The following study seeks to investigate the impeccability of Christ from a historical/theological position. Two camps emerge on either side of the debate: Those who hold to the posse non peccare view which is to say, ability not to sin, otherwise known as the peccability view and those who hold to the non posse peccare view which is to say inability to sin, otherwise known as the impeccability view. While both camps affirm the sinless perfection of Christ they oppose each other in whether as fully human He could have sinned if He wanted to. It boils down to a case of ‘could have but did not’ or ‘did not because He could not have’. It is the view of this thesis that the non posse peccare view squares with both historical and biblical theology. We argue in chapter two by surveying Church councils up to the present time pertinent to this theme to prove that the history of this issue matters in that it establishes the relationship between Christology and history and by inference a major impact upon many outcomes in Church history. Our aim was to prove that this historical error goes a long way in distorting the gospel message. In chapter three we survey and evaluate the position from a peccability viewpoint while, at the same time, entering and notarising our points of departure. We have there highlighted the arguments peccability theologians utilise to defend their view and have criticised such from our Dispensational theology. In chapter four we then assess and acknowledge the argument for impeccability by proving the necessity of it for the exoneration of His Person and gospel. In the summit of chapter five we have surveyed the field of Scripture to have the final say on this issue and concluded in favour of impeccability. / MA (Dogmatics), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

The following study seeks to investigate the impeccability of Christ from a historical/theological position. Two camps emerge on either side of the debate: Those who hold to the posse non peccare view which is to say, ability not to sin, otherwise known as the peccability view and those who hold to the non posse peccare view which is to say inability to sin, otherwise known as the impeccability view. While both camps affirm the sinless perfection of Christ they oppose each other in whether as fully human He could have sinned if He wanted to. It boils down to a case of ‘could have but did not’ or ‘did not because He could not have’. It is the view of this thesis that the non posse peccare view squares with both historical and biblical theology. We argue in chapter two by surveying Church councils up to the present time pertinent to this theme to prove that the history of this issue matters in that it establishes the relationship between Christology and history and by inference a major impact upon many outcomes in Church history. Our aim was to prove that this historical error goes a long way in distorting the gospel message. In chapter three we survey and evaluate the position from a peccability viewpoint while, at the same time, entering and notarising our points of departure. We have there highlighted the arguments peccability theologians utilise to defend their view and have criticised such from our Dispensational theology. In chapter four we then assess and acknowledge the argument for impeccability by proving the necessity of it for the exoneration of His Person and gospel. In the summit of chapter five we have surveyed the field of Scripture to have the final say on this issue and concluded in favour of impeccability. / MA (Dogmatics), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Bibliography: leaves 118-124 / Did Christ, in the incarnation, take a fallen or unfallen human nature? This question, in its various forms, has occupied the Christian Church for as long as it has existed. For the Seventh-day Adventist church, to which tradition I belong, the question centres on whether Christ as a human being had sinful tendencies or not. This question has divided the church into two main camps, with one camp saying he did, and the other saying he did not. And the debate goes on. It is from the Seventh-day Adventist church tradition that I picked up on this debate, following it up to mainstream Christianity and motivating this research. My research seeks to identify the causes of the debate. Its premise is that unless the specific causes of the debate are clearly identified and appropriately addressed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude it. For a close analysis, two scholars, each representing one side, are picked and examined: Pannenberg, representing the fallen nature position, and Hatzidakis, representing the unfallen nature position. Their respective arguments are gleaned, compared and analysed; and their differences, causes and possible solutions are pointed out. The findings are then applied to the Seventh-day Adventist church debate and to Christianity at large. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)