A number of years ago while doing youth ministry at Vineyard of Faith in Windsor, CA, I was looking at various options of places to go to continue my education. I didn't really want to go to Seminary at the time, so I was looking at a variety of places that had distance education programs that would help me in youth ministry. Given that I didn't get the nuances of theology and thought the school didn't matter as long as it was Christian, one of the places I considered going was the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.
After reading this article from Christianity Today which seeks to answer, "How can I know I'm a Christian if I can't remember when I first responded to the gospel?" I'm really glad I didn't. Why? Here's the author's conclusion:
For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one's life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God's saving work in one's life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.
Now, I think the guy nails it when he writes, "one can doubt the 'decision' was real, leading to numerous journeys down the aisle (just in case)." I've run into so many people who are in this camp. They've done the decision and then, days, weeks, or months later, found themselves doubting their faith and wondering if they really decided. So the decide again and then doubt again and then decide again. The whole time, they always find themselves wondering where they stand in relationship to God.
But, as for his final answer, that we know if we're save based upon the fruit in our lives, talk about setting people up to experience hell on earth! I mean, I have good days and bad day (we could even say moments in place of days). There are times my life looks really fruitful and times it doesn't. If I'm looking to the fruit, I'm going to be save now, damned in 5 minutes, and back to salvation an hour later. In other words, I'm just about as comforted as the person trusting a decision made for Jesus.
Now, I'm all in favor of doing good works, as long as we understand that the only good they do is to help out our neighbor, that even our non-Christian neighbor can figure out and do these same good works (and thus, based on the article, appear more Christian than many Christians), and that, before God, even our good works need to be justified. Of course, all this rules out the idea that we know we're good with God because of our works.
So, how do I answer the question? Yesterday, Christians around the world celebrated the Baptism of Jesus, an event where Jesus stepped into and bound himself to the human experience so that, in our baptisms, we could be bound to his divine experience. In other words, I point to baptism, not, as the author suggests, because it connects you to the church, but because in it, Jesus makes a promise to you and connects himself to you.
What's the beauty here? I never have to wonder about my salvation, because it's connected not to me, but to Jesus. I'm good with God because of Jesus promise, and knowing my status with God is secure, I'm now free to go and serve my neighbor and let the fruit grow as it will.
Shouldn't that be "now free to go" instead of "not free to to go" in the last sentence?
Thanks!
Let me try this again and perhaps this time the blog won't kick me off.
I, like you, have met people from every camp on this issue. I have met those who respond to every altar call and feel that one sin means they have lost their salvation. I have met those who think that just because they are baptised they are good to go. I knew a guy in college who was baptized twice in two years because he "wasn't sure if it took."
The issue that is missed in all these an improper understanding on grace, sanctification, and the simultaneous sinner and saint status. When this happens you run into problems on all fronts. I totally agree with the quote and this brings me to the point I think you missed in it.
Baptisim means nothing apart from faith. Without faith it is only the washing of dirt from the body. Now, I still hold to infant baptism while saying this because I see baptism as a covenental action binding the parents and the church to raise the child as Timothy was; in the Word. But that is another discussion.
As you know sanctification is a process. Sanctification is only accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit points to Christ. It does not mean that we will not fail. It does not mean that there will not be struggles, but for those who truly have the Spirit they will have change in their lives. That is the point the author is making. The old dead self will start to stink while the new self will have appeal. I believe this is often a subtle change that needs to be pointed out by others. This fits, by the way, perfectly well with Lutheran theology on the Spirit.
I personally don't find doubt to be a bad thing. The reason is because it forces me back into the Word to be reminded about my standing in Christ.
Let me see...how many Joe hot spots did I hit on...sinner/saint, baptism, HS pointing to Christ...couldn't get vocation or family in there...well I guess three ain't that bad.
I'm not disagreeing with the results that Christians should see in their lives or the ways that the Spirit shapes and changes us over time ... I completely agree that we should experience those things in our lives if we are in fact Christian.
However, if I'm wanting to know what it is that makes me a Christian, I'm not going to look to myself, I'm going to look to Christ and His Word (thus the faith that goes with Baptism). Oddly enough, I think you agreed with this point in your bit on doubt because, what does the doubt you experience when you look to yourself drive you to do ... look to Christ and His promise (which I'd say was given to you personally in your baptism).
On everything but baptism. Which is one reason I'm not Lutheran. To me it is like Jesus' response to the Pharisees saying, "We have Abraham as our father" or Paul saying that circumcision of the flesh means nothing. Neither lineage nor ceremony makes anyone anything. It doesn't take away from the importance of it as a reminder and sign post to the faith symbolized in the action though.
As for examining ourselves, we are called to do that. Paul tell us to examine ourselves before we take communion and Peter tells us to make our "calling and election sure." I don't see this as a works based faith because the purpose of it is to drive us back to Christ. Which we both agree on. So, there are my final nuggets.
And I need/want new pictures of Robbie.
Actually, it's because of the ceremony comment that I'm Lutheran and not Catholic. It's not the act in that I trust in simply because it was done, but the promise God made in the act, much like the promises God made to the Jewish people in very physical ways at significant moments in their history (Paul makes this connection in 1 Corinthians 10). They, like Rome and many Lutherans today, made the idolatrous error of trusting the act and not the God behind it (a point also made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10).
I'll work on getting some Robbie pics from Anita and getting them uploaded to flickr.
Just so there is no confusion, I wasn't suggesting that the Lutheran and Catholic view of baptism is the same. I know that you would not give the sacrament the same weight as a Catholic would just like I don't give the same weight to it as Lutherans do. I'll just leave it at that or else this will turn into a million reply chain that will bore readers to tears.