If someone told you they thought George Washington was a good President, not because of what he did or did not really do in history, but because they had experienced the good effects of his presidency in their own lives, what would you say? Can we make any realistic claims about knowledge, about anyone or anything in history, based purely on our own experiences? Taken in another way, if someone said to you that he believed in Jesus, not because of anything in the bible, but based purely on the fact that he had experienced some transformative event in his life, would you say that is sufficient? The question really is, what is sufficient for salvation? The reason I phrase the question in this way is because I am hoping that none of us would say that it is sufficient for people to say they think they are saved without having a good reason for that claim (and of course the only good reason is because they have hope in Jesus Christ).
I'm going to let the cat out of the bag here and just state upfront that I think that anyone who claims to have a relationship with Christ, not based on what Scripture says but on what they have experienced, has either been deceived, or is deceiving himself. My reasoning is because no one can know they have a relationship with Christ unless Scripture has told them. Also, no one can have a relationship with Christ unless they know Christ. You cannot have a relationship with someone you don't know, after all, how would you know the relationship is real? Personal feelings are not a sufficient ground for salvation.
The only sure and trustworthy ground for believing one is saved is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That means that no one is saved apart from the revealed truth of Scripture. Paul says, "[The gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16) In John 17:3 Jesus says himself, "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Peter says, "since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God..." (1 Peter 1:23) In no verse in Scripture do we see that anyone can come to faith in Christ and be saved without a knowledge of the gospel.
Knowledge itself, of course, does not save us. Faith saves us. But, faith in what? We cannot have faith in a Christ we do not know. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17) Unless we have heard the word of God, we cannot have the faith necessary for our salvation.
I bring this up because I think we sometimes all need a reminder of why we should spend time with God's word. God is powerful, he is able to do abundantly more than we could dream or ask, but he has also stated his divine plan and the means by which he will save his people. We cannot save anyone if we do not tell them the word of God. The most powerful tool we can use in evangelism isn't a tract, it isn't a witty opening question or a brilliant segue into "spiritual" things. The most powerful tool we can have for attempting to save a lost world is a good working knowledge of the word of God. That doesn't mean we have to become experts, but there is also no reason we ought not attempt to become as expert as we are able, after all, it couldn't hurt to know more about the bible if we intend to witness to others.
But, there is a second caution here too: we cannot be saved apart from belief in the word of God. When we begin to throw out sections of the bible, or when we begin to say that this or that miracle couldn't have happened, then we begin to enter into truly dangerous ground. After all, if we reject one miracle, what is the rationale for holding on to any miracles? If it is impossible that God could have done any specific amazing thing, then why assume he can do anything at all?
As we begin to dismantle the word we also have to necessarily lose passages like the ones above. After all, if we say that one part of Scripture must be thrown out, where do we stop? Do we throw out John because we find his references contradictory to Matthew? Do we accept Matthew but then throw out Mark because different details are listed about Jesus' life? Do we argue that Acts teaches a different concept of Christ's divinity than the one that is found in Galatians? If we do any of these things, then which Jesus are we left to accept? Which gospel have we embraced?
If there is no salvation apart from the gospel of Christ, and the written word of God is the only trustworthy source of information for that gospel (surely we aren't going to say that tradition is more accurate that Scripture? If we go that route we are really in for some trouble and contradictions!) then we are in serious theological trouble when we start dividing that word into what we find "acceptable" and what we will reject. When we assume the role of judging the word of God, instead of allowing it to judge us, then we have rejected the authority of Scripture in our lives. To reject the authority of Scripture is to reject the one who gave Scripture that authority. When we are the lords of Scripture, then the Lord of Scripture cannot be our Lord. If that which we have received is faulty, then we have received a flawed gospel, and a flawed gospel does not have the power to save, for only the true gospel of Christ has the power to save.
If we do not have the gospel, then what hope do we have? Are we so wise that we can reconstruct history as though we were there when all the documents we have are flawed? Is our knowledge so great that we can correct what claims to be eyewitness testimony from 2000 years ago? If that is the case, why do we need the bible at all? We may as well make our own gospel, for in our wisdom we are quite sure to only find the gospel we want when we get to decide what parts of the bible are true and which are false.
No comments:
Post a Comment