You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Gospel' tag.
Although most theologians would be at pains to say that God’s plan of redemption in Jesus was conceived before the world was made, many people see it as a kind of plan B necessary to save a world which failed at plan A namely obedience to God’s Law. Is the New Covenant really a breaking of God’s original plan whereby one was saved by obedience and can now be saved by “easy” beliefs? Paul’s vision in Romans is grander, both are by grace and both require obedience. Read the rest of this entry »
There is an unstated but deep-rooted assumption in most Christian theology that righteousness is exclusively a moral category. That is, a person is perfectly righteous if they are morally perfect and any degrees of righteousness in a person are in a linear and inextricable relationship to the morality of that individual. This righteousness then becomes the basis of God’s judgement of that person and within this framework it is clear that any acquittal (aka justification) requires adequate moral performance.
Interestingly Catholics and Protestants have historically agreed with this assessment – they have however disagreed on the source and scope of that righteousness in justification. Catholics have said God transfers or implants his own righteousness into believers (Infusion) whilst Protestants have held that God reckons Christ’s perfect obedience unto believers (Imputation). In either case moral righteousness or obedience is the key to justification even if it is received by faith as Catholics and Protestants (now) agree it is. The problem is this: if justification is by grace it must be unmerited and both these models clearly require and account for obedient merit. Read the rest of this entry »
Most Christians hold to the doctrine of Original Sin and, however we dress this up for Sunday, on the street, it translates to “people are born guilty because of Adam”. This is a very damaging doctrine because it gives us a picture of God before whom all, even infants, are guilty and under wrath which is difficult to reconcile with a loving God (no matter what some theologians say). Read the rest of this entry »
Have you ever wondered if everyone but the Christian Church is damned to hell? The Reformation gave us back something quite valuable by reminding us that the Bible teaches no hierarchy amongst believers. While some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers all are called to love and serve each other as brothers, in the face-to-face manner of Jesus, a great man yet who walked amongst men as friends and washed their smelly feet.
While it is clear that all followers of Jesus are called to mission, it is far from clear, from Jesus’ teaching, that only his followers would be saved. Let us set aside our black-and-white conception of the world divided into saved Christians and damned non-Christians and consider Jesus’ own words which, as will be plain, contained other categories. What emerges is an inclusive picture of people entering the Kingdom based not on religion or beliefs but on a multitude of other factors. Read the rest of this entry »
Faith is so central to Christianity that it deserves a revisiting occasionally to make sure we really understand what Jesus and the authors of the Bible mean that our justification is “by faith” or that we “live by faith”. This is part 2 in an brief investigation into the term “by faith”. In part 1 I looked at the uses and categories of “by faith” and “through faith” particularly in Paul and in Hebrews. Here follow further thoughts on the various meanings of faith as well as a quick look at Jesus’ use and Calvin’s interpretation.
The Four Faiths
We tend to use the word faith as a synonym for “belief”, yet I think we can discern at least 4 different types of faith:
- Faith is often conceived and preached as something you need to do in order to get some benefit (salvation, healing etc). In this sense it is a kind of willed belief.
- We have “faith” which is simply an impression of reality which we did not choose to believe – i.e. basic assumptions or convictions we hold which cannot be empirically verified which we nevertheless find confirmed in life and consistent with living.
- We then have trusting faith which is a decision to trust someone or something. This is different from believing propositions because it involves courage and a choice in trusting a person’s guidance and providence.
- Finally we have faithfulness which, I think unfortunately, is a different word from “faith”. Faithfulness is essentially active loyalty. In respect to authority, faithfulness is essentially obedience.
Which of these faiths is required of us, or present in us, which brings blessing, salvation and all the good stuff promised those “of the faith”? Types 1 and 2 are propositional, types 3 and 4 are inter-personal.
Jesus and Faith
Although the term “by faith” does not occur in the Gospels, Jesus has much to say on the matter of faith. He often expressed his exasperation (“Oh you of little faith…”) at the kind of faith he saw in his people, Israel. The episodes with the Centurion’s servant, the possesed son, or the Mustard Seed and Mountain seem to indicate that a persons ability to believe in something could make it happen and that Jesus was looking for this kind of faith. A faith which was convinced that God could and would do something amazing. Today we would call this “thinking positive“, perhaps embodied in the Gospel in Jesus’ words.
I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mk 11:24)
Paul goes in this direction near the end of Romans 4 where he seems to commend Abraham for believing God can do it as God is the God who calls things which are not as though they were. Now I don’t doubt the psychological effectiveness of positive thought, I just question whether this is the correct basis for justification.
My understanding of Jesus words is that faith is something God plants in you and that this seed develops into real healing, deliverance and rescue. It’s not so much an issue of will power but of bestowed Grace resulting in an impression of reality (Type 2). Perhaps Jesus recognises “their faith” as God’s hand in bringing about healing and is not primarily praising them for willing belief (Type 1).
Josephus and Faith
A good illustration of how faith was understood in the first century comes from the works of Josephus who describes his experiences as a young officer in the army. Wright tells in The Challenge of Jesus p44 of how he came across a passage where Josephus meets a rebel leader in Palestine and calls him to turn from his rebellious ways and trust Josephus for his agenda (Life p22).
The actual Greek phrase used is the same as Jesus’ call to “repent and believe”. This is stunning evidence that Jesus wasn’t simply calling people to “feel remorse and get religious” but to turn their life around and rally around Jesus and his agenda. It’s like a call to get onboard the Jesus Project more than to have a conversion experience. We’ve softened Jesus own words which amounted to treason and were more political than we’ve wanted to hear. Maybe “repent and believe” is better translated “turn and trust and obey me” (Types 3 and 4).
Reformation and Faith
Many Protestants have read Type 1 faith into Paul and come up with the idea that “if you believe (doctrine) you are saved, you will be”. Today I listened to an evangelist and author talk about the “saving knowledge of Christ”. For many, salvation is about epistemology, a hair’s breadth from Gnosticism.
This is particularly clear in our popular translations of Romans:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom 3:25)
- OR -
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved (Rom 10:9-10)
It seems, if we believe in His blood, or in the Atonement our sins are atoned for. Again, if we believe in the Ressurection we will be saved. I have critiqued this view in another post, it seems rather arbitrary and leads to the widespread idea that we need to think certain thoughts to be saved. Indeed I have often heard in Reformation circles that it is passive faith as opposed to active faith which saves. This seems to be Calvin’s perspective:
Now we shall have a proper definition of faith if we say it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence toward us, which being founded upon the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ is both revealed to our minds and sealed in or hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes III.2.vii).
So, according to Calvin, faith is knowledge, it is not an active response, it’s not faithfulness. Whatever flows from this steady knowledge of God’s Grace is therefore a product, something else but not that saving faith by which we are justified.
Faith is the Basis of Salvation
I understand “Justification by Faith” to mean that we are initially justified by or on the basis offaith and that not “alone” but as part of our repentance. This faith is however not simple belief but the proper response to the call of Jesus to “repent and believe”. We thus have repentance + trust in Messiah = justification and the anticipation of salvation. Thus, Type 3 faith (personal trust) leads to initial justification and this is then evidenced by Type 2 faith. This is then worked out in Type 4 faithfulness which is the basis for final justification.
Many Protestants would argue however that it’s Type 1 faith which leads to justification which is then evidenced by works (Type 4). Calvinists specifically would argue it’s Type 2 faith (a gift of God, Eph 2:8) which leads to justification which then leads to works. Both groups would agree that I am wrong and that there is no difference between initial and final justification and that both are based on faith and Christ’s works.
Conclusion
Faith seems to be more complex than I initially imagined. I do so wish Churches would be teaching more discipleship along the lines of Type 4 (faithfulness) for I believe that this would increase the power of our witness to the world (Mt 5:16) and avoid the Gnostic error of salvation by knowledge. Nevertheless books have been written by protestants railing against this view and it’s a popular topic in American radio to take apart the latest sermon no in-line with certain theology. Indeed any preaching which talks about what we need to do and does not exclusively preach what Christ did is condemned as anti-Gospel, anti-Christo-centric and a “false Gospel”. How is Christ going to find any faithful servants when he returns if we fear to live as he did and rest on what he has done for us?
I remember how visibly shocked an atheist friend of mine was when I told him that the core message of Christianity was NOT a moral one. Perhaps you are shocked and are sure that Christianity’s chief concern is our morality. Perhaps you are well past personal moral striving (self-righteousness) and into justification by faith but still sure that the whole point is our moral dilemma before God and that Jesus is the solution for our guilt as a result of our immorality. I hope to offer a glimmer of a much bigger plan which Jesus announced and is still being unveiled.
I hear again and again that if you believe Jesus died (i.e. atoned) for your sins you are saved. Paul says the Gospel is the power of salvation to all who believe (Rom 1:16) and thus, putting 2 and 2 together we arrive at the formula that the Gospel is, essentially, atonement.
Although this is indeed good news for those who believe it, I’ve argued elsewhere that this is not the real Gospel but a subjective implication. The real Gospel is the royal proclamation of Jesus’ Kingship, a message about Him, true for everyone, a call to all to obedience and allegiance. Nevertheless I’m prepared to consider that I might be wrong and that Atonement is the Gospel and I would like to explore that possibility.
