We are now arriving at the real heart of my cognitive meanderings on this subject. My question is this: ‘what is the role of faith in the process of being ‘born-again?’ The conservative formula is something like this: “If you have faith in the Gospel, then you will be born-again.” In the next three weeks, I want to identify some passages which destabilize this interpretation of the New Testament, and perhaps lay a path for my own interpretation. I believe that a more coherent way to read New Testament texts yields a formula that is more like this: “If you are born-again, then it is likely that the Gospel will appeal to you.” I am aware that Romans and Acts have some passages which are considered “slam-dunk” passages (read: no interpretation required). But let’s hold off judgment for a couple of weeks so that we can approach this issue with an open mind. Here are three examples that I have in mind:
1) We get some straightforward theology from the mouth of Jesus from a much-quoted passage in John 10: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me” (v.14). What is not so well-known is verse 16: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Here Jesus characterizes a group of people who are unaware of who he is, since they are not of the fold that is marked out by their knowledge of him. But despite the ignorance of the second flock, they join the original flock, so that the flock is one. Apparently then, they did not know God, but God knew them.
2) And speaking of sheep, who can forget the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46? Why were some sheep, destined for eternal glory, and why were some goats? Jesus says that the reason for the declaration that some were sheep was their willingness to provide for the physical needs of the have-nots (vs. 35, 42). So according to Matthew 25, it seems that some are born-again without even being aware of this fact! The sheep actually seem to be surprised that they are the objects of God’s mercy (v. 37).
3) We know that Jesus says “I am the way, truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” But we never stop hearing the conservative interpretation of the passage: only those who know and approve of the Gospel are “getting in.” (I heard this interpretation yesterday in church, in fact, with sarcasm that there could be any disagreement). However, what can be called “the Old Testament problem” poses a serious dilemma for this interpretation. We know that Abraham, for example, was justified by taking God at his word, but he certainly did not believe in Jesus, and thus not in the Gospel (the whole time-space continuum made sure of that). So Abraham was saved through Christ (we know this because he is part of “no man”), but he had no knowledge of this fact! All he knew was God’s voice. This same thinking applies to anyone that was saved before, say, A.D. 33. Conservatives seem to believe that God used to have this power to use Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of those who did not know, but now he has lost it.
In this vein, I will single out one of my favorite passages of Scripture, which is the extremely brief account of Zaccheus’ meeting with Jesus in Luke 19. Zaccheus, for some unknown reason, was intrigued by Jesus, and so Jesus invited himself over. This was all it took for Zaccheus to realize that his life of injustice was no good, and that it had to change fast: “if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (v. 8). What was Jesus’ response to this? Surely he laid out a theology lesson, or at least pulled out a four laws booklet? No need: “Today salvation has come to this house.” That day, Zaccheus was turned from a tax collector who inevitably defrauded the have-nots, into a lover (I John 4:7,8). What a salvation experience! Zaccheus was clearly born for the second time. He didn’t know about the Gospel, or about propitiation, or about redemption (time-space, remember?). But he was saved. I’m sure that once he learned some real theology in say, A.D. 34, he was much better off in his understanding of his own salvation. But that came after his real transformation.
