Now there's a loaded question, eh?
How about this one:
"Is believing the impeccability of Christ, a non-essential?"
Both are very leading questions. The very topic itself seems to draw fire from all sorts of folks.
I have my own thoughts on this, as you might have suspected. First, let's define impeccability. It simply means incapable of sin, or wrong doing. Impeccable = without spot or blemish, perfect.
I believe the Scriptures teach that it was not possible for Christ to have sinned. I believe in the impeccability of Christ.
I didn't always believe this though. When I was a newly converted to Christ, I heard a sermon that spoke of Jesus being tempted (Matthew 4) and later had it explained to me that it was possible that Jesus could have sinned, since the Devil was tempting Him. It was explained to me that the Bible teaches this, explicity in Hebrews 4:15. I didn't study it out, I just accepted it. (Always a bad move, never do that!) The logic made sense to me, at the time. If Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, then it had to be possible for Him to have been able to sin, even if He never did.
As time went by and I heard other Christians talk about this, I had some thoughts of my own that didn't seem to have any solid answers. For example, if Christ did not have a sin nature, like we do, how was it possible He "could have sinned" as I was taught that the Bible says? And if He was tempted, and had no sin nature that would have found anything in that temptation the least bit alluring, what was the point of the temptation?
Over time, and as I began to consider the importance of "discernment" in a Christian's life, I began questioning what I thought I knew. I questioned everything I'd ever heard from the pulpit. I recently read someone describe a time Francis Schaeffer did something similar, and he took off into the mountains to re-examine everything he thought he knew or believed.
Thankfully, I had people in my life at that time that held fest to the impeccability of Christ and when I questioned them, they pointed me to key verses and passages of Scripture that proved to me beyond all question, this position. The definition of "tempted" is critical in this subject. Christ's nature is critical, and is in fact central to the whole teaching. In fact, His nature is central to everything we believe. (1Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.)
As new believers, there is so much we simply do not know. Even after being saved for 10, 20, or 50 years, I have heard testimonies of men and women who say they are still learning, and still maturing in Christ. For this reason, I think it's a bit impatient of anyone to suggest a new believer, or young believer isn't "saved" because they're ignorant of some doctrines. Now I do have to add a disclaimer there, because there are some doctrines that cannot be seperated from the gospel initially presented - or then you have no gospel at all. If you add works to grace, or anyone to Jesus (adding "the church" to "Christ alone"), or leave anything out, such as His resurrection, or why He came in the first place, then I don't believe the true gospel was presented. Therefore, if a person hears a "partial-gospel" or a "padded-gospel" and believes it, I do have to question what, or who, exactly they've put their faith in. I've read countless testimonies of those who were converted to Christ long after they once heard a gospel message like this, and now confess that what they heard was indeed not the gospel.
Going back to the initial question that I read recently "Can you deny the impeccability of Christ, and still be a Christian?":
This implies to me that one has studied out both sides of this issue, and comes down against His impeccability. To deny it, one must first understand it. While you can certainly deny something out of sheer ignorance, your denial doesn't really mean much except that you're being willingly ignorant. Now I know that sounds mean and I don't mean for it too, but it's the truth. Denial based on ignorance doesn't really give you any credibility. However, if someone has thoroughly studied it out and in the end says "Christ had a sin nature and therefore could have sinned, even though He never did", then yes, I would indeed question their spiritual health. However, this really means nothing in the end, since I can't read men's hearts and know for certain if they are saved or not. I leave that with God. I can however know them by their fruits and chalk that person up to someone I would not recommend as a teacher or leader in any way.
The other question about Christ's impeccability being an essential, actually throws me. Essential to what? Essential to believe upon conversion? If this is what's meant, then when I was first converted to Christ that evening in April 1994, with tears streaming down my face and a heart filled with repentance, then I wasn't really converted. "The impeccability of Christ" was never mentioned when the gospel was given to me, and I'd never so much as heard that phrase in my 29 years on earth, prior to that day (that I am aware of, anyway). What I did hear, was that Christ died for sinners, and trusting in Him, and what He did on the cross, that He rose again after the 3rd day, and was the only way to the Father. I heard about forgiveness, mercy, grace, and that there is no other way, than Christ, and Christ alone. What I did not believe on Sunday morning, I suddenly did believe on Sunday night at that church service, and completely out of character for me, stood in front of around 200 people and confessed Christ as Lord. Hearing of His impeccability came later.
If what is meant by "essential" is that there are some parts of Scripture that are expendable, and can either be believed, or not believed, then no, there is no such thing as a NONessential when it comes to the Bible. We may not understand all of it, but we as redeemed people had better be prepared to confess that we do believe every word of it.
I think this is where growing in grace comes in. Some people call it progressive sanctification, others call it growing in holiness. I liken it to how a child grows and learns. Having seven kids, at ages from 2 to 23, I have daily reminders in my home of this. All seven of my kids, are my kids, and all seven of them are at various levels of social, academic and spiritual maturity levels. As with all analogies it obviously falls quite short, but it's still a good reminder for me.
If something else is meant by "essential", then I wouldn't even know how to address it. In our day and age it seems that words have various meanings, and what 1 person means when they say something, is not what 10 other people mean when they say it.
Just some thoughts on this topic today.
tags: Biblical Christianity, impeccability of Christ
