My friend and mentor John Frye over at jesus the radical pastor has a a few posts (here and here) on the content of faith. In the first post he address the fact the in Acts 2 and 10 people embraced Jesus the man and not necessarily Him in His divinity, yet they experienced real salvation. Then he asks the question, “What was the content of faith about Jesus when Peter preached the gospel in Jerusalem that Day of Pentecost and that day in Cornelius’ house?” In the second follow-up post, John wonders if the content of saving faith expands over time. He writes:
Does the content of faith expand? As Paul extrapolated out the deity of Jesus in the context of Jewish monotheism, did the content of faith flex to include that, too? When the early church councils hammered out the creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene), did the content of faith have to include those ideas? When Martin Luther trumpeted sola fide—justification by faith alone–did the content of faith have to include that? Is the content of faith like the idea of ‘progressive revelation’? What is essential saving faith? Were the Jews on Pentecost Day (Acts 2) and the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10) “grandfathered in” even though they only believed in/received Jesus as a Spirit-empowerd man?
Any thoughts?
I think John raises some great questions, ones with which I and some friends of mine are wrestling: what is the content of belief? In what must a person believe to be restored to relationship with God?
Does someone need to believe in Jesus’ deity? In the Trinity (as Athenasian creed demands)? That there is a hell or heaven and Jesus rescued them from hell to bring them into heaven? What about people who’ve never heard of Jesus…to what extent does God’s mercy extend to them?
As a former pastor on Capitol Hill and seminary student training to be one in a church community I know Acts says “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and I know what my theology says and what my seminary teaches…but sometimes I struggle with the content of the “belief” that rescues people. And if Jesus already paid the penalty as the ultimate and final sacrifice, if that is in fact a present reality for the world as Hebrews says, what does it matter what anyone does? Is it more of a conscious rejection of Jesus and the Rest as Hebrews alludes, or is it a conscious embracing of Jesus? What about those who can’t consciously embrace Jesus because their conscious isn’t aware of Him?
In my systematic theology class a month ago, the professor said that we (the world and humans collectively) are now more responsible for more theology and our the content of faith must reflect that increase in knowledge. In other words, as time has progressed the church has received more understanding into the depths of God’s mystery. So while the early church didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the Trinity, we do so we must believe in the Trinity to be a true Christian. In John’s example, those to whom Peter preached shortly after Jesus’ resurrection may not have fully understood, realized, or believed in Jesus’ divinity, but they knew He was the sent Messiah so they received salvation. But now those who do not embrace Jesus in His divinity cannot be saved.
Does this make sense? While this may be sound systematic theology, is it sound biblical theology. Must one believe in the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus to receive forgiveness and salvation? Or is it, as I suggested in class, more of a lack of rejecting these important pieces? Meaning: it is one thing for a person not to embrace a doctrine like the Trinity and another thing to consciously reject it; it’s one thing to not fully realize or consciously embrace the divinity of Jesus, and an entirely other thing to reject the divinity of Jesus.
I think the question on “what is the content of faith” is an important one, one that I’m wrestling with myself even as a seminary student who is steeped in “answers”! My fear is that we are not communicating properly the content of that good news nor the content of faith in the Goodness of that news…
-jeremy
