I believe in the impeccability of Christ because I think the scriptures teach it, especially in this verse: James 1:13 (ESV)
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
I know some will say that God couldn't sin, but the humanity of Jesus could. I disagree. If Jesus sinned then God could sin. If the peccability of Christ is true, then could Jesus now sin in heaven?
I will refer to Chafer once again, one of my favorite writers of Systematic Theology. I have the set in print and on esword.
3. Of Christ. a. Here it is necessary to distinguish between “able not to sin” and “not able to sin.” Impeccability means the latter. Christ alone among men was not able to sin.
b. Christ was theanthropic, possessing both human and divine natures. The divine nature, to be sure, is neither peccable nor temptable (Jas_1:13). Some teach accordingly that the impeccability was due to His omnipotence and omniscience, or having infinite power and wisdom to maintain holiness. In other words, He was not able to sin because of the divine nature.
c. His other nature, by reason of being human, was both peccable and temptable, even apart from the influence of a fallen, sin nature which He necessarily did not share with the race (Heb_4:15); but of course what His human nature might have produced had it been alone and unsupported by the divine is only conjecture. The human element in Christ certainly was never separated from the divine; still, the divine proved ever the dominant factor in His theanthropic being. He was not a man, then, to whom the divine nature had been added. He rather was God, who took upon Him by incarnation the form of a man. He became thereafter an indivisible Person. Whatever either nature did, His whole being did. No other such person ever existed and there will never be another. Because of the presence of His divine nature with manhood, then, He is incomparable. He could not be rendered peccable by the presence of His human nature: instead He was an impeccable, theanthropic Person. Had His humanity sinned, God would have sinned. A wire may be bent when alone, but not after it is welded into an unbendable bar of steel. His humanity could not contradict or dishonor His Deity.
d. If He, nevertheless in virtue of being both divine and human, was at the same time both omnipotent and impotent, omniscient and ignorant, infinite and finite, unlimited and limited, could it not be truthfully said that He was both impeccable and peccable? As human, it may be replied, He could be impotent, ignorant, finite, and limited without compromising Deity in the matter of sin; but He could hardly be peccable without so doing. And actually He did suffer weakness, pain, hunger, thirst, weariness, and even death, but without compromising Deity in sin.
e. An impeccable person can be tempted in the same sense that an unconquerable city may be attacked. Christ was tempted, but through it only proved to everyone His impeccability. Being God, after all, He could not sin (cf. Joh_14:30).
f. If peccable on earth, He would be peccable also in heaven (Heb_13:8). How well, then, would the Christian's standing and security be grounded?
Thank you for your quote...I find it interesting...I will post my objections. I think this is a wonderful topic, worthy of discussion, which, might be reasonably disagreed upon by believers...so, for the sake of discussion...my rejoinder:
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Decidedly true..but, I think it has little to do with our topic, in that, all of us can distinguish between "The Father" and "The Son"....obviously, it is the
unique aspects of Christ's
humanity of which we speak...and not the
essential nature of either the Father or the Son....Both of Them...in their Fundamental NATURE...are incorruptible....I agree, but this passage brings us to thinking of the Father, not the Son.
For the sake of argument...allow me to pose the idea that "temptation" in this passage you cite is MOST properly defined by this passage itself in the proceeding verses:
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Now, obviously, the Father suffers none of these issues...and cannot be properly spoken of as even possessing such a thing as a "lust" at all....He simply is NOT flesh and blood...only the Son is. But, the only "lusts" that are "his own" or "one's own" are lusts of the "flesh"...and the Father had no "flesh", the Son DID though...such as his capacity for physical hunger...Thus, the Son, at least, was indeed capable of possessing or experiencing a "fleshly" lust, and the Father simply is not, so they are not the same issue.
3. Of Christ. a. Here it is necessary to distinguish between “able not to sin” and “not able to sin.” Impeccability means the latter.
An excellent definition by Chafer....this is what we should work off of.
I think Chafer will defeat himself with his own arguments here, basically because this is somewhat question-begging...I think he assumes his own conclusions as he shapes his arguments.
c. His other nature, by reason of being human, was both peccable and temptable, even apart from the influence of a fallen, sin nature which He necessarily did not share with the race (Heb_4:15);
I agree with him, but this doesn't help him...so, he attempts to defeat what he just said with this:
but of course what His human nature might have produced had it been alone and unsupported by the divine is only conjecture.
I am not so sure I agree with him...I think he is arguing from an assumed ignorance....I think we DO KNOW, and it isn't "conjecture"....He would have sinned...I think what we need to do is add the element of THESE passages in Hebrews to round out the idea...I don't think this discussion is complete without these verses:
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Note, that the Greek words for the bolded "partakers" and "took part" are different words. They are here:
Partakers: κοινωνέω koinōneō
1) to come into communion or fellowship with, to become a sharer, be made a partner
2) to enter into fellowship, join one's self to an associate, make one's self a sharer or partner
Took part: μετέχω metechō
Whatever we are to glean from this passage...I believe it is significant to our understanding...but I disagree with Chafer here:
Had His humanity sinned, God would have sinned.
I am simply not sure this is true..."Sin" does not exist outside of the mandates or is not even an intelligible concept outside of the Divine Will and the Divine Nature....I don't know how he supports this idea.
But, He says this...and this makes no sense to me...
d. If He, nevertheless in virtue of being both divine and human, was at the same time both omnipotent and impotent, omniscient and ignorant, infinite a.
nd finite, unlimited and limited, could it not be truthfully said that He was both impeccable and peccable? As human, it may be replied, He could be impotent, ignorant, finite, and limited without compromising Deity in the matter of sin; but He could hardly be peccable without so doing. And actually He did suffer weakness, pain, hunger, thirst, weariness, and even death, but without compromising Deity in sin
I bolded this because it is an inaccurate representation IMO....he seems to equivocate between the "CAPACITY" to sin and the "ACTUALIZATION" of sin...one who holds to "peccability" doesn't think he DID sin...only that he was capable of it....Chafer seems to say here, that the possibility is synonymous with the actuality, and this is not so.
e. An impeccable person can be tempted in the same sense that an unconquerable city may be attacked. Christ was tempted, but through it only proved to everyone His impeccability. Being God, after all, He could not sin
Given what I said above...This is circular...He is Equivocating between the capacity to sin and the actuality of "having sinned"....this is a circular argument.
