Given yesterday's post ("This is not what it takes to be a Christian, but Christians do these things"), this would be the next obvious question, wouldn't it? It was the famous question from the Philippian jailer. It was simple, straightforward, to the point. Actually, you don't hear it too often, and that's too bad. And Paul gave an equally simple, straightforward, to-the-point answer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Ah, yes, that's it. We're done. Let's bow in prayer, pass the offering plates, and go home.
Is it that simple? Is there more to it? Let's look. Without straying beyond the confines of the textual question/answer, is there more to this simple conversation that we need to see? Yes. First, the question presupposes prior information. It presupposes that the questioner knows he/she is lacking something, is in danger, needs rescue. ("Saved" has become so overused that people miss the point.) To ask the question first requires that the questioner recognizes personal peril (I'm in real trouble here) and personal need (I don't know how to get out of the trouble I'm in.) Therefore, the question itself addresses a prerequisite condition -- the recognition of guilt and separation from God. In other words, the question won't get asked if the person doesn't see the problem or the need. Second (and this seems painfully obvious but isn't), the question presupposes an answer. It presupposes that there is a solution to the personal peril and the lack of ability to avoid that peril. It assumes that God has put into place a means of ... salvation. So we have basic premises that underlie the question to begin with.
Moving on, then, assuming that the questioner knows of their spiritual peril and lack of ability to fix it and that God has supplied an answer (the one they're seeking), what is the answer to the question? "Believe." What could be simpler? Just ... believe. Mentally acquiesce. Accept as true in your mind. Believe. Unfortunately, today's English "believe" is not quite the equivalent of the Greek word that is behind Paul's answer. That Greek word is pisteuo. It is more accurately "have faith". "Faith" is not merely mental acquiescence. It is a confidence in, a reliance upon, placing one's weight on the thing believed. It isn't like believing in George Washington. This kind of belief is only genuine when you place your weight on it, when your reliance is there and only there. Faith in Christ is also an obligation of loyalty and fidelity to Christ. Faith is not simple mental belief; it is something that produces a response. Now, step back a moment. Remember, the prerequisite for the question is "I am in peril with God, have no means to fix it, and believe that He has." This faith, then, says, "There is no other means by which I can solve this problem. I am relying solely on this solution."
Now, having cleared up what "believe" means, we come to the object of that faith -- the Lord Jesus Christ. We can debate (as others have) whether that requires that the believer recognize that Jesus is Lord (see "Lordship salvation"), that He is Messiah, that He is God Incarnate (another implication of "Lord"). I think there are some parts of this that are genuine and some too far off. To be saved, though, isn't simply, "Yeah, yeah, I believe there was a Jesus." There is more than His existence. As a minimum, He must be the Jesus who is Lord, who was Messiah ... that Jesus. As Lord He demands obedience and as Messiah He came to save His people. A "Jesus" who is neither Lord nor Messiah is not the same Jesus that Paul is referencing. A deep, extensive knowledge and agreement with Messianic theology, Trinitarian theology, and the far-reaching implications of Christ as Lord is not in mind here, but neither is "whatever Jesus you have in mind" an acceptable possibility. It must be the same Lord Jesus Christ that Paul knew, the same one that walked with the Apostles, the one with the mission and authority to save and to rule. It cannot be the "analogy Jesus" who never actually lived but is a fine story about how to live (as some hold) or the "'brother of Lucifer' Jesus" who is one of many gods (as others argue) or some other variation. There is one and only one -- the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is a problem with all of this that is rarely addressed. I bemoaned the fact that the question isn't often asked. Scholars question whether the jailer actually meant what we see there. Was he saying, "How do I avoid eternal damnation at the hands of God?" or was he saying, "How do I avoid getting fired (or killed) by my employers?" Was it a genuine spiritual question, or did Paul simply provide the man with the better answer? We do not and cannot know. The real problem is this: Since humans are naturally dead in sin (Eph 2:1), hostile to God (Rom 8:7-8), and incapable of understanding (1 Cor 2:14), what would make them ask the question or be capable of understanding the answer? On the one hand, the question and answer are simple. On the other, a genuine question and a genuine understanding of the answer are not. At the mental level, it's all an easy thing. We understand all the words. We get all the components. That's fine, thanks. But at the spiritual level, both genuine understanding and genuine faith are impossible. You see, the faith that the Bible references is not something we drum up. It is something given by God. No, it isn't given to everyone. It is given as He chooses. (I'm leaving off the arguments and references here because I'm setting myself up for another blog entry, see?) So, while Natural Man can nod and say, "I understand all those words and I believe what it says", it is entirely possible (nay, an actual given) that such a person will think he or she is among the saved when he or she is not. How will I provide correction? I can't. That is God's job. He has to do an awakening (we call it "regeneration" or, in the King James vernacular, "quickening"). He has to provide the necessary faith. So while the concepts are easy to explain and clear enough, it isn't, in the final analysis, in our hands, but in God's hands. Careful analysis of word and context, clearly written explanations, and concise process steps don't produce either the faith or the understanding for this whole thing. That would be God's job.
