theologies, Christologies and confessions, many of which never address the doctrine of impeccability or grant it little more than a passing mention. The great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge gives the doctrine of impeccability less than one full paragraph in his imposing three volume “Systematic Theology.”[4] The same is also true of Augustus H. Strong’s “Systematic Theology.”[5] A few theologians have provided excellent, although brief treatments on impeccability in larger works on theology and the person of Jesus Christ. These include: John Walvoord’s “Jesus Christ Our Lord”[6] and perhaps one of the best treatments of the subject to date can be found in William G. T. Shedd’s “Dogmatic Theology.”[7] After this point, one is forced to search for passing references in works on subjects related to impeccability, such as the unipersonality or immutability of Christ, the temptations of Christ and the kenosis of Christ, along with various commentaries on passages of Scripture related to impeccability.

Many noted systematic theologies make no reference to this doctrine and the term “impeccability” itself is often omitted from theological dictionaries and works on Christology. In his “Christian Theology: An Introduction,” Alister McGrath makes no mention of the impeccability of Christ.[8] The same is also true of A. A. Hodge in his “Outlines of Theology.”[9] One author wrote, “One is surprised as he looks through the standard works on theology of this and past generations to note the small amount of space given to a discussion of the subject.”[10] G. C. Berkouwer wrote, regarding Christ’s sinlessness and the refusal by some to consider Christ’s impeccability, “Is it sufficient merely to acknowledge this factual holiness of Christ? People have frequently refused to go beyond this recognition. They refused to proceed to the proposition that sin was an impossibility to Christ.”[11]

The reason for this rarity in Christian theological writing on the subject of Christ’s impeccability is not immediately clear, other than to conclude that many have not realized the significance and far reaching scope of the doctrine that they have so easily dismissed. The doctrine of impeccability rarely, if ever, made its way into the writings of the early church fathers or medieval theologians. While the Reformers and the Puritans address impeccability sporadically, no full treatment of this doctrine surfaced until the twentieth century. Howard Zabriskie suggests that this may be due to the fact that “Some regard the subject as unimportant while others feel that we lack sufficient material to prove whether Christ was or was not impeccable.”[12] The importance of this subject is so profound, however, that it would likely surprise and shame its nay-sayers if they could but realize the weightiness and gravity of this doctrine and its bearing on Christology and theology in general. Further, this is not a doctrine without Scriptural support. This essential fact will be demonstrated in this thesis.

The main purpose of this thesis is neither to provide an historical survey of the doctrine of impeccability, since little has changed or developed over the centuries that has contributed significantly to the debate, nor will it simply be a presentation of the views of various theologians throughout church history on this subject since similar arguments have generally been utilized from person to person. While numerous theologians will be cited and noted, the principal goal of this thesis is to provide a biblical and theological defense of the doctrine of impeccability while answering the objections raised by those who hold to the peccability of Jesus Christ. Despite the fact that the doctrine of impeccability has never truly been in the spotlight of evangelical discussion, this thesis will seek to show that the doctrine of impeccability is of far greater importance than many suppose it to be by demonstrating its direct bearing upon and relation to other important doctrines of the Bible.

Description/Definition/Terminology of Impeccability

In order to proceed properly with an examination of the doctrine of the impeccability of Jesus Christ, a definition and description of the doctrine and its related terminology is required. Walvoord wrote, “The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term ‘peccability’, and the doctrine that Christ could not sin is referred to as the impeccability of Jesus Christ.”[13] Like so many other words in the English language, the word “impeccable” is frequently used in a manner that does not adequately reflect its original meaning. In modern conversation, the word “impeccable” is generally used to speak of one who is meticulous in his efforts, exceptionally skilled in his abilities, or exceedingly detailed and careful in his labors or social conduct. If speaking of an object, the word “impeccable” usually speaks of fine quality or craftsmanship. Either way, an impeccable person or object is usually one that appears externally flawless or virtually flawless. However, this common usage generally favors the secondary meaning of the English word “impeccable” which is defined as “without defect or error; faultless, flawless.”[14]

The problem with this secondary meaning is that impeccability as it relates to Christ is not simply speaking of His flawlessness or absence of defect, sin or error. Used in this secondary manner, impeccability would seem to indicate perfection or sinlessness. If this were the theological meaning of impeccability then there would be no further debate, at least not within evangelicalism, for it is generally agreed that Christ was without sin.[15] In this sense, all true evangelicals would have to agree that Christ was impeccable or sinless.

The popular usage, however, does not do justice to the primary or theological meaning of impeccability. The Oxford English Dictionary gives its primary definition of the English word “impeccable” as, “persons: not capable of or liable to sin; exempt from the possibility of sinning or doing wrong.”[16] This definition is much closer to the theological meaning of impeccability as applied to Christ. Impeccability in God and Christ connotes the concept of immutable sinlessness. An impeccable Christ is not only one who did not sin but one who could not have sinned.[17] He was not simply innocent of all sin, but was completely impenetrable and impervious to any and all sinful faltering or failing. Impeccability teaches that although Christ could be tempted, and indeed was tempted, He was utterly incapable of giving in to temptation. Alan Cairns provides this simple description of impeccability as, “The doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was not only able not to sin, but that He was not able to sin.”[18] Theologian Louis Berkhof expands this idea when he writes:

We ascribe to Christ not only natural, but also…integrity and moral perfection, that is sinlessness. This means not merely that Christ could avoid sinning (potuit non peccare), and did actually avoid it, but also that it was impossible for Him to sin (non potuit peccare), because of the essential bond between the human and the divine natures.[19]

This definition of impeccability neither denies that Jesus Christ was actually tempted, nor that He was truly human; it simply declares that while truly tempted and truly human, He was nevertheless incapable of violating the will and law of His heavenly Father. He was and is truly human. He did face and gain victory over true temptation. He can and does comfort His people. He was and is impeccable. Advocates of the impeccability of Jesus Christ insist that there is absolutely no tension or inconsistency between impeccability and Christ’s genuine temptation, genuine humanity and genuine comfort of His people.

The English word “impeccable” comes from the Latin “peccare” which means “to sin.”[20] The prefix “im” negates the verb “peccare” and the suffix “able” speaks of ability. Thus, “im-pecc-ability” speaks of inability or incapacity to sin. The contrasting term “peccability,” which lacks the negative prefix, would refer to Christ’s ability or capacity for sin. Four Latin phrases are used with regularity in reference to the subject at hand. These phrases include the following:

1. Posse peccare – meaning “able to sin”

2. Posse non peccare – meaning “able not to sin”

3. Non posse non peccare – meaning “not able not to sin”

4. Non posse peccare – meaning “not able to sin”[21]

“Posse” is the Latin infinitive meaning “to be able.”[22] Those who hold to the peccability of Christ would adopt the first Latin phrase, “posse peccare,” in reference to Christ being able to sin. Those who hold to impeccability would use this phrase only in reference to Adam, prior to His fall, believers after salvation and to the non-elect angels prior to their fall. In this case, all are said to be “able to sin.” The second phrase, “posse non peccare,” i.e. those who are “able to sin,” would refer to the condition of Adam and the non-elect angels before their fall[23] and to believers after salvation, although not implying perfectionism. A variation on this Latin phrase that carries a similar meaning as “posse non peccare” is “potuit non peccare.” “Potuit” being the indicative form meaning “he is able.” The third phrase, “non posse non peccare,” refers to the unbeliever and to Satan and the fallen angels, who are “not able not to sin.” The last of the four Latin phrases, “non posse peccare,” refers to God, glorified humanity, the elect angels, and, for those who hold to impeccability, Jesus Christ.[24] The Latin “non potuit peccare” has a similar meaning to “non posse peccare.”[25]

The Debate

The fundamental disagreement under consideration is one that has occurred primarily within the camp of evangelical orthodoxy. The debate is not whether or not Christ actually sinned, but whether or not He could have sinned. Orthodox Christians who hold to impeccability and those who hold to peccability generally agree that Jesus Christ did not in fact sin. The difference between the two camps lies in the Latin “posse” having to do with ability or capacity. The question is not, “Did Christ sin?” but “Could Christ sin?” Did He, although sinless, still have the capacity to sin?

The impeccability camp defends the doctrine of impeccability primarily on the basis of the unipersonality and deity of Jesus Christ. This view also insists that the immutable holiness of Christ renders sin an utter impossibility for the God-man. This impossibility is not seen as a lack of freedom or limitation of choice, but as true freedom of choice and true liberty. The impeccability view holds that Christ’s inability to sin actually renders His victory over temptation both genuine and meritorious. Impeccability advocates believe that it is Christ’s impeccability that actually produces the greatest comfort for His people and provides the best source of strength in the midst of their temptations.

Impeccability advocates believe that there is much more at stake in proposing that Christ could have sinned other than simply the rejection of the doctrine of impeccability itself. A sinful Christ would not only undo the redemptive plan of God, but it would also destroy God, end the existence of the universe, render the Scriptures fallible, undo all prophecy, introduce evil into the Trinity, give victory to Satan and the creature over God the Creator, render God an ignorant deceiver, result in Christ’s being deceived, fooled, and convinced that the best course of action would be to violate the will of the Father, introduce chance and luck into the universe, override God’s sovereignty, God’s decrees, God’s providence, God’s power, and God’s wisdom. Thus, impeccability advocates believe that if peccability were even theoretically true that Christianity and biblical theology would be utterly destroyed.

The peccability camp believes that a Savior who cannot sin is a Savior who cannot psychologically and emotionally “identify” with His creatures, in spite of the fact that He is omniscient. It believes that if Christ could not have sinned, then He could not possibly have known what it truly means to be tempted, leaving created man with a superior knowledge of temptation than God Himself. The peccability view also believes that it would not be possible for Satan to legitimately tempt Christ to violate the will of God if Christ could not possibly succumb to the wiles of Satan. According to the peccability view, Satan could have outsmarted Christ and fooled Him into committing high treason against God the Father. Peccability advocates hold to these views in an attempt to defend Jesus’ genuine humanity since they do not believe that a person can be a true human without the ability to rebel against God. According to their view, a will that can only obey God is thought to be in bondage and incapable of the allegedly human “freedom” of rebellion. Finally, peccability advocates believe that an immutably holy Savior would be an illegitimate representative of mankind. Peccability advocate Michael Canham expresses these concerns, “Peccability advocates see much at stake in this debate, preeminently the reality of Christ’s humanity, His temptation, and a truly sympathetic priesthood.”[26]

Impeccability advocates see peccability as dangerously close to open theism, in that it renders the future of God’s decrees, revelation, prophecy, and the actions of God as uncertain. If it were true that Christ were fallible (which is the actual implication of peccability), then a myriad of other truths would also be fallible and open to failing. Prior to the end of His ministry, there would have always have been an element of doubt as to whether Christ would really complete His work. Christ’s sinlessness would therefore not have been simply a result of His character, but also of His daily struggle with sin, the outcome of which would never be truly certain until after the fact. G. C. Berkouwer commented on this perspective:

People stress that the sinlessness of Christ…is a fact to be empirically ascertained in view of the course of His life and His holding His own in the face of temptation. Preceding His victory over temptation there must necessarily be a crossroads: two possibilities, of which the one is the way of obedience, the other the way of disobedience.[27]

[1] William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, Third ed. (Phillipsburn, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003), 659.

[2] Howard Cleveland Zabriskie, “The Impeccability of Christ” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1938), 8.

[3] Ibid., 1.

[4] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 457.

[5] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), 677.

[6] John Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 145-152.

[7] Shedd, 662-671.

[8] Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997).

[9] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth, 1972).

[10] Zabriskie, 1.

[11] G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), 251.

[12] Zabriskie, 1.

[13] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 154.

[14] Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, 3d ed., s.v. “Impeccable.”

[15] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 145.

[16] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971), s.v. “Impeccable.”

[17] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 145.

[18] Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, 3d ed. (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 224.

[19] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939), 318.

[20] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 203.

[21] Ibid., 203, 230.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 230.

[24] William L. Banks, The Day Satan Met Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), 44.

[25] M. E. Osterman, The Sinlessness of Christ in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, Second ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1109.

[26] Michael McGee Canham, Potuit Non Peccare or Non Potuit Peccare: Evangelicals, Hermeneutics and the Impeccability Debate, (Danvers, Mass.: Theological Exchange Network, 1995), microfiche, 95.

[27] G.C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, 239.

Doctrines of Grace On Line

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, November 5, 2010

Audio Sermon - Could Jesus Have Sinned? (John 5:19-20, 30 and Various Texts) - Pastor David Pauley

Thursday, November 4, 2010

The ABC's of Religious Hypocricy

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Could Jesus Christ Have Sinned? - Introduction

Description/Definition/Terminology of Impeccability

The Debate