I would take issue this time, though. I hope you don't mind.
When we want to know all about the Trinity, it's wise and good to gather all of the information we can from all of the passages that touch on the subject. Cherry picking happens all too often in situations like these. One example is the guy who's been writing to convince me that universalism is true... he has to ignore lots of passages to fit his idea into a very tight space.
With narrative, however, it might not be as wise to try to arrive at the truth by 'piecing it all together.' I would suggest another approach.
I'm sure we can agree that each and every Scriptural explanation of how to be saved is correct. Peter was right at Pentecost. Paul was right in Romans 10. When Paul and Silas were freed from the Philippian prison, they accurately explained exactly how the jailer could be saved... didn't they?
It would make no sense for any single explanation of how to be saved to be incomplete. Rather than suggesting that the Philippian jailer needed to piece together Acts 2 and Romans 10 to know how he could be saved, we should rest assured that Paul and Silas told him everything he needed to know.
In other words: every explanation of salvation in the New Testament must stand on its own. Otherwise, we must conclude that some of them are incomplete... and so, as with the jailer, not able to save at all.
I don't understand your "issue." I am confused at the disconnect because while they do "stand alone," we have the conversion accounts to look at together in summation for a reason. This entire series is focused on looking at the totality of God's Word, not just bits and pieces to fit a false, man-made doctrine (Psa. 119:160). With the jailor, I spend time in an article discussing that he was told by the inspired apostle Paul to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved." Is that all? Did Paul stop there? See, many in the religious world close their Bibles and minds after reading this and see "believe" as the only condition stated so they "cherry pick" this verse. We know the very next verse says, "Then they spoke unto them the word of the Lord" which of course would include repentance and baptism which the jailor would ultimately do to be saved (Acts 2:38). I don't understand the confusion or problem you are having with my explanation? Piecing together passages understanding that they all harmonize coming from the same Source is exactly what we are to do! Please read the entire series of articles, and by all means, if I have stated something other than the truth or "unwise," please let me know. I trust you and I have the same goal in mind: To arrive at truth, apply it to our lives, and teach others the truth to the glory of God. Thank you for reading these articles and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. God bless.
We're on the same page with regard to cherry-picking, of course. The question is "what must I do to be saved?" To answer that, we go directly to the Scriptures. What do the Scriptures say?
That depends on the verses in question, of course. Some claim that you must declare, out loud, that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10)... and, if you don't, you're not saved. Some claim you must both be repent and be baptized (Acts 2)... and if you don't, you're not saved. Some claim that neither baptism nor repentance are required, but only faith (Luke 7). I could go on, of course.
I'm not trying to cast doubt on the Scriptures. I'm suggesting that combining each of the New Testament passages dealing with soteriology into a single doctrinal requirement is demonstrably unwise. They don't contradict one another, of course... but would we say that we're unsaved until we do all of the things in every verse? If so, that would mean that no explanation of how to be saved is complete without the rest.
That can't be true, of course. When Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you," He didn't tell her to be baptized. When Peter said at Pentecost to repent and be baptized, he didn't tell people to speak their faith aloud. Unless we're willing to say that each of those explanations are incomplete, we must say that each person was told all they needed to do to be saved. Each explanation must be complete and sufficient by itself, rather than needing to be collated with passages written, in some cases, decades later.
As for your statement that the word of the Lord 'of course would include repentance and baptism,' that's an argument from silence... which should have no place in soteriology. All I'm suggesting is that one can be saved by following any of the instructions, rather than trying to combine them:
- Our faith is enough
- Repentance and baptism is enough
- Declare with your mouth and believing in your heart is enough
- Believing in the Lord Jesus is enough
Thanks for your reply, my friend. Have a great day!
When Jesus said that to the woman, He had every right (and the authority) to forgive her. He had power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). With that said, she was not told to repent and be baptized into Christ because Christ had not died. How could she have "obeyed the Gospel?" (Rom. 6:3-6)? Same with the "thief on the cross." Different requirements as they were under a different law. Since Acts 2, the command to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins is consistent with the conversions in Acts. Are you suggesting that they were saved differently? The "word of the Lord" is consistent with the Gospel -- Acts 8. Philip preached Christ (Acts 8:5), preached the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12), and he preached Jesus (Acts 8:35). He preached the Word of the Lord. Did he say "be baptized?" No, but did the Eunuch understand after hearing the Word of the Lord, that he needed to be baptized to be saved? Yes! (Acts 8:36). It is implied in the text and we wouldn't know that unless we looked at the whole picture and put the verses together. Sometimes, a synecdoche is used (synecdoche = part for the whole"). For example, Acts 5:14 says "believers were added to the Lord." Who are the "believers," those who simply have faith or is it a reference to those who have obeyed the Gospel? Acts 2:38, 41, 47 help us answer that. My point through all of this is that we must obey God by meeting His conditions. Faith alone will not save. Confession alone will not save. Repentance alone will not save. Baptism alone will not save. None of those conditions alone will save, but one who obeys from the heart the "form of doctrine" (pattern of teaching) (Rom. 6:16-18) will be saved according to the Bible (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9). I hope I didn't misrepresent you or say anything out of line with Scripture.
The question is not whether Jesus has the power to forgive sins. The question is whether it's a good idea to combine different Scriptural explanations for how to be saved, as if we need observe ALL of them or remain objects of God's wrath.
We have the text. We should agree on what the text says, and agree on what the text does not say. We don't have more than the text, and it would be irresponsible to create doctrine - especially on a primary issue like salvation - on the basis of what we assume must have happened. I'm sure we can agree that Scripture is all we need to teach doctrine responsibly.