3 comments:
I know I've wiped your dust from my feet, but since this is presumably your answer to "save me," I will let you know that,
1. Yes, I see my need as a sinner;
2. Yes, I trust in God's grace through Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God who lived, died and raised from the dead 2000 years ago - THAT Jesus;
3. Yes, by God's grace, I have made THAT Jesus the Lord of my life, asked him to rule in my heart;
4. It's not something I just "drummed up," but it's the faith spoken of in the Bible;
So, by your parameters, I AM saved, which has been my contention all along. Not only by your definition, but also by the witness of the Spirit of God in my heart, the assurance found therein, the witness of the fruit of the Spirit in my life, praise the Lord.
Now, all you can say is, "Well, although Dan THINKS he is saved, I suspect he isn't because he disagrees with my church on these five issues..."
NOT that I disagree with God, nor with the Bible, certainly not Jesus, just your church's exact explanation on a few issues. IF I would only accept your exact explanation of those few issues, THEN you might believe that I am saved.
The thing is, JUST LIKE you think I'm mistaken on those few issues, I think YOUR church is mistaken on those few issues. IF you insist that only those who agree with your explanation are truly saved, we are back to a salvation by works, for in your "salvation," there is a dependence upon "getting it right" on those issues. There's no room for error.
Additionally, in YOUR explanation of "salvation," one can never truly know if they are saved. "What if I'm mistaken? What if, like Dan, although I am SURE of my salvation by God's grace and by the witness of the Spirit and the presence of God's love and the fruit of the Spirit, what if I am mistaken on these issues??? Does that mean I am lost??? I'm telling Dan that means he's lost if he's mistaken, but if I, STAN, am the one mistaken, that must mean that I, STAN, am lost!! Oh Lord, how can I know??? I CAN'T!"
Your salvation seems to be wholly dependent upon human perfection with no grace for human error. A salvation of works, not grace. A spitting upon God's grace and a crucifying of Jesus all over again, day after day.
No, thanks. I'll trust in God's grace and the witness of the Spirit, of God's love in our hearts and in our community, in the fruit of the Spirit that is present in our lives, however imperfectly. Just as the Bible says.
I'd ask that you reconsider your dependence upon a salvation by works.
I apologize for commenting yet again after saying I was gone, but you have posted this, presumably for my benefit. I hope, instead, it ends up being for all of our benefits.
Good bye (unless you have a question and/or apologies for me.)
Dust. Dust.
It becomes increasingly obvious to me that placing your weight fully on Christ is one of the hardest things to do in the Christian faith. It is made all the harder by the increasing bombardment by our culture that tells us that Jesus is so many things that the Bible says He is not. And, too, fully grasping all that Jesus is, is not possible in our human understanding. I am taking the approach of adding to my understanding of Him as best I can through the study of His Word, and trusting that He will provide me with enough understanding to get through what He places in my life. It's terribly tough, and terribly easy, all at the same time. God has a great sense of humor and irony!
I use the term "sanctification" which means, in my mind, the process of moving away from this world's perspective and toward God's perspective. And it really is an apparently long move. How does one make that move? One step at a time ...
Post a Comment