Truth is ancient; it's grey hairs may make it venerable;
it comes from Him who is the ancient of days. --Thomas Watson

 

10 May, 2006   comments: (0) Postmodernism   Salvation = Faith + Knowledge? (Yes, of Course!) I posted a quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the other day on Slice, which included these words "The Word of God says that man's immortal soul, his eternal state, depends upon his right knowledge of the truth". I admit, the post was aimed squarely at the Emerging Church movement, and it managed to draw the predicted return-fire from the postmodern camp. The implication of which, was that I was somehow front-loading a "knowledge" requirement on to the Gospel. Could that be true? In a post, over on Slice, Jason B. comments on his journey from Protestantism to Catholicism: "I was raised an evangelical Methodist (saved at age 3), became a Calvinist in college, realized the utter insensibility and extra-biblical thinking of conservative Protestantism, and felt the Holy Spirit nudging me toward what is ancient, holy, beautiful, and true. Conservative Protestantism is founded on 1) rebellion, 2) the Enlightenment individualism so rampant today, and 3) bibliolatry. ... I do not make the Protestant mistake of failing to understand: 1) the origins and development of the scriptures, especially the New Testament, 2) the divine and human aspect of Christ (his human nature had a role in our salvation, too, hence the sacraments), 3) the Church Jesus intended to found being historically traced to one of his apostles, Peter, 4) the reality of the living communion of saints (Hebrews 12:1, Matt.22:31-33), and 5) perhaps most crucially, the role of humility in laying out exactly what the content of faith must be. I do not place high hurdles in front of people to be considered Christian." His philosophy about not placing "high hurdles" fits with his highly-inclusive view of the Gospel, as seen in his answer to this question. Yesterday I asked him: "According to your belief system, is it possible for a Muslim in Afghanistan - who dies having never heard of Jesus Christ, to be in heaven one day?". "My honest prayer and hope is that such a person shall indeed share in the eternal rest of heaven. Whatever that heaven may look like, yes, that is my prayer, and yes, I believe there is a biblical argument for it. Airtight? Am I sure of it? No. I'm not even convinced that an American Christian who accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior on September 8, 1980 and has lived a Christian life since that time will be "in heaven" one day." I think that lays the groundwork for the discussion that Jason and I were having. In much of this, Jason comes down on the same side as so many in Emerging Church movement, but I'll refrain from putting him solidly in that camp. So the original question is, have I (or Martyn Lloyd-Jones) added a knowledge requirement to the Gospel? Jason seems to think so; the comment he left for me was: "Well, I'm glad you finally made it clear that salvation is by faith + knowledge". The comment that I posted in response comes right from Jesus' own words. In John 8:24 He says: "unless you believe that I am he - you will die in your sins." In that example, Jesus is requiring you to believe some specific facts about Him. That's what He's setting up with the words "unless you believe that...". Whatever comes after the "that..." is a set of facts that you must believe. So, yes - of course - Christianity has a basic knowledge requirement to it. You can't just make up your own Jesus, and believe whatever you want about him, so that you have your own Jesus and I have mine. Paul shows great concern for this in 2 Corinthians 11:4 when he says: "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough." What would possibly distinguish the real Jesus from "another Jesus", other than a set of facts? There's no getting around it; Christianity involves facts, clearly stated truths, and yes - the much maligned "d-word" - doctrine. Jason's next response reminded me a little bit of a Star Wars movie, in that an individual, it seems, can somehow have faith in some kind of a nebulous "force" that the individual need not have factual knowledge of, and this somehow then translates into the correct beliefs about the person and work of Christ in an "eternal perspective". Here are his exact words: "Yes, I believe otherwise. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." You're adding a step, as if to say, "Faith comes by knowledge, and knowledge comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Over and over again the battle is going to come down to this: we are not saved by our faith in the doctrine of justification by faith. We are saved by faith, which God alone judges in the heart of every person. I know what you're thinking: but you must have the person and work of Christ. I agree, from an eternal perspective, that is absolutely true. But on an individual level, belief in the person and work of Christ may not necessarily be a conscious thought of the individual. And though we dare not cease our mission to share the good news, we also dare not assume that all expressions of faith are damned unless accompanied by the kind of knowledge you say we must add. I would ask just one thing: do you find this disagreement between us to be one that is reasonable or unreasonable? If unreasonable, then I fear we should part ways, since we've probably both been down this road before. But if it's reasonable, then we can work through it. Perhaps to resolution, perhaps not." Later, he finally addressed my John 8:24 passage by saying: "Notice to whom Jesus is talking: chief priests, Pharisees, all of whom were hanging around toward the end of the feast of the Tabernacles. The repetitive phrase "again he spoke to them" may indicate that the feast's context was over, but that the author was trying show a continuation of the theme. Or, literally, it could refer to the same people in the same context. But he's talking to people in the club already. God's chosen people. What does "die in your sins" mean? Die outside the promise of God to Abraham? When we are faithless, God is faithful, for he cannot deny himself. So, I don't think that's the correct take on it. Go to hell? Well, not necessarily. [die in your sins] seems to me to be more of a "You're going to miss out on the abundant life," (John 10:10). Your position actually reminds me of the old Catholic teaching of mortal v. venial (sp?) sins (dying with a mortal sin on your hands is considered a bad thing). My only point in my response to your inquiry was that, logically speaking, your version of salvation is expressed in the equation Salvation = Faith + Knowledge." Just as an aside: I have to say, that's a very imaginative interpretation for "die in your sins", but I don't think it matches up to scripture. The bible speaks of (either) "dying in Christ" or "dying in your sins". Only three verses earlier in John 8 - Jesus says "...you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come". Where is he going that they can not come? Mark 16:16 paints the picture a little more vividly with a similar statement "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned". We see similar language in John 3:18,36. Also, the wages of sin is death. There's simply no question as to what "die in your sins" means; it doesn't mean to simply miss out on some improved earthly lifestyle. So to sum things up, Jason is quite vocal in asserting on his own blog, and on the Slice blog, that the classic protestant position has added "knowledge" to the Gospel, and should be formulated like this: Salvation = Faith + Knowledge But in reality, those components would more accurately be arranged like this: Salvation = Faith [based on] Knowledge Now, we could have an entirely different conversation on what knowledge (which facts, doctrines, and beliefs) must necessarily be believed for salvation, but that's beside the point of this post. The fact is, faith is based on knowledge, on facts, and on doctrines. There's simply no getting around that, for any Christian, postmodern or otherwise. Related Information and Resources: Does Billy Graham believe in an all-inclusive salvation? Saved without the Gospel? No need for missionaries then! Another discussion about "narrow truth" with a postmodernist White Horse Inn - Christianity: A Faith Founded on Facts (free audio) Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.271   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism