IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. This doctrine of the Roman Catholic church as defined by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Dec. 8, 1854) holds that the Virgin Mary was preserved immaculate, free from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her conception by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God (cf. Den-
274 IMMANENCE—IMMERSION
zinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 413). The official definition declared by Pius IX was the final result of a long history of debate within the Roman church to establish a uniform doctrine of Mary's holiness.
Belief in the original sinlessness of Mary lacks biblical support. First, Scripture makes no explicit or implicit reference to Mary's conception. Second, although Mary is described as a devout person who had found favor with God, the degree of grace or holiness bestowed upon her is not given in the Gospels (Luke 1:28-30). Finally, a belief in the immaculate conception of Mary naturally excludes her from the redemptive work of Christ who came to save all men (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10). Furthermore, she humbly joined those who tarried for the baptism with the Holy Spirit, thus acknowledging her need and her subjection to the command of her Son (Acts 1:14).
See mariolatry mother of god, virgin birth.
For Further Reading: Denzinger, The Sources of Catho-
lic Dogma, 413; O'Connor, New Catholic Encyclopedia,
7:378-82. ALEXANDER VARUGHESE
IMMANENCE. Where deism teaches that "God stepped out of this universe once he created it" (Willis, Western Civilization, 546), immanence affirms the fact that God is present in all creation. Although a wholesome corrective against one error, immanence can lead to others.
For example, to believe that God is in all is to come very close to pantheism, for if one accepts the fact that God is present in nature, it becomes difficult to separate Him from that nature.
Another possible error stemming from too great a stress on immanence is polytheism. In this view, the awesome manifestations of the natural world are deified. In this setting God retains no unique identity; and if He is worshipped at all, it is as one of many gods.
It is a comfort to believe that God is present in all of His creation in a unique and personal way. It is His uniqueness which elicits our worship, and His personality which gives credence to His promises of grace, guidance, and general care. Above all, it is the sureness of His holiness which establishes Him as the Moral Arbiter of the world. Because He is holy, He can expect us to be holy. And that is the strongest representation of immanence: God present in the lives of His people.
See transcendence, deism, pantheism, omnipresence, attributes (divine).
For Further Reading: Shedd, Dogmatic Theology;
Wiley, CT, vol. 1; Willis, Western Civilization, an Urban
Perspective. MERNE A. HARRIS
IMMANUEL. This name occurs three times in the Bible (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23). The Hebrew and Greek words mean "God is with us." There are strong theological overtones in this name, pointing to Divinity ("God") and the Incarnation ("with us").
The word first appears in a very precise historical setting (Isa. 7:1—8:15). The year is 735 B.C., and the kings of Syria and Ephraim have formed an alliance as the first step towards a confederacy into which they wish to draw Judah as a means of defense against Assyrian aggression. Ahaz, king of Judah, resists the idea; and consequently, the two kings seek to overthrow him.
In the midst of this crisis Isaiah encourages Ahaz to ask of the Lord a sign, which he refuses to do. In spite of the king's refusal, God insists on giving a sign according to the following terms: a young unmarried female—an almah —is to give birth to a son who is to be called Immanuel (Isa. 7:14).
Since the 19th century this sign has created some serious exegetical problems. When it comes to the fulfillment of this prophecy in Ahaz's time, no abundance of specific evidence is to be found in the biblical record. This vagueness appears to be out of character when the precision with which the prophecy was given is considered. Ahaz's unbelief, however, may be a critical factor.
For this reason the traditional interpretation of the sign is that it was Messianic in nature and could only be applied to Jesus Christ. Matt. 1:23 substantiates this view. (A delayed fulfillment is also described in Mic. 5:2-3.)
There is something singular about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and the miraculous dimension is so transcendent that a precursor in Ahaz's time would only make the problem more acute. This element of transcendence causes us to note that Jesus Christ did not come out of history but rather He came into history from above.
This fact introduces us to the essential meaning of the name Immanuel. Harold Lindsell writes, "By the light of nature we see God above us. By the light of the law we see God against us. By the light of the Gospel we see Jesus as Immanuel who is God with us" (Christianriy Today, 22 [Dec. 9, 1977]: 25).
See christ, incarnation, virgin birth, prophet (prophecy).
For Further Reading: Heb. 4:14—5:10; J. D. Douglas,
NBD, 556-57; J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of
Christ, 287-93. ROBERT A. MATTKE
IMMERSION. The term immersion relates to one of the three modes of water baptism (presumably
IMMORTALITY
275
Christian), which are: immersion, effusion, and sprinkling. The mode of immersion signifies a total submersion in water.
It has often been argued that the Greek term for baptism, baptidzd, intrinsically denotes immersion. Of course there are many and varied authorities, but one which is widely recognized as reliable on most questions gives the root meaning of baptidzd in Christian usage as: "dip, immerse, dip oneself, wash." In other Greek literature its meaning is given as: "plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm" (cf. Arndt and Gingrich).
The observation that baptism by pouring was allowed in cases of necessity in the apostolic age would strongly indicate that the normal mode was immersion (cf. Didache 7; Ignatius' Letter to Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, although other modes than immersion were practiced in the Early Church when considered necessary, the evidence indicates that immersion was the usual method. This is particularly so when the symbolic significance of the sacrament is considered (cf. Rom. 6:3 ff; Gal. 3:27; Col. 3:9; see Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 262). On the other hand, when baptism has typological significance (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2) or even relates to martyrdom (cf. Mark 10:38), the meaning of immersion is not so evident.
It must be recognized, however, that insistence on the theological significance of immersion, to the exclusion of any other mode, is a relatively modern development. Even among those of the Baptist persuasion the all-essential issue principally concerns infant baptism. In 17th-century England this was the issue over which the Separatists (Baptists) broke with the Nonconformist communion. It was not until later that the exclusive mode of immersion was adopted (cf. W. S. Hudson, Religion in America, 43). When Ado-niram Judson was converted to Baptist doctrine, while studying his Greek Testament on the long trip to Burma, the fundamental question was infant baptism and not immersion.
When one remembers that Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and a great host of other post-Reformation leaders accepted and practiced a mode of baptism other than immersion, there is hardly a sound basis for theological dogmatism to the contrary.
See BAPTISM.
For Further Reading: Wiley, CT, 3:176-82; GMS, 590.
Richard E. Howard
IMMORTALITY. The word literally means "death-lessness" (from the Greek, thanatos, "death," transformed into athanatos, "deathless," by the addition of the Greek alpha privative, from which comes athanasia, "immortality"). The latter is used concerning the nature of God in 1 Tim. 6:16, "who only hath immortality," in that God alone inherently possesses it and thus is the Source of all life. It appears also in 1 Cor. 15:53-54, relating to the glorified body of the believer. In 1 Tim. 1:17 it means "incorruptible," and in Rom. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10 it signifies "in-corruption." As generally used, immortality means the unending, conscious existence of man after his earthly life is terminated.
There are strong intimations of life beyond the grave in the OT, particularly in the Psalms and in Job. The Psalmist anticipates life hereafter, for example, in Ps. 17:15 and 23:6. He struggles with the problem of the disparity of rewards of the wicked and the righteous in this life in Psalms 49 and 73, and expresses the hope of the righteous in Ps. 49:15 and 73:24-26. Job asks a universal and perennial question in 14:14, "If a man die, shall he live again?" and answers it with his greatest affirmation of faith in 19:25-27. The doctrine of a future life is also plainly asserted elsewhere in the OT, such as in Isa. 26:19 and in Dan. 12:2-3.
It is in the NT, however, that the full glow of life hereafter is given. The apostle Paul asserts that Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10). Our Lord's own triumph over death and the grave "has broken the power of death" (neb), stripped it of any terror, and has brought into full view of faith both life and immortality. The apostle is not inferring that the doctrine of immortality was previously unknown, but is declaring that "the gospel pours light upon and discloses the author, origin, and true nature of life and immortality to our view" (Whedon, Commentary on the NT, 4:445).
Our Savior repeatedly mentioned existence beyond earthly life, not only for the righteous, but also for the wicked: e.g., Matt. 5:12, 22; 8:11-12; 10:28; 25:31-46; Mark 9:43; Luke 16:19-31; 18:29-30; 23:43; John 3:16; 5:24-29; 6:47-58; 11:25; 14:1-3; et al.
The Christian message offers hope for the total person. Though physical death and dissolution ensue, through resurrection man will be re-embodied at a loftier, glorified level, and will live forever in Christ's presence (1 Cor. 15:53-54; 1 Thess. 4:16-17). Such a glorious future has been assured to believers through the mighty power of God over death, "which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead" (Eph. 1:20).
276
IMMUTABILITY—IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS
See MAN, CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY, SPIRIT, ETERNAL LIFE, SOUL, INTERMEDIATE STATE.
For Further Reading: Boettner, Immortality; Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? GMS, 80-81, 138-44, 649-52; Wiley, CT, 2:34-37; 3:215-24; Rawlings, Beyond Death's Door.
William M. Arnett
IMMUTABILITY. Changelessness, or immutability, in the Scripture is frequently attributed to Deity in contrast to the changeableness of humankind. God is seen as changeless as the mountains and the heavenly bodies. Man, by contrast, is compared to grass (Ps. 90:2-6), to chaff (1:4), to a morning cloud, to dew (Hos. 6:4), and to smoke (Prov. 10:26). Even the earth and the heavens will change "like a garment," but God remains unchanged (Heb. 1:8, 10-12). Writers of the Bible find relief as they reflect that while mankind is vacillating and unreliable, God, by contrast, is unchanging and, therefore, trustworthy.
Linked to this characteristic of the divine nature is the concept of the absolute in the realm of ethics. Since God is unchanging, His law is likewise unchanging; it is not subject to man's vacillation or alteration. God's "throne" or realm is immutable. Because of God's constancy His dealings with mankind remain fixed and dependable. Because of the "unchangeableness of his promise" (author's tr.) the believer now has hope (Heb. 6:17-19).
Modern "process theologians," like the ancient philosopher Heraclitus (fl. 500 B.C.), stress the mutability of things divine, preferring the dynamic to the static. Similarly, "situation ethics" eschews an absolute system of values and prefers instead to see ethics as related to the immediate environment rather than to unchanging absolutes. While divine revelation is seen in the NT to be progressive (cf. Heb. 1:1-2), the essentials are changeless as the cosmos (Matt. 5:17-18).
The biblical world (and ours) is one in which God's will and ways are not capricious and unpredictable. In such a world man would be irresponsible. Instead man exists in a universe in which moral values do not change; God's will is known and His actions are consistent. Therefore, man is responsible for his conduct because God is revealed as consistent, equitable, immutable, and hence credible (Rom. 1:17-20).
However, the biblical concept of immutability does not include what has often been ascribed to it, viz., total passivity in every sense. God has feelings and responses toward man and His universe, and both acts and reacts in a dynamic way (cf. Rom. 11:20-23).
See GOD, ATTRIBUTES (DIVINE), MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, PROCESS THEOLOGY ABSOLUTISM, NEW MORALITY.
For Further Reading: Kantzer, Gundry, eds., Perspec-
tives on Evangelical Theology, 15:42; Wiley, CT, 1:332 ff,
340-42. George Allen Turner
IMPANATION. The term literally means "embodied in bread." It is one of the theories of explanation regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Berengarius of Tours (d. 1086) is credited with its development. He disagreed with the traditional view of the church of his day. That view, called transubstantiation, suggested that the substance of the bread and wine actually became the body and blood of Christ at the moment of consecration. Berengarius argued, however, that the Lord became united with the elements without any substantial change occurring in them. The body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but only in power rather than in essence.
The theory predated the Lutheran position of consubstantiation and is considered to be quite similar to it. The majority of Protestant Christianity sets all of these theories aside in favor of considering the elements as signs and seals of Christ's presence.
See CONSUBSTANTIATION, HOLY COMMUNION.
D. Martin Butler
IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. This has to do with God's not only declaring us to be righteous, as a judicial act in which He absolves us of the guilt of our acts of sins, but with His actually making us righteous. God, who surely would not declare a fiction, declares us to be righteous because He actually makes us so. The term is somewhat similar in meaning to that of regeneration, because it has to do with what God does within us, subjectively, in distinction from what He does for us.
Righteousness is also sometimes imputed to us—in which case we are reckoned as righteous when we are not. An instance of this is when God imputes righteousness to us, through the atonement of Christ, when we unknowingly transgress what His will for us is.
One of the most significant biblical supports for the understanding that God actually imparts righteousness to us is in Rom. 8:3-4, where we read, "And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit" (Niv). Here, we are not righteous merely in a "declared" sense or in an "imputed" sense. We ourselves are actually made righteous by God's
IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST—IN ADAM
277
grace. It is not that Christ fulfills God's expectations, and that, because we are Christ's, we are reckoned as righteous when we are not actually so. Paul here says that, by grace, God's just expectations are fulfilled "in us"—and not simply and solely in Christ.
See imputed righteousness, repentance, regeneration. cleansing, right (righteousness).
For Further Reading: Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith, 311 ff; Wiley, CT, 2:385-401; Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin. J. KENNETH GRIDER
IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST. See sinlessness of
christ.
IMPENITENCE. To be impenitent is to be obdurate in one's sin, in full awareness and hence full responsibility. An "impenitent heart" is linked with "hardness" in Rom. 2:5. There may be some measure of remorse and what Paul calls "the sorrow of the world" (2 Cor. 7:10), yet a refusal to abandon sin and turn wholly to God in humility, confession, and brokenness. An impenitent person knows he has done wrong but is not profoundly sorry for the wrong, only annoyed by its consequences. Impenitence is thus thoroughly ethical and not to be confused with the moral blindness of true ignorance. The lost are those who die in final impenitence. See ignorance, penitence, repentance.
Richard S. Taylor
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. In theology "imputed righteousness" is inextricably bound up with the doctrine of justification. The doctrine represents the efforts of the theologians to relate the work of Christ (His obedience to the Father, His suffering and death) to the justification of believers.
The word "impute" is derived from the Greek word logidzomai, which means "to reckon or account." A man's sin or a man's righteousness is imputed to him when he personally commits the sinful or righteous acts (cf. Wiley, CT, 2:396).
The older theologians were agreed that there is a doctrine of imputation in the Scripture, and the phraseology they used was quite similar. However, their interpretations differed rather widely. This is especially true of Calvin and Arminius. Calvin's idea of imputation seems to be that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us as if it were our own, and is beneficial only for the elect. Arminius insisted that Christ's righteousness is bestowed on all who believe—faith is imputed to them for righteousness.
The hyper-Calvinists pushed Calvin's position to its logical conclusion and fell into error. These antinomians claimed that "Christ's righteousness is substituted for theirs in such a way as to render them as legally righteous as if they had themselves rendered perfect obedience to the law of God" (Wiley, CT, 2:396). This turns out to be righteousness by proxy. John Wesley strongly rejected this theory of imputation: "What we are afraid of is this;—lest any should use this phrase, 'The righteousness of Christ is imputed to me,' as a cover for his unrighteousness. We have known this done a thousand times. A man has been reproved, suppose for drunkenness: 'O,' says he, T pretend to no righteousness of my own; Christ is my righteousness'" (Works, 5:244). Wiley says, "The Antinomianism that would lead a soul to a reliance upon the imputed righteousness of Christ without the concomitant inward impar-tation of righteousness by the Spirit, is a dangerous perversion of the truth" (CT, 2:399).
There is therefore a proper doctrine of imputation, and there is an improper doctrine of imputation. Wesley stated unequivocally: "To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not." Someone asked Wesley, When is it imputed? He replied, "When they believe: In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to everyone that believes, as soon as he believes: faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable" (Works, 5:237). From this we see that the Wesleyan-Arminian position is that the believer's faith is imputed to him for righteousness. This is fully supported by Scripture: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3; cf. 5, 9, 22-24). Even here we must not err by identifying faith with righteousness. "All believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of anything in them, or of anything that ever was, or can be done by them, but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for them" (Wesley, Works, 5:239).
See justification, imparted righteousness.
For Further Reading: "Righteousness," NIDNTT; Wesley, Works, 5—Sermons "Justification" and "The Lord Our Righteousness"; Wiley, CT, 2:394-401.
C. Paul Gray
IN ADAM. The term "in Adam" is a technical concept for the solidarity of humanity with Adam and his sin, as recorded in Gen. 3:1-24. Although "the Adam-typology . . . plays a considerable part in Paul's thinking, and ... is present to his mind when he is writing passages in which the name of Adam is not mentioned" (Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology
of the New Testament, 245), the term only appears explicitly in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:22, where it is always used in a consistently antithetical relationship with the redemptive solidaric term "in Christ" (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:179).
The solidarity to which both terms refer is ethical (as in Arminianism) rather than realistic or imputational (as in some forms of Calvinism). This fact is embedded in Rom. 5:12-21, a passage which occupies a transitional and pivotal position in Paul's discussion in 5:1—8:17 of the meaning, place, and appropriation of holiness in the total process of salvation.
The ethical quality of "in Adam" is discerned by discovering in what sense "many [were] made sinners ... by one man's disobedience" (Rom. 5:19, rsv). The answer emerges by noting that the interpretive summary of 5:12—which introduces the problem that "all men sinned . . . through one man"—is verse 18 (Murray, ibid.). Gen. 2:16-17 states that condemnation would come to Adam personally for his transgression. In the same ethical vein, Paul reveals that condemnation comes to all men as a result of their actual sin: "One man's trespass led to condemnation for all men" (Rom. 5:18, rsv). With "led" as the pivotal word, it becomes evident that Adam's sin, as a universally inherited proclivity to sin, leads to condemnation for all men. When this proclivity is yielded to or obeyed, the result is actual sin which brings condemnation.
In light of this, the solidaric emphasis of "in Adam" as ethical requires an effect that is potential rather than automatically actual. This is substantiated by noting the clearly ethical focus of the antithetical solidaric term, "in Christ," for the relation which lost humanity may sustain to Christ is the interpretive key for understanding the relation humanity outside of Christ sustains to Adam. Consequently, if we remember that the seeming justification of all in Christ is potential and only becomes actual when appropriated in an ethical act (Rom. 5:15-18), the complete antithetical construction of 5:12-21 leads to this conclusion: The apparent condemnation of all in Adam because of his disobedience is really potential, only becoming actual when consented to volitionally by an act of sin.
The contextual relation of "in Adam" to holiness in Romans emerges in the rephrasing of the term in the concept of the "old man" in 6:6 (kjv). By this lexical interlocking, the antithetical structure between Adam and Christ in 5:12-21 and the ethical relationship men sustain to either one becomes the pattern for interpreting the meaning and appropriation of holiness in 6:1-14.
See ORIGINAL SIN, PREVENIENT GRACE, IN CHRIST, OLD MAN.
Share with your friends: |