The question intrigued me. Surely, one must learn something about the truth before being regenerate - but how much?
I do believe that there is an answer, and one of the key passages that came to mind and gave me something to work off of was Luke 18, where Christ told the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the temple (about which I recorded some thoughts here.) By the end of the parable, only one of the two men left that temple justified, and it wasn't the religious Pharisee. So, by inquiring into exactly what it was the tax collector said, it seems reasonable that we can gain some insight into what he knew leading up to his justification.
So let's do that.
The prayer of the tax collector was very short. From start to finish, he spoke only seven words (not counting his potential repetition indicated by the word "saying..." as opposed to simply "said..."). Contrasted to the Pharisees' speech of gratitude for his well-to-do sanctification, the tax collector uttered one brief request:
"God be merciful to me the sinner!"
Few words, but much meaning. What does this tell us about what he knew?
1) The tax collector knew he was a sinner.
This is most clearly evident in the fact that he plainly describes himself as "the sinner". Interestingly, this is the only thing he says about himself in his entire prayer. Out of all the things that could have been said about him, out of all his characteristics and everything that he could have used to describe himself, there was only one that mattered and only one that weighed on his heart as he stood before God: he was the sinner. This wasn't a mere intellectual acknowledgment, but a heavy conviction, as he was "...unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breasts...". Clearly, he understood the reality of who he really was. Notice also that he doesn't pray "be merciful to me, for I have sinned" but "be merciful to me, the sinner". His conviction wasn't limited to something he had done or not done, but his very person. It was a matter of his nature, who he was not simply what he did. He was burdened with the reality that he himself was offensive to God, not merely his actions.
2) The tax collector knew God was a sovereign and just judge.
By coming to God seeking mercy, the tax collector acknowledged two things:
1) His nature (and resulting actions) were an offense against God. Whatever he knew about God, the tax collector at least understood that He was a God Who simply did not tolerate sin.
2) The Lord Himself was sovereign in declaring his consequent condemnation, or else bestowing mercy. No one else filled that role - he stood before God alone.
The tax collector, by means of seeking mercy strictly from God, evidenced the fact that he understood God to be the supreme Judge who would handle the case of his sinfulness, and there was no human mediator involved. The offense of his sinful nature was ultimately against God Himself, completely regardless of how or to whom the sin was expressed. Now, the tax collector likely did not have an academically approved Theology Proper, but since a plea for mercy implies an understanding that there is judgement by default, the tax collector must have at least understood the basic and serious serious contrast between himself and God. Further, he was fully conscious that this contrast was one that would be judged by God. God was not acceptant of sin, yet sin was exactly what flowed out of his heart (Mark 7:20-23) and defined him. He bore the weight of this blunt reality: his sin was indeed a problem, because he stood before a righteous God.
But, in consistent acknowledgement of God's sovereignty and evidencing a truly broken heart, the desperate tax collector doesn't flee from God, but instead flees to Him with an earnest plight for mercy. The only way he could be spared from the justice due him was if God, his Judge, spared him. Aware that God Himself was sovereign over judgement, he concluded that God Himself was sovereign over mercy, so he came to God alone seeking to be spared.
(This suffers some significant overlap with the previous point, but the focus here is more on the judgement itself, as opposed to the Judge Himself.)
Burdened by his own sinfulness and ashamed to even stand before God, the tax collector's plea for mercy informs us that he understood there were consequences justly due him. What God thought of sin wasn't a mystery to him - he was well aware of what justice would demand. As we saw earlier, he was beyond just depressed at the judgment that awaited him. The verdict was predictable: he stood a sinner before a righteous God, unjust by God's own examination. His sinful nature had consequences which were under God's personal dictation, and the weight of that drove him to cry to God that day. If there was hope to be had it was only in God; he knew no one else to be sovereign over his sentence. And, if there was hope in God it was only to be had in mercy; any evaluation of works or nature would inevitably condemn him.
