Salvation By Being Good?
I was cruising through a forum on MyPraize.com recently. (MyPraize is a Christian alternative to MySpace, and a friend asked me to be a forum administrator on there and contribute a comment from time to time.) Anyway, in a thread on the topic of whether or not a person can fall away from the faith, I saw this question posed by a member named "Tom" (I changed his name):It is possible and common for people to attend church, understand scripture, taste what God can offer, even take moral steps in accordance with God’s commands and not actually be saved?
Here's my reply to him:
"Tom," I think the answer to your question, sadly, is yes.A "salvation" that does not produce true Christian holiness in the life of the believer is no salvation at all.
Consider the rich man in Mark 10. He was able to identify who Jesus was (v. 17), he came to him asking for help (v. 17), had kept the commandments since his youth (v. 20), and had always been honest in his business affairs. He was a good person. But he wasn't willing to give his whole life away for the sake of following Jesus to Jerusalem (IE. to the cross).
Consider the words of John Wesley when describing what saving faith actually is (Sermon #1, Salvation by Faith). It's not the "faith of the heathen," who have a basic sense of right from wrong. It's not the "faith of the devil," who believes that God exists and affirms the divinity of Jesus. It's not the faith the disciples had prior to Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and Pentecost. It's more than intellectual assent to a creed or statement of faith. No, saving faith is a belief in the gospel as God’s whole revelation to mankind. It is a conviction of Christ’s divinity and a trust in his merits. It is a full reliance on the blood of Christ, and a fully trusting response to grace. It is a sure trust in the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, and confidence that Christ died for my sins. In sum, it is a disposition of the heart.
In Mark 10, faith in Jesus meant forsaking all and abandoning the self for the sake of following him. How many Christians do you know who actually do this? In America, our brand of Christianity is usually not much more than cheap psychotherapy. We only want God to fill some self-perceived emotional void in our lives. We want Him to be everything we think we need Him to be for us, but we're not willing to be everything He wants us to be for Him. We want "unconditional love" from God, but we don't want to consecrate our whole lives to Him. We want the benefits of His atonement, but we don't want it to actually change our behavior. God's salvation in our lives is not so that we can simply "feel" good. It has vast ethical ramifications. The work God does in the life of a believer should change the way that person thinks, speaks, and acts. Salvation is so much more than attending church, understanding Scripture, tasting what God has to offer, and taking moral steps in accordance with God's commands.
Labels: theology
6 Comments:
While I do beleive this is possible... may I add that I'm not sure it's probable.
If one continually places themselves in the avenue of grace, it become more and more difficult to reject it. CS Lewis once said "A young atheist must be careful what he reads" for fear that he may become converted.
Is it possible that you are putting a high standard on conversion (much like the apostle Paul would) where Wesley would likely see these traits come later in the life of a Christian?
Hmm...good question, Aaron.
First off, I would probably have to clarify my comments a little by saying that I wasn't talking about "conversion" in the sense of a definite crisis experience. I think I was speaking of "salvation" more generally. Granted, by my mentioning Wesley's descriptions of "saving faith" one could argue that those had to do with faith at the moment of conversion, and rightfully so. But the whole point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between the faith Wesley describes as true saving faith and the faith that many people think that saves them. The argument here is against nominalism produced by bad theology, not necessarily everything involved in a particular work of grace.
With all that said -- yes, I do have a very high view of conversion, and I wouldn't say that Wesley didn't. In fact, the more I read Wesley the more I realize just how low most "Wesleyans" treat justification compared to Wesley himself. No, I don't believe that people are "saved" and "sanctified" in the same instant (while still a remote possibility). Instead -- like Wesley -- I believe that conversion as a result of true saving faith breaks the power in sin in the believer.
So, back to the original question: It is possible and common for people to attend church, understand scripture, taste what God can offer, even take moral steps in accordance with God’s commands and not actually be saved? The answer is yes. There are many who, like the rich man in Mark 10, who are "good" people and do all the right things, but they never truly exercise saving faith, a faith that "abandons all" in a "fully trusting response to grace." The gospel in America is too weak, and I think it's time we preached a conversion/salvation that is real and substantial, one that actually costs the believer something; not mere therapy for felt needs common to modern pragmatic evangelicalism.
Thanks, Aaron, for your comment. I invite you as well as others to respond.
"not mere therapy for felt needs common to modern pragmatic evangelicalism."
Spoken like an emergant ... watch out ;-)
Would you then say that "conversion" becomes more of a process and less a "crisis experience" and that one could get their "ticket to heaven" without being "converted" per se? Justification before regeneration?
I agree Wesley expected much for a complete conversion, but he also was an advocate of "we are judged according to the light we are given."
HA! You're well read my good man. Just don't lump me into the same category as an emergent, although I'll take as mine what they do best, and that is critique modern evangelicalism.
I would say that "conversion" is a process that leads to a crisis, just the same as I would say about entire sanctification, and it may certainly very well be much more than the Billy Graham model of simply coming to the alter, praying the "sinner's prayer," and then that's it. Allow me to quote myself from my work on "John Wesley's Theology of Justification (warning: PDF link):"
Saving faith ushers in true conversion. Wesley defined conversion as both a relative change (in status before God) as well as a real change (ontologically).
The relative change, the one that comes first, occurs at justification. In sermon #5, “Justification by Faith,” Wesley tells us that justification is the work that God does for us. It is not being made actually just and righteous, but instead it is pardon and forgiveness of sins. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, and the believer’s sins are covered, although God does not only see Christ as in the Reformed tradition.
The real change that takes place in conversion is the new birth. The new
birth (regeneration) is concomitant with justification, yet logically distinguished from it. While justification precedes the new birth in logic, the two occur simultaneously. Where justification is what God does for us, the new birth is what God does in us. It is a real change. Although it is not a full and perfect new birth, it is being made alive once again.
Hope that helps clarify where I stand.
Warmest Greetings,
Sean, I really enjoy your blog. I would like to post more but my writing skills are not the best. You mentioned in your response that to Aaron that your view of conversion would “certainly very well be much more than the Billy Graham model of simply coming to the alter, praying the "sinner's prayer," and then that's it.” This has been my problem with modern day evangelism, we have what I call microwave evangelism…two minutes at the altar and the preacher tells you are saved (I guess the Holy Spirit is out of the “beading witness” business). In addition what about what Jesus says in Luke 14:25 -35. Today we don’t preach the whole gospel and when we do it’s only about forgiveness and not a life “transformed and unhindered.” Bonheoffer called this Cheap Grace. Wesley said: By salvation I mean, not barely (according to the vulgar notion) deliverance from hell, or going to heaven, but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth. This implies all holy and heavenly tempers, and by consequence all holiness of conversation” (A Farther Appeal to Mean of Reason and Religion). Vulgar in his day meant the popular (I hear). About Wesleyan not being so Wesley…amen and amen. Look forward to reading some more post.
Grace and Peace
HK
Heath,
Thank you for the compliments, and thank you for your comment. It's refreshing to hear someone else recall Wesley's articulation of salvation as a "present deliverance from sin." Our "microwave" Christianity in America only wants a present deliverance from the guilt of sin instead of sin itself (its nature and power), therefore we preach a "Father's unconditional love" but say nothing of its ethical implications nor the vast transformational nature of grace.
Keep coming back to this blog and commenting. Your words are deeper and more lucid than you might give yourself credit for.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog