Another blogger asked me to join in a conversation about whether or not grace was sufficient for salvation. The problem appeared to be that someone had claimed something like "You're not saved by grace alone if you still believe that gay marriage is okay." I didn't join in the conversation. Grace is sufficient. No question. I would have to disagree with whomever made such a statement. So I didn't think I could contribute to that conversation.
There is a separate conversation that would spring from such a statement, though. While belief that "gay marriage" is not "okay" is not by any stretch of the imagination a prerequisite to salvation, there is something else behind the question. In fact, I have a couple of follow-on questions.
First, while we are agreeing that a biblical position on "gay marriage" is not essential to salvation, is it the position that "all we need is faith" (or something like it)? James disagreed. He called faith without works, for instance, dead faith. It's useless. Martin Luther was a staunch advocate of "faith alone", but went on to argue that it was not a faith that was alone. Paul argued that those who are in Christ are new creations. So while I'm agreeing that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone -- not by adhering to a set of beliefs or perspectives or by performing a particular set of acts -- I am not willing to admit that such a salvation can occur without changing the recipient. As a new creation, perspectives change, actions are altered, beliefs are modified. The Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, "will guide you into all the truth." And while that is obviously a lifelong process, I have reason to wonder about folks that seem not to move at all. They're "saved" and they proclaim "faith" and they cling to "grace", but that's it. No change. That would seem to me to be problematic.
And that leads me to the second question. Is it ever a good idea to question someone's salvation? Or are we obligated by Christian virtue to nod and accept the statement of whomever wishes to make the claim that they are indeed "saved by grace"? Look, let's set aside the contentious "gay marriage" disagreement and go to something on which we can agree. Let's say it's a Jeffrey-Dahmer-type person who kills and dismembers people for fun. He claims to be "saved by grace" and claims that he has placed his "faith in Christ" and is offended that you would question his salvation. Of course, you know better than to go over to his house for dinner because you know he's still killing and dismembering people and even defends it. So, no, you shouldn't question this guy's salvation because he is "saved by grace alone through faith alone" and your petty little "what about capital murder?" kind of questions puts salvation on a works-basis! Heretic!
Me? I'd question. With the other's best at heart, I'd want to ask them to reconsider their claim of being a Christian. I'd be concerned, as Peter was (2 Peter 1:10), of self-delusion. I know that there are people who think they are among the elect but are not (Matt 7:21). I also believe that the Holy Spirit works in those who are His and that, allowing for time, change must occur in their thinking and behavior to become more in line with God's views and commands. I know that there are people who think they're placing their faith in Christ when it turns out that the "Christ" in whom they're placing their trust isn't the Christ of the Bible. That doesn't help. James warns, "Even the demons believe, and they have the good sense to be scared." So people who press on without any shift in perspective or behavior are in danger of being self-deceived, and if I care about them, it would be incumbent upon me to question their salvation.
Is grace sufficient to save? Certainly. Are we saved through faith alone? Absolutely. But if we stop there, then we are operating, in the final analysis, in a realm that is not populated by a Sovereign God who changes hearts and produces the results He plans to produce. His elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. If there is no conformation, there is no confirmation. We are not saved by proper doctrine or perfect behavior, but God will accomplish what He intends in His own. If we care about one another, I think we should keep that in mind.
2 comments:
Stan,
Perhaps you are aware, or perhaps not, but it was I who provoked that discussion to which you refer. Of course, the host chose to "clarify" by asking a question that doesn't accurately reflect my position in the least. And then, of course, he also continues to feign graciousness by "admitting" he could be mistaken and so can I.
Without getting into the particulars of how he, and others like him, fail to fill the holes their defense of bad behavior leaves behind, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly be "mistaken" on the issue of homosexuality as opposed to willfully ignoring or distorting Scripture.
But I refer to that topic as the best example of where they go wrong in their theology and the question to which I was trying to provoke an honest response was this: "How far astray from the teachings of Scripture can one be without worshiping a false god?"
This question really leaves out distinction between conscious and unconscious sinning. But imagine if one were to live a life where every aspect of his understanding of acceptable human behavior were opposite God's Will and intention? Especially as I understand YOUR perspective, this would obviously illustrate a clear example of one not among the elect. Would his sincerity matter in the equation? That is, if he truly believes he is right with God, while being totally in the wrong, is grace gonna save the dude?
While this is a question I would not deign to answer as if I have the authority to judge, I feel compelled to speculate that the dude is at risk. How much worse then for those like the host of that blog who insist their perspective is correct, especially in the face of thousands of years of understanding as well as current scholarly knowledge of those who do not profit by the facts going in any direction?
Saddest is the reaction, always most angrily defensive, as if the goal is merely to cramp their style.
If it can get worse, it would have to be the host's claim that the Holy Spirit led him to his current corrupt understanding. His previous understanding was no better for the flaws that existed then, but his "prayerful meditations" have done him no good.
A final thought on the matter: If one is sincerely believing that which is clearly not true, that's one thing. Perhaps one could make the argument that God would overlook such a thing, despite considerations of His sense of justice. But it really doesn't end there, as others can be corrupted as well. The Bible is really clear on the matter of false teachers. Expressing opinions on a public medium such as blogs would have to fall under the heading of teaching to some extent.
What? You provoke an argument? Never happened!
It seems to me that there is a panorama, a series of gradations, from "This is absolutely, completely, fundamentally true without any question" to "It's hard to find two people who agree on what this is." The higher up the line on this scale (the clearer it is), the more willing I am to wonder, "If you deny this, should I believe you're a Christian?"
Jesus said many would be confused, thinking they were saved when they were not. I think it's a viable and loving question.
One other thing. There is a difference between ignorance and denial. It's one thing to not know and another entirely to know and deny. I'm not concerned (as an example) about the new Christian who never heard of the Trinity, but for the one that has and denies it I am deeply concerned.
Post a Comment