The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Impeccable vs Peccable

Reformed theologians affirming Christ’s impeccability

Reformation and Reformed orthodox era

* John Calvin
* Theodore Beza
* Zacharias Ursinus
* Girolamo Zanchi
* William Perkins
* Johannes Wollebius
* John Owen
* Thomas Goodwin
* Francis Turretin
* Wilhelmus à Brakel

Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

* William G. T. Shedd
* Robert L. Dabney
* A. A. Hodge
* Herman Bavinck
* Benjamin B. Warfield
* Abraham Kuyper
* Louis Berkhof
* Geerhardus Vos
* Herman Hoeksema
* Arthur W. Pink

Contemporary Reformed theologians

* John Murray
* Cornelius Van Til
* Anthony Hoekema
* Donald Macleod
* Sinclair Ferguson
* Wayne Grudem
* Robert Letham
* John Frame
* Stephen Wellum
* Kevin DeYoung
* Mark Jones
* Joel Beeke
* Paul Smalley

Notable theologians affirming Christ’s peccability

Reformed

* Charles Hodge
* R. C. Sproul

Broader evangelical

* Millard Erickson
* Gleason Archer

So within the Reformed tradition, Hodge and Sproul belong to a remarkably small minority. The overwhelming historic Reformed position is that Christ was genuinely tempted but, as the one divine-human person of the Son, could not sin.

I think this is where people become confused: they see that Christ has two natures and two wills but fail to recognize that neither acts independently of his one undivided person. The one acting subject is always the eternal Son of God.

The weakness in believing in the Peccable view, is that it treats “human nature” almost as though it were a separate acting person. Chalcedon forbids both confusing the natures and dividing the person. Impeccability does not mix the natures; it takes their union in the one person seriously.

The Chalcedon requires us neither to confuse Christ’s two natures nor to separate them. But impeccability does not intermingle the natures or turn Christ’s humanity into deity. It recognizes that although Christ has two distinct natures and two corresponding wills, neither nature acts as an independent person. The acting subject is always the one person of the eternal Son.

That is the difficulty with saying Christ’s human nature could sin. Natures do not commit sins; persons do. If Christ sinned according to his humanity, it would still be the person of God the Son committing that sin. We cannot isolate his humanity from his person sufficiently to make it peccable without moving toward the very separation Chalcedon forbids.

Christ’s human will was genuinely human, active and obedient, but it was never contrary to his divine will. His temptations were real because the hunger, suffering, satanic opposition and pressure to disobey were real—not because rebellion had to be a possible outcome.

Nor did Christ become worthy to be our substitute by successfully passing a trial whose outcome was uncertain. He was already the holy Son and spotless Lamb; through his genuine human obedience, he accomplished the mission he had infallibly undertaken as our second Adam.

Therefore, the choice is not between a confused Christ who cannot sin and a truly human Christ who can. The orthodox alternative is the impeccable God-man: two distinct natures and two wills united without confusion or separation in one divine person, who genuinely obeyed and was genuinely tempted but could not act against his own holy identity.

The peccable view rightly protects the reality of Christ’s humanity, temptations, and voluntary obedience. Christ did not merely appear to obey. He truly “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8), resisted temptation, and submitted his human will to the Father: “Not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).

But I believe your argument requires the second Adam to be more like the first Adam than Scripture requires—or even permits.

1. Christ did not have to duplicate Adam in every respect

Adam and Christ are covenant heads, but they are not identical persons.

Adam was:

* A created human person
* Made from the earth
* Capable of obedience or disobedience
* Able to fall
* The beginning of natural humanity

Christ is:

* The eternal Son of God
* A divine person with a true human nature
* Conceived by the Holy Spirit and intrinsically holy
* The Lord from heaven
* The beginning of a new and glorified humanity

Paul deliberately emphasizes the difference:

“The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.”
—1 Corinthians 15:47

Christ did not come merely to recreate Adam’s original condition and attempt the same test again. He came as one greater than Adam—God the Son incarnate—to accomplish what Adam failed to do and to secure a righteousness and life that could never again be lost.

The correspondence between Adam and Christ is covenantal and representative, not an exact duplication of their personal constitution.

2. The person obeying is the eternal Son

We must ask, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

The answer is not a newly created human person who happens to be joined to God. The acting person is the eternal Son, who assumed a complete human nature. Therefore, if Jesus could sin, the person committing that sin would be the Son of God.

Natures do not act independently; persons act according to their natures. Christ possesses a divine nature and a human nature, but he is one indivisible divine person.

Therefore, saying that Christ could sin entails that God the Son could sin. But Scripture says:

* “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13).
* “God is not man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19).
* God “never lies” (Titus 1:2).
* “He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).

The incarnation did not make the immutable Son capable of moral evil.

3. Inability to sin does not eliminate genuine choice

This is perhaps the central issue. Genuine freedom does not require the ability to choose evil.

God necessarily loves righteousness and cannot lie, deny himself, or act contrary to his holy nature. Yet God is not less free because of his perfect holiness. His inability to sin is not an external restraint imposed upon him; it is the perfection of his freedom.

Likewise, Christ’s obedience was not automatic, mechanical, or coerced. He willingly chose obedience through his true human will:

“I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
—John 6:38

“I lay it down of my own accord.”
—John 10:18

“I do as the Father has commanded me.”
—John 14:31

Christ made actual choices, but every choice proceeded freely and infallibly from his perfectly holy person. The impossibility of his choosing evil does not make his good choices unreal. It makes his holiness unconquerable.

The glorified saints will be unable to sin, yet they will not cease making willing choices. Indeed, they will then possess freedom in its fullest form. If non posse peccare does not destroy human freedom in glory, it need not destroy Christ’s human freedom during his earthly obedience.

4. Impeccability does not make temptation unreal

Temptation does not require an inward possibility of yielding.

Christ experienced genuine external enticement, opposition, suffering, deprivation, fear, shame, and pressure. Satan actually offered him the kingdoms of the world. Hunger was real. Gethsemane was real. The cross was real. Christ felt the full force of temptation—but without any sinful desire within him.

Hebrews does not say that Christ was tempted because he might possibly have sinned. It says:

“In every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
—Hebrews 4:15

An army may genuinely attack an impregnable fortress even though it cannot capture it. The attack is real; the fortress’s invincibility does not make the assault imaginary. Indeed, Christ endured the full force of temptation because he never surrendered. Fallen people often yield before experiencing temptation at its greatest intensity.

5. Adam’s obedience was probationary; Christ’s obedience was victorious

Adam was created upright but mutable. His continuance in holiness was not guaranteed. Christ, however, came to guarantee the success of redemption.

If Christ were peccable, then the entire plan of salvation could conceivably have failed. The promises of God would have depended upon the uncertain obedience of a mutable Redeemer. But Scripture presents Christ’s triumph as flowing from who he is:

“The ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me.”
—John 14:30

“It was not possible for him to be held by” death.
—Acts 2:24

Christ did not merely do what Adam might have done. He did what Adam could never secure: he rendered perfect obedience, bore the curse, conquered death, and obtained an indefectible inheritance for his people.

6. The Augustinian categories need correcting

The traditional categories are:

State Moral condition
Adam before the fall Posse peccare, posse non peccare — able to sin and able not to sin
Fallen humanity Non posse non peccare — unable not to sin
Regenerate believer Posse non peccare — able not to sin, though still able to sin
Glorified believer Non posse peccare — unable to sin
Christ Non posse peccare — unable to sin

So non posse non peccare does not describe Christ. It means “not able not to sin,” which describes fallen humanity apart from regenerating grace. Christ’s impeccability is non posse peccare: not able to sin.

7. Christ’s superiority to Adam is essential to his saving work

The second Adam had to be truly human because man owed the obedience and man deserved the penalty. But he also had to be God because only a divine person could sustain the burden, give infinite value to his sacrifice, conquer death, and infallibly accomplish salvation.

This is why the 1689 Confession says that the two natures were united in one person so that Christ was “very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man” (8.2).

His deity is not an unfair advantage that disqualifies him from representing us. It is the very qualification that makes him a sufficient and victorious representative.

Conclusion

The choice is not between a genuinely obedient Christ who could have sinned and a mechanical Christ who could not truly choose. The orthodox position is that Christ’s obedience was both:

* Fully human, conscious, costly, and voluntary
* Infallibly holy because the obedient person was the eternal Son

Adam could obey but fell. Christ could be tested, suffer, and voluntarily obey—but could not be conquered by evil. He is not merely Adam given another opportunity. He is “the Lord from heaven,” the stronger covenant head whose righteousness and kingdom can never fail.

Sproul’s or Hodge’s stature cannot settle the question, even if one or both expressed sympathy for peccability. Great theologians can adopt minority positions. The decisive question is whether we can consistently say that the eternal, immutable, perfectly holy Son of God—the one divine person acting through both natures—was capable of committing sin. I do not believe Scripture’s doctrine Christ allows us to say that.

To say Jesus was simply the same as pre-fall Adam is Christologically false and, taken literally, heretical. Adam was a created human person possessing one human nature. Jesus is the eternal divine Son possessing both a divine and a human nature. Christ’s humanity resembled Adam’s in being sinless, but Christ was never merely another unfallen man. The comparison ignores the hypostatic union and cannot establish that Jesus was personally free to sin. Adam was able not to sin; Christ was not able to sin.

The comparison ignores the hypostatic union and cannot establish that Jesus was personally free to sin. Adam was able not to sin; Christ was not able to sin.

You’re conflating Jesus with Adam because you’re only talking about him in reference to his human nature.

You just can’t say Jesus the person as if he is only a human nature and you can’t do the same as if he is only a divine nature

Pilgrim
I have used that argument before and was told I am conflating issues.


Tom