March 28, 2007
-
how is one 'saved'?
How exactly does one become "saved", according to the Bible, and what exactly takes place?
This past year feels like it's been an "education" or at least a "challenge" along the lines of this question. I have been exposed to friends answering the question from many different perspectives, and I am still sorting through what exactly the Bible has to say about this.
- From the Bible study I'm going to (on Galatians), Tim Keller presents a Reformed/Lutheran perspective (http://godsquad.com/discipleship/galatians/index.htm) similar to http://www.monergism.com/ ... Salvation is by faith alone (though it always produces works). We must strive to avoid all "functional saviors" besides Christ. The gospel is not the attitude of the "younger brother" in the Prodigal story (eat, drink and be merry, ignore God, etc), nor the "elder brother" (follow the rules, earn my own salvation). Instead, it's "I am more wicked than I ever imagined, but God's grace is greater than I have ever dared to dream."
- I have a dear friend who says that he wants to be saved, but he doesn't want to give up a particular sin in his life. Does the Bible teach that he must be willing to give up all sin in his life in order to be saved ("Lordship salvation"), or only that he must believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is Who He claimed to be?
- From http://www.reasoningbygrace.org/articles.htm - not only is salvation by grace alone, but those who neglect to emphasise this enough are preaching a false gospel (e.g. Rick Warren, Billy Graham and his inclusion of Catholics, etc). See also the very sobering "Honey from the Rock" by Thomas Wilcox.
- From my Mormon friends and my Catholic friends - salvation requires both faith and works. Faith alone is not enough - and James 2:24 "proves" this. Plus a bunch of verses in the Book of Mormon or a bunch of church traditions. Mormons also believe along with many other religions that everyone will eventually be saved, as far as I understand. This is obviously difficult to reconcile with the Bible.
- From my Postmodern Type1 friends - N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul - NPP - Traditional Christianity has interpreted Paul all wrong. Instead of the heart of the Gospel being the offer of "being made righteous" by legal imputation of Christ's righteousness, NPP claims that the heart of the Gospel is God's fulfilling his promise to those who are righteous in themselves; to those who are covenant members of the Kingdom of God. N.T.Wright and others claim that their teaching "includes" the idea of salvation from personal sin, but "enhances" it and goes further to present the "complete" gospel.
- From my Postmodern Type2 friends - Dallas Willard and "the disciplines" of the Christian life... It is not enough simply to "be saved" - one must walk in the spiritual disciplines in order to grow in Christ. “A discipline for the spiritual life is…nothing but an activity undertaken to bring us into more effective cooperation with Christ and his Kingdom .” Such as: "disciplines of abstinence": solitude, silence, fasting, frugality, chastity, secrecy, and sacrifice... and "disciplines of engagement": study, worship, celebration, service, prayer, fellowship, confession, and submission.
On the one hand it sounds similar to 2 Peter 1:5-10. And certainly Jesus fasted and spent time alone, etc. On the other hand, some of the "ascetic"/"gnostic"/"you-need-this-secret-or-else-you-can't-live-the-full-christian-life"/"Christ-is-not-enough" sounding tendencies seem to go against Colossians 2:1-13, etc."Behind" all of these contemporary views, we feel the constant undertow that is the spirit of the age. This worldview is above all pluralistic and syncretistic - constantly trying to avoid anything "absolute". It is a reaction against modernism/early-humanism and the failure of Enlightenment thought... a reaction against the World-Wars, a reaction against the perception of unloving, argumentative Christians and their 'doctrinal wars', and a consequence of the global interconnectedness through which the beliefs of all other cultures (especially eastern- Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam) are now visible all around us...
The devil keeps trying always to use the world's reigning philosophies to swing the pendulum of Christian theology away from truth. In the second, third, and fourth centuries, multitudes of heresies sprang up in the church, and had to be countered by the people of God. In the time of the Reformation, the pendulum swung away from salvation-by-works, but some reformed people were carried in the opposite direction to hypercalvinism. In the time of the Modernists, reacting to Darwin and the higher critics, the pendulum swung away from denying the miracles of the Bible (Lewis, McDowell), but some Christians adopted a strident anti-intellectual fundamentalism ("The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it").
A knowledge of where contemporary culture is trying to push us is helpful, but simply 'reacting against the world's philosophy' is dangerous. Instead, we must hold to the Bible as our source of truth (not blindly/presuppositionally, but in an informed way).
As for the salvation questions discussed above, I am currently thinking that the "monergism" and "Lordship" views are closest to the truth of the Bible, though the idea of a secondary judgement based on works also seems very biblical (for the unsaved, Luke 12:35-48, and for the saved, 2 Cor. 5:9-11... Rev. 20:15 seems to discuss the "binary" savedness-or-unsavedness, and Rev. 20:13 seems to discuss the tiny "gradations" within those two huge categories... for more info see also Matthew 5:7, 6:14-21, 7:13-14, 11:20-24, 12:33-37, 20:20-28, 23:11-12, Luke 13:23-30, John 5:22-30, Acts 24:25, Romans 2:5, 8:1, 8:33ff, 14:10, 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, 4:1-5, 11:29, Phil. 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 1:4-12, James 2:13, 3:1, 1 Peter 4:15-19, 1 John 4:17).
What are your thoughts on salvation? I will greatly appreciate reading your thoughts on these things.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -- Jesus, Matthew 7:15
"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." -- Paul, Acts 20:29-30
Comments (11)
What an interesting question about giving up sins. I don't think one must to become a Christian, but if one is truly a Christian, a follower of Christ, to blithely cling to the world doesn't seem right behavior. But, I know I have sins to which I hold fast, much to my shame.
We must always start with the gospel (defined in I Cor. 15: 1-8). We may not invent our own gospel that we think will "clean people up". Salvation and regeneration always precede sanctification. However... I take issue with the little word "only" in your phrase "only that he must believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is Who He claimed to be?" If someone "only" believes the gospel, is that enough for salvation? Has your friend truly and carefully considered the credentials of Christ based on the messianic prophecies and the eyewitnesses? Does your firend truly love Christ or is your friend just looking for fire insurance? Bear in mind that if your friend after coming to faith continues to live in flagrant sin, it is the church's responsibility to confront him about it. If he refuses to listen, he is to be considered "as a Gentile and a tax collector."
My wife asked me what a righteous man is. I told her that it is someone whose sins have been atoned for, not someone who seems to live a virtuous life.
When I was a Christian, I was always bothered by the concept that it boiled down to what you thought, not what you did that determined your afterlife. Why would the nicest person, be they a non-Christian, not get into heaven? It was one of the things I was never quite able to reconcile, hence the whole atheism thing.
TeacherPerson and soccerdadforlife, I agree very much with what you wrote.
Kris, I know what you mean. I used to wonder a lot about the same thing. One thing that helps me see this in better perspective is the fact that we are all sinners who deserve hell. For example, a lot of people who know me a little might consider me a very "nice" person, possibly even 'deserving of heaven'. But according to God I'm a wicked sinner who deserves eternal death. Several years back I came to realize this, and I subsequently asked God to save me, and I believe that He took away my sins and imputed righteousness to me, so that I am now headed to heaven, a place I most decidedly do not deserve to go to.
Anyway, all of that to say, I now understand much better how wicked I really am... over the years I've seen stuff come out of my heart and mind that is very bad. The Bible's teaching now makes much more sense to me that "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". That is an incredible understatement. I have some idea of the difference between the way I look on the outside and the way my (old) inner self really is (was). It is easier for me to understand that everyone else in the world is in the same basic situation.
BL: [Why would the nicest person, be they a non-Christian, not get into heaven?]
The "nicest person" is a filthy, wretched scum in God's sight and deserving of eternal torment. As Paul puts it, "all our righteous deeds are like putrid menstrual rags." If that's what our righteous deeds are like, imagine how much worse our sins are. Everybody has committed more sins than you want to take time to count. If we could see ourselves like God does, we would all agree with Him about mankind and sin. Try examining yourself honestly (including your thought life!) sometime to see just how "nice" you are. Even the holiest saint has enough sin in him to stoke the fires of hell; were it not for Christ's atonement, that's where he would end up.
The standard we must meet in order to do the works of the Law is Jesus Christ. Unless our works are as perfect as His, our works will still merit the death penalty. When it comes to purity of motives, how can we match His love? He laid down His life for us while we were still sinners.
"Does the Bible teach that he must be willing to give up all sin in his life in order to be saved ("Lordship salvation"), or only that he must believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is Who He claimed to be?"
Willingness to give up sins comes with faith and sanctificaion and is a process, and is not an initiation. Also, there is no way that an unsaved person can pinpoint each of his sins before he is saved. Even as a saved person, I am regularly convicted of actions, thoughts, and motivations that I was not previously aware where wrong. This sort of enlightenment only comes with the conviction of the Holy Spirit and an ever increasing understanding of God's word.
Salvation is as basic as knowing that you do not measure up to God's perfect standard, but having faith that Jesus's work on the cross makes up for it. The works come as a result of gratitude and are a method of showing God's role in your life to others, so that others can also realize the truth of God's word. James says that faith without works is dead, I would liken this to the idea of "where there is smoke, there is fire." Although smoke is an inevidable result of fire, smoke is not required to have a fire. Similarly, works are the smoke of faith.
interstellarmachine, good thoughts..
Kris wrote: "the concept that it boiled down to what you thought, not what you did that determined your afterlife."
Another thing I've come to realize is that this approach, by God the ultimate Judge who knows every thought of every person's heart, is actually much more "fair" than if people were judged only on their actions. For example, people are born into this world with different sets of genes, into different family environments and cultures, etc. If God were only judging on outward actions, some people would have an "unfair advantage." But instead He judges on the inward heart attitude.
A Pharisee who looked really good on the outside while full of sin on the inside (and while denying his own sin and thinking that he was a very good person and didn't need any help from God... in fact, maybe he's even a little better than God), will be truly/fully judged (Romans 2), not just on outward appearances. Whereas a "bad person" - a prostitute who had been born into poverty and a tough city environment, but who knew her own sinful heart and humbled herself and prayed to Jesus for mercy, God delights to save (apply Jesus' voluntary death-for-sins to her)... and she will be judged on the end truly as well... based not primarily on her life's deeds, but on her attitude toward God.
God can see into the hearts of people... we cannot.
the attitude toward God, that's the key... I don't think a person has to consciously think, "I'm willing to give up X." They have to be willing to surrender their rebellion to God. To say, "yes" to God, where they had said 'no.'
I like Lewis' analogy to the dentist's chair: a person goes to the dentist because their teeth hurt, and when you sit down in the chair, the dentist is going to do whatever it takes to fix your teeth, whether you like it or not. God doesn't ask us for permission to do individual modifications -- he asks us to trust him.
"The basis for salvation in any age is taking God at his Word."
Chris Miller, OT prof
and it does boil down to what you do -- but what you decide to think is part of what you do, and often the part that most accurately predicts what you'll do externally.
I appreciate your comment and will gladly clarify myself on this very challenging issue. From the study of thermodynamics we do find that the fixed energy of this universe is always preserved and that entropy in isolated systems always increases. At least, that is true for non-living matter and chemical interactions/heat exchange processes. There is some evidence to suggest, however, that the law does not necessarily hold for living entities. Let us take a human being as a closed system, for example. What is not known, is that the human body radiates more energy during the day than it can take in form of food(some will say it only radiates as little energy as a light bulb, but it is only because they derive this quantaty from the accepted food intake energy value of about 2000 cal on average). Add to that also the considerable energy required to digest the food, and you will be convinced is that there is no way that some bread and milk( a diet on which you can survive) can keep you going. It is simply impossible. This misconception is the reason why there is still no definite way to lose or gain weight. The metabolism of our body is much more complex than the cycles of chemical reactions currently known by the scientists. Therese Neumann can be named as one of the people who could survive on as little as one communion wafer a day. There are saints who don't eat at all, but that's another story. An insight into the second law of thermodynamics will tell you that unlike all physical reactions which tend always to increase entropy, living beings are actually capable decreasing entropy, even if it is only for a time period. There is much hype about biofields and other phenomena out there, but there is also truth - only a very careful study will lead one to the truth. (I haven't done enough research myself) The fact is, as St.Paul had stated, a human being is not just a body, but "a living soul". Now, of Hinduism. If you ask any true hindu he/she will no doubt tell you that Hinduism is a definately monotheistic religion, and not polytheistic. The different manifestations, or demigods are mere forms, aspects of one and the same entity, - the Absolute, the Supersoul, one omnipotent and omnipresent Being, God. Those who worhip a certain aspect, or demigod will, after they leave this world, go to one of the astral planets according to the degree of karma, later possibly returning to earth. If, however, one worhips a universal, one identity of the Universal Father he will eventually attain his ultimate destination(being one with God). Simply said, it is a matter of approach. Although meditation on the Supersoul as one and unversal source of all existence is said to be most efficient and rewarding. I haven't quite read the Vedas, but so much is certain from the Bhagavad Gita and The Autobiography of a Yogi, - the main two sources from which stems my knowledge of Hinduism. The Holy Science, a very rare book indeed(and regretably so) outlines many essential similarities between christianity and hinduism. Sri Yuktewar doesn't draw direct scripture quote parallels but does give bible quotes at the end of each chapter which correspond to the expounded hindu sutras. In fact, until I read the book, I could not very well understand the Revelation. Soon, I shall post a more profound paper on the similarities of these two religions and also of sufism, taoism and some others. As of Buddhism, it is essentially true, and I think that you have yourself shown many basic similarities of the christian and buddhist teachings. What Buddhism seems to neglect is the path to God by means of a devotional and unconditional service through work, that is my opinion. I hope that you will find this helpful.
Comments are closed.