So what did the tax collector know leading up to his justification? He knew he was a sinner, God was the sovereign Judge who condemned sin, and there was, consequently, judgement to follow which was under God's dictation. What was his response? "God be merciful to me the sinner!" With full recognition of his nature, full recognition of God's sovereignty, and full recognition of his just sentence, he resorted only on mercy. He didn't try to please God with his works, we've already seen how he understood his problem to be deeper than merely his actions. Besides, could good works from a bad sinner appease a righteous God? His plea was only one of mercy, similar to the simple request of the dying thief who said of himself and his partner " we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds". Then, turning to Jesus and making no mention of his own works or worth, he pleaded "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom!"
Perhaps a better question than "what does a person have to know before they are saved?" is "what does a person have to be before they are saved?" If we can glean anything from Christ's parable, the answer would be this: broken with conviction of sin. Not simply confused and frustrated because of an unfortunate life circumstance, not merely guilt ridden because they don't like going to church or reading their Bible, but devastated because of who they are before God: a sinner. It is insufficient merely to seek God for relief from debt, drugs, hunger, psychological instability, or whatever, but if He is sought may it ultimately be for relief from His own judgment.
Well then, should the doctrines of Christology, Eschatology, Harmartiology, and so forth be abandoned as unnecessary, since our justification doesn't depend on understanding them? No. Quite the opposite. Once a person is justified, he becomes part of a whole body of justified sinners, and that body is called the church. This church, according to Ephesians 4, is together to be moving toward "...the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to Christ." And, further, "As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..."
The church should be maturing, and doctrinal stability is a benchmark characteristic of her maturity. She must know the truth, for her own good (John 17:17, Eph. 4:15-16). In John 17:17, Christ did not ask the Father to "Sanctify them in the essential doctrines, the parts of Your word that teach essential doctrines" or "Sanctify them in the minimal necessities they can all agree on, only those important portions of Your word". No, but He prays "Sanctify them in the truth, Your word is truth." If you believe Christ wants His church sanctified, you are obligated to also believe He has provided the means for that: clarity of the truth defined by the Word of God. It simply must be understood 1. Maybe justification isn't compromised by ambiguity or error in certain doctrines, but sanctification is. Do we think we're sanctified when we can 'agree to disagree' and are content to leave it there? Truth must be sought and taught in the church. Why would we take personal offense over doctrinal issues? Is it really about us anymore? Are we here to make defense for ourselves? Are we no longer broken, do we have something to hold on to? And against other people in the church? If we are indeed Christians, then we are indeed owned by Christ - it's not about us anymore. May we never forget who we are outside of mercy.
"Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself 'if this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.'...Turning toward the woman, [Jesus] said to Simon 'Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for my feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed my feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.' Then He said to her 'Your sins have been forgiven.'" ~ Luke 7:36-39, 44-50
____________________________________
1 This is not a call for verbal jihad behavior or an extreme 'doctrine or death' mentality. Please don't make that assumption. May we not forget that we must be "speaking the truth in love..." (Eph. 4:15a). Don't neglect either of those. The truth (notice Paul doesn't just say 'the Gospel') must be spoken, but it must be done in love. Those are not mutually exclusive elements, but, conversely, must not be separated from each other. Divisive doctrine doesn't reveal the ambiguity of the Word of God, but the lack of love on our part. Also, notice that in the context of Ephesians 4:15, we are to be "speaking the truth in love" to each other. This isn't just the pastor's job - it's our job. And, it is in this way that the church "causes the growth of the body for building up of itself in love" Eph. 4:16b.
One final thing, please notice that this is the direction of the growth of the church, not where she is now. A child isn't born full grown, but spends his whole life growing after he is born. So is the body of Christ. We should live growing and maturing corporately towards "the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God..." (vs.13). We may not be the unified and fully mature image of Christ now, but we are indeed maturing towards that. Better is a living, growing organism than a dead and stagnant one that furnishes no growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment