bservient to the divine will and could never act independently .? While such an argument would seem to support the impeccability of Christ, I am not sure that it does not erroneously interpret the two natures of Christ. Under the doctrine of the hypostatic union we know that ?the two natures [of Jesus] are bound together ... by a bond unique and inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness and will .? This means that ?the human and divine natures did not mingle or merge together into a third nature with a different expression .? However, if Christ had only one single will (a position which ?the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 condemned ?) which was in fact dominated (and hence controlled) by his divine will, does this not imply that there is a blending of the wills or the creation of a third nature? Accordingly, while I would like to say that this argument supports the claim of Christ?s immpeccability, to do so would be to accept an inaccurate definition of the hypostatic union. Therefore, this argument is not applicable to this discussion.The seventh argument in support of the impeccability is that Christ could not sin because he was doing the will of the Father, i.e., arguments from Jesus? omnipotent desire [and] His submission to the divine will. ? We know that Christ was doing the will of the Father because the Bible clearly states this: ?Then [Jesus] said, ?As is written of me in the book, I have come to do your will, O God? ?(Hebrews 10:7);? Jesus explained to them: Doing the will of him who sent me and bringing his work to completion is my food? (John 4:34) and ?I have come down from heaven, but to do the will of him who sent me.? (John 6:38). The will of the Father is also clearly stated in the Bible: ?[God] has sent his Son as an offering for our sins.? (1 John 4:10). As an offering for our sins, ?Christ is a substitute for sin .? However, the only way that Christ could be a substitute for o...