Read the rest of this entry »
Ever since I heard Tim Keller explain that the root of all problems is failure to believe the Gospel I’ve been fascinated by discovering just what exactly “The Gospel” is and how it is the “power of salvation”. What fact could there possibly be which, when believed, saves and totally transforms a person? Part of my discovery came from listening to N.T. Wright argue persuasively that the Gospel is, quote, “Jesus is Lord” and that most of what we consider to be Good News is a consequence of this.
In the evangelical world the Gospel is taken to be the radical and indeed life-transforming truth that we are justified by faith alone apart from works. Implicitly or explicitly we are told, works are bad because they insult the work Jesus did. I’ve discussed why I disagree with this view in Which Gospel and my realisation is that this is a shrunken, individualised and subjective good news which encourages passiveness and occludes the royal announcement of Jesus’ Kingship which is for the whole world to hear.
There is no shortage of good advice today. Self-help books line our shelves but we find ourselves nodding vigorously and yet unable to apply what we learn.
My good friend Ashton has written some deep thoughts on the important topic of how we understand some things with our minds and how, when they really sink in, we understand with our hearts. Indeed, Christians are entreated (commanded) with utmost importance to love God with our whole being: heart, mind, soul, strength. Yet, for the Greeks, the “heart” was more than just the emotions – it was the very core of a person – the center of their primary concerns. Thus if God’s truths are not changing us then either:
- We already knew them and fully understood and practiced the implications (ha!)
OR - They did not resonate with our heart’s true concern and so become real
As Christians, exposed to so much wisdom in one book or in a single preaching, we battle to get the ideas down to our hearts and into practice. The question is: why is this so, and how can we accelerate the process and grow spiritually?
I have noticed that as soon as some new knowledge hits my real concerns (my ultimate values) or gives me a hint that it (the idea) will help me achieve them I will be chasing it like a dog after a stick. If I’m not chasing it, that’s because it doesn’t help me get where I think I need to be. It misses my concerns.
So when I battle to implement forgiveness or patience I have to ask myself:
- Are my concerns already aligned with God’s will?
OR - Does my heart, my chief concern, need adjusting?
The obvious question is how heart adjustment happens and Ashton has touched on it: We can’t by sheer force of will, get new concerns. It would be like willing to will something else. What we will is not something which can be removed without something to replace it. Thomas Chalmers’ Sermon The Expulsive Power of a New Affection must be the standard work on how our hearts will always desire something (unless they are dead and we become indifferent) and we can only hope to expel vain concerns (idols) by newer, truer ones.
I can’t help but love a God who says he’ll take care of this! In Ezekiel 36:25-27 it is God, not us or our religious acts and prayers, who cleans us, gives us a new heart and pours out his Spirit so that we are able to walk in His ways. Ashton mentions 2 Corinthians 5:18 and we all know: while we were still sinners, God died for us. We didn’t clean up our act to come to God but came to Him so that he would clean us up. God takes the lead. This takes all the heat off doesn’t it?
* Of course these promises are made to His people and so we need to be sure we’ve entered into that covenant by accepting Jesus as Lord. Got Gospel yet?
Still, although God is the initiator, He works in ways which do not leave us as passive observers. When God says he’s going to change me, he involves me as opposed to snapping his fingers and having my body, mind and spirit working, in an instant, as a well-oiled machine. God is not a magician! He is a teacher and a worker of change. I have to listen, believe and act!
Ashton has described how we can emmerse ourselves in Scripture and let Truth soak into our being. This I must try sometime. What I have found helps a great deal is looking for God in and behind everything good be it Nature, people or any kind of beauty or “rightness” out there even if it is another religion(!). In general when you look for God: a) you find Him (woohoo!) and b) it does not leave you unchanged (shock!).
Getting back to the heart. I know people who tend to downplay what they call “feelings”: What is important is what the Bible says and not how I feel about it. This may be true from an impersonal point of view but cannot be applied to issues of which I am a key component i.e. the recipient. The Gospel IS true but how I react to it is of vital importance. Forgiveness is on offer but my response is key. Likewise I have to say that a person’s feelings or intuition about something, say salvation or the presence of God, cannot be neglected. It is often a more accurate indicator of reality than what they think (or try to force themselves to believe). What we believe is important and I don’t think we choose it – instead reality impresses upon us and then we believe.
In conclusion, for heart-moving change which stops us living life on the surface:
- We need important truths to be near our hearts as well as in our minds
- God is going to initialise and do it
- We get to work in this process
- It starts when we ask, seek, knock
- It takes time, be patient and enjoy the ride
