Recently, a friend gave
me two pamphlets and asked for my opinion of them. Both focus on what it means
to become a Christian, and I would classify both as Evangelical Protestant
documents. But they still have a good deal of difference between them,
representing disagreement that exists between a number of churches (and even
members of the same churches) under the wide banner of Evangelical
Christianity. As is so often the case when it comes to my relations to other
Christians, I do not completely agree or disagree with either of the positions
presented by them. I also know I cannot present my own opinion in such a way
that it will be completely satisfying to everyone else. Nevertheless, I intend
to give my best attempt. I am going to go over each of these documents,
specifically pointing out the areas I would criticize, and then I will conclude
by presenting my own synthesis of what I consider to be their best ideas and my
own ideas for what it means to become a Christian.
“The Gospel”
The first pamphlet I
read was "The Gospel" by Ron Shea. The hyperlink I provided will take you to a copy,
but unfortunately, I do not think it has examples of what I consider to be one
of the greatest flaws of the booklet: the 1980’s illustrations. They are not
exactly high art. Nor are they entirely helpful. On one page, for example, a
drawing shows a massive fist being dropped on a frightened, ragged man. It
distracts from the point the author makes about punishment being earned, and
suggests that God is cruel. I cannot know if Shea chose these illustrations,
but I hope not. I also think not. The actual words of the pamphlet draw
attention to the justice of God, His holiness and the fact that sin cannot
exist in His presence. It is perhaps unfair of me to say this about such a
simple drawing, but it evokes nothing of the patience of God, which is the only
thing we have keeping us from destruction at any given moment (the point made
so poignantly by Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”).
Does God punish? Yes. But not with the gracelessness the illustration suggests.
It, along with the others, is simply off-putting to me.
Of course, that is all
subjective. What about something substantive? To discuss that, I need to
explain the basic premise of the booklet (for which you can get a better feel
by reading it yourself). This is the type of pamphlet you frequently see in the
foyer of a church, a relatively short and simplistic introduction to an
important topic to make it easier for an unbeliever to find answers to a
certain question, or as a help for inexperienced Christians to share such
answers. It explains the problem of sin, the substitutionary atonement through
Christ, faith, grace, and repentance, assurance and eternal security, and steps
to take to remain rooted. In describing all these things, there is no doubt the
author believes salvation comes solely and finally through nothing more than
faithfully accepting the grace offered through the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. To add anything else to access this grace is to refuse it. The
comparison he draws is to liken it to one friend giving a gift to another. If
the giftee were to offer money to his friend in return, the gifter might then
refuse to hand the gift over. After all, if he is paid for it, it is something
he then owes the buyer. For it to be a true gift, it must be freely given. Shea
then uses Romans 4:4 to show that this is the same with the gift of salvation offered by
God.
So we can see, then,
that Shea’s emphasis is fairly clear. Salvation is not a matter of following
rules, but of accepting a freely offered gift. In my opinion, though, the
greatest weaknesses come in when he attempts to explain eternal security and to
point out the flaws in the theologies of others. To take the first problem
first, let me begin with the full disclosure that I believe in a form, at
least, of eternal security. My reading of the Scripture leads me to believe that
someone who becomes a Christian remains a Christian. But that does not mean
someone who makes a confession of faith can then live a completely faithless
life and then expect to escape almost entirely without consequences. And that,
unfortunately, seems to be Shea’s position. He makes a nod to natural
consequences in this life, and to the potential loss of rewards in heaven. But
this allows for “skin of their teeth” thinking, that someone can just barely
make it into Paradise. In one sense, we all just barely make it because we
cannot be good enough to earn it. In another sense, we make it abundantly
because the way is fully supplied by Christ. Shea misses an opportunity to
explain this by completely misinterpreting three passages of Scripture. He
takes Hebrews 12:14-17, Luke 19:11-27, and Matthew 25:14-30 to describe situations where legitimately saved people have been
punished in heaven with the loss of all they might have had in heaven, but not
with the loss of their own souls. That is clearly wrong, and Matthew 25:14-30
is the clearest proof of that. In verses 29, 30, Jesus says that the wicked
servant will be thrown out “into the outer darkness” where “there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Does that sound like heaven to you? It shouldn’t,
since it is the exact same phrase Jesus uses to describe hell in Luke 13:22-30. Beyond that, there are also the words of Revelation 21:4 to tell us there will be no tears or sadness in heaven. So where are
Shea’s weeping, barely-there saints? The real question about the situations
described in the passages Shea cites is whether the people mentioned were never
truly saved in the first place, or whether they were and lost their salvation.
Without being able to see into their hearts, we cannot know. I lean towards the
former because of passages like Romans 8:38, 39 that speak to the unconquerable power of God’s love, and ones
like John 3:5-8 that speak of the birth of a brand new nature, which taken together
show that the new life of the Christian is one which cannot be ended. Those who
would disagree with me and think of apostasy as a possibility would point to
verses like Hebrews 6:4-8 and Galatians 5:4 to show that personal salvation can be lost. Whatever the case may be,
neither side can be absolutely proved because we cannot see into another
person’s soul. We can only gauge actions, which can be markers of the state of
someone’s inner life. From there we can guess what a person needs to hear. But
how anyone could look at the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 and see it as
saying the wicked servant is safe, is beyond me. It is an attempt to ignore a
“problematic” passage rather than addressing it directly.
Another problem with
Shea’s pamphlet comes when he discusses his opinion of other Christians. When
describing repentance, he says “Faith in Jesus will not save you if, while
believing that Jesus died for your sins, you also believe that you must be
baptized, go to church, or obey the Ten Commandments to ‘help’ get you to
heaven. You cannot simply add Jesus to a long list of other things that you
must do or be to get to heaven. You must utterly reject all of those other
things as having no saving value whatsoever and trust in Jesus Christ alone.” Personally,
I agree almost entirely with this. But the biggest problem I have with it, and
with the whole document as a result, is in that very first statement: “Faith in
Jesus will not save you if.…” I agree, nothing other than faith in Jesus will
“help” us get into heaven. But if someone has that primary faith, and calls it
primary, then why would the addendum of rituals to access grace be considered
an unforgivable sin? How can that be, when nothing else is, and even living a
life untouched by virtue is not cause for alarm (according to Shea)? As long as
there is agreement on essentials, there is room for liberty on nonessential
things. And the essential thing is knowing that Jesus is the only way to
heaven, and nothing we do gets us there. If someone thinks this knowledge, this
faith is only finalized through the performance of certain actions, I will
disagree with him, but I will not judge his salvation. That is going too far.
What really matters is that “in every way, whether in pretense or in truth,
Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice” (Philippians 1:18). So long as that is done, so long as the works themselves do not
actually do the saving in someone else’s theology, then my disagreement with him
is more about nuance than necessary truth.
“Salvation According to Jesus”
With all that said, we
can move on the other pamphlet. “"Salvation According to Jesus" by William Webster is more of a polemic than “The
Gospel.” Its purpose is not so much to explain the basics as it is to defend a
position, and as a result it is a bit more complex and argumentative. In
essence, it is exactly what I am doing here. Which is partly why I have a
problem with it. Not that it is bad to be argumentative, but you need to
understand your target. I felt while reading it, especially after finishing it,
that Webster was looking for a fight where there wasn’t one. In order to
further explain what I mean, let me once again summarize the key point.
Webster’s purpose in
this article is to show that salvation is not simply a matter of accepting the
grace offered through the sacrifice of Jesus. That is a part of it for him, but
to be a Christian one must also be a disciple, which means acknowledging Jesus
not only as Savior but also as Lord. According to Webster, we must not only
believe in Jesus but also follow Him by giving up our self-will. This position
is often called “Lordship Salvation,” and clearly it is at variance with the
opinion represented by Shea. Webster and those of a mind with him are
suggesting that salvation is not only a matter of what you believe, but of what
you do.
That was my first
problem with the piece, and it stuck with me almost the whole way through my
reading of it. There is very little distance between Webster’s stance and
perfectionism or legalism. To say you must act a certain way to become a
Christian is to say, in essence, that works are necessary to the reception of
grace, and that the works must be maintained or the grace will be lost. This
establishes an impossible standard. Even if it were hypothetically possible, no
mere mortal has ever accomplished it. Personally, I do not think anyone ever
will. And if it is taught along with the belief that failure leads to
condemnation, it will cause terror and insecurity. To be forced to be perfect
is to constantly walk on eggshells for fear of being destroyed, rather than
living free and victorious in the love of Jesus.
Webster does not
outright proclaim perfectionism, but he does suggest something close to it and
he does an admittedly excellent job of using numerous passages of Scripture to
back it up. Particularly, he gives the words of Jesus Himself in Mark 8:34-37, Matthew 11:28-30, and John 12:24-26 to show that the Lord called his disciples to give up their own
desires, take up His burden, and die with Him. But what Webster does not do is
discuss passages like John 3:16 and Romans 10:9, 10. These passages, however, suggest that salvation begins simply
with belief and that nothing we do can add to it or make it real.
Webster attempts to
make a bit of an answer to this in his brief discussion of Ephesians 2:8, 9. He admits that works cannot save and that attempts to rely on
self-righteousness will lead to destruction. His willingness to say so, in
spite of my feelings for how he insists on discipleship as an element of
salvation, is why I do not have the questions about his salvation that I feel
Shea would. Webster makes a distinction, however, between self-righteousness
and self-rule, saying we must give up the former works but also work to give up
the latter. And I consider that to be a problem if it is improperly understood.
There is a very subtle difference here, but what a difference it makes. Webster
says, in essence, that one must make Jesus the Lord of his life and give up the
self in order to become a Christian.
I would say one must make Jesus the Lord of his life and give up the self in
order to be a Christian. This level
of submission to God is not so much a prerequisite of salvation as it is a
proof of it. I say this because I believe it is only possible through the power
of the Holy Spirit, and He only indwells us after we have become the children
of God. His presence is the proof of our adoption, and He empowers us to follow
the Lord as His disciples (Romans 8:9-17). If someone claims to be a Christian but does not evidence the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit by a changed and increasingly holy life, then it
would be reasonable to guess he is not a Christian and never has been. But that
means he never had faith in Christ in order to receive the Holy Spirit, not
that he had the faith but lacked a commitment to Christ as Lord.
Perhaps the most
deplorable element of this article, though, is the section on false prophets.
Webster as much as says that anyone who disagrees with him is an unsaved
heretic, even though they might have an orthodox faith in Christ. This
unfortunate section goes from arguing to attacking, and ironically shows the
same arrogance as the similar section in Shea’s work. There is no room for
dissent. If you do not add a commitment to obedience on top of faith, then you
are not saved. This, in spite of the fact that a committed Christian life
cannot be lived apart from the power of Christ that only comes with that faith.
I disagree with Webster, but at least I do not think he is going to hell or
leading others there, as he would apparently say of me.
For all the problems
with Webster’s argument, he closes on a much better note. In the last few
sections, he finally defines what it means to make a commitment to Christ. And
when he does, he waters down the rest of his argument so much that I am left to
wonder which part represents his actual views. Where most of the article
implied that sanctification needed to be flawlessly maintained throughout life,
in closing he admits that there is a distinction between initial and ongoing sanctification.
The latter is a process that takes a lifetime and has missteps. But the former
is the initial decision to follow Jesus, the choice to accept His grace and acknowledge
His godhood. It is this decision that brings about salvation. At this point,
Webster’s argument actually reflects Shea’s. That is because it comes down to a
question of what it means to have faith in Christ. To trust Jesus is to believe
that He had the power to cover all sins with His blood, and to rise from the
dead. Anyone who believes this and relies of Him believes that Jesus is God,
because it could not have been done otherwise. The two are inseparable. To have
faith in Christ is to accept Him as Lord. So in that sense, Webster is right.
But he is actually the one making it into a separate step in the process
instead of recognizing that it is inherent in the original decision. That is
why I said earlier I think he was picking a fight where there wasn’t one. He
created a false dichotomy in order to argue a point that did not need to be
made.
Synthesis
It is ironic to see the
ways in which Shea and Webster are wrong. In spite of their disagreement, their
errors are the same. Both ignore scriptures that go against their positions,
and both are arrogant enough to condemn those who disagree with them over
nonessential things. But really, in spite of their mistakes, there is a lot of
good in both positions, and by synthesizing them, I think we come closer to
understanding what it truly means to become a Christian. Becoming a Christian
begins with Jesus Christ. He loved us before we could love Him, and came to
offer us salvation by paying the price for our sins (1 John 4:10). The work is all His. He wiped away all the requirements against
us and offers us the cleansing of our souls (Colossians 2:13, 14). And so, as He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The work is done. Our only part in the process is to acknowledge we
need forgiveness, that we cannot earn it, and then to accept it. When we do, we
are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 14; 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22), enabling us to live committed to the Lord who saved
us. This is faith. But it must be a true faith that results in action. To claim
to know the truth is not the same as relying on it or allowing it to change you
(James 2:18-20). There are many who desire the benefits of discipleship without
any of its costs, and their refusal to count them shows that they never
believed they needed saving. They just want to identify with something that
will give them advantages. They have a form of godliness, but none of its power
(2 Timothy 3:1-5). For such people, Jesus is not Lord, nor even Savior, but
insurance. He is their means of entering a culture, and their guess is that if
they are seen serving Him, it will buy their way into heaven. But without
trusting in Him completely, or really at all, they are still in their sins.
Grace is gained through faith alone. And that creates works. Where there are no
works, there is no faith. But everything begins with faith that Jesus saves,
and alone can save. To believe that is to submit to Him, to become an heir to
His promises, and to begin a new life. That is how you become a Christian. If
you have done that, do not rest easy, but rest assured. If you have not,
consider how easy it is to begin because of the hard work already done for you,
if you are willing to acknowledge your guilt, your need, and God’s grace. And
if you are a Christian who needs to tell someone else how to become a Christian
because their life does not show the works of those who have faith, then
remember to keep it simple and tell them what they need to know. It is not your
job to make sure they get it, or accept it. It is only your responsibility to
tell them the truth of what they need and of how to get it. And they only get
it by relying on Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment