Theology beacon dictionary of theology

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-

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;

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.