Peter's time with Cornelius certainly came after Jesus died, so there's no question as to which covenant applied to him. There's nothing in Acts 10 to suggest that Peter told them to repent, right? We can't pretend to know more than the text tells us... and the text says nothing about repenting of their sins, does it? Along with that, the text tells us clearly that they were speaking in tongues and praising God before their baptism. Unless we are to believe that this happens to the unregenerate, the text indicates that they were saved - having received the Holy Spirit just as the disciples had - before they were baptized.
I'm simply suggesting what seems obvious: that each and every Scriptural explanation of how to be saved can and does stand on its own. None of them are missing crucial components. None are incomplete. None need to be amended with passages from other texts, even if they existed when the instructions were given.
I also think it's interesting that in Luke 4:34, an evil spirit/demon cries out in a loud voice that it knows that Jesus is the holy one of God. also in Luke 4:41, demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ the Son of God!" So demoons know and believe that Jesus is the son of God and they confess it as well. But Jesus didn't say, well, because you believe and confess that I'm the son of God, you're now forgiven or saved.
like you say, repentance is necessary, and it's unfortunate that so many leave it out. just like baptism, the circumcision of Christ, being crucified in union together with him. the demons aren't doing that.
Amen
Hey Drew... thanks for so many great articles!
I would take issue this time, though. I hope you don't mind.
When we want to know all about the Trinity, it's wise and good to gather all of the information we can from all of the passages that touch on the subject. Cherry picking happens all too often in situations like these. One example is the guy who's been writing to convince me that universalism is true... he has to ignore lots of passages to fit his idea into a very tight space.
With narrative, however, it might not be as wise to try to arrive at the truth by 'piecing it all together.' I would suggest another approach.
I'm sure we can agree that each and every Scriptural explanation of how to be saved is correct. Peter was right at Pentecost. Paul was right in Romans 10. When Paul and Silas were freed from the Philippian prison, they accurately explained exactly how the jailer could be saved... didn't they?
It would make no sense for any single explanation of how to be saved to be incomplete. Rather than suggesting that the Philippian jailer needed to piece together Acts 2 and Romans 10 to know how he could be saved, we should rest assured that Paul and Silas told him everything he needed to know.
In other words: every explanation of salvation in the New Testament must stand on its own. Otherwise, we must conclude that some of them are incomplete... and so, as with the jailer, not able to save at all.
What are your thoughts?
I don't understand your "issue." I am confused at the disconnect because while they do "stand alone," we have the conversion accounts to look at together in summation for a reason. This entire series is focused on looking at the totality of God's Word, not just bits and pieces to fit a false, man-made doctrine (Psa. 119:160). With the jailor, I spend time in an article discussing that he was told by the inspired apostle Paul to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved." Is that all? Did Paul stop there? See, many in the religious world close their Bibles and minds after reading this and see "believe" as the only condition stated so they "cherry pick" this verse. We know the very next verse says, "Then they spoke unto them the word of the Lord" which of course would include repentance and baptism which the jailor would ultimately do to be saved (Acts 2:38). I don't understand the confusion or problem you are having with my explanation? Piecing together passages understanding that they all harmonize coming from the same Source is exactly what we are to do! Please read the entire series of articles, and by all means, if I have stated something other than the truth or "unwise," please let me know. I trust you and I have the same goal in mind: To arrive at truth, apply it to our lives, and teach others the truth to the glory of God. Thank you for reading these articles and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. God bless.
Drew:
We're on the same page with regard to cherry-picking, of course. The question is "what must I do to be saved?" To answer that, we go directly to the Scriptures. What do the Scriptures say?
That depends on the verses in question, of course. Some claim that you must declare, out loud, that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10)... and, if you don't, you're not saved. Some claim you must both be repent and be baptized (Acts 2)... and if you don't, you're not saved. Some claim that neither baptism nor repentance are required, but only faith (Luke 7). I could go on, of course.
I'm not trying to cast doubt on the Scriptures. I'm suggesting that combining each of the New Testament passages dealing with soteriology into a single doctrinal requirement is demonstrably unwise. They don't contradict one another, of course... but would we say that we're unsaved until we do all of the things in every verse? If so, that would mean that no explanation of how to be saved is complete without the rest.
That can't be true, of course. When Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you," He didn't tell her to be baptized. When Peter said at Pentecost to repent and be baptized, he didn't tell people to speak their faith aloud. Unless we're willing to say that each of those explanations are incomplete, we must say that each person was told all they needed to do to be saved. Each explanation must be complete and sufficient by itself, rather than needing to be collated with passages written, in some cases, decades later.
As for your statement that the word of the Lord 'of course would include repentance and baptism,' that's an argument from silence... which should have no place in soteriology. All I'm suggesting is that one can be saved by following any of the instructions, rather than trying to combine them:
- Our faith is enough
- Repentance and baptism is enough
- Declare with your mouth and believing in your heart is enough
- Believing in the Lord Jesus is enough
Thanks for your reply, my friend. Have a great day!
When Jesus said that to the woman, He had every right (and the authority) to forgive her. He had power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). With that said, she was not told to repent and be baptized into Christ because Christ had not died. How could she have "obeyed the Gospel?" (Rom. 6:3-6)? Same with the "thief on the cross." Different requirements as they were under a different law. Since Acts 2, the command to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins is consistent with the conversions in Acts. Are you suggesting that they were saved differently? The "word of the Lord" is consistent with the Gospel -- Acts 8. Philip preached Christ (Acts 8:5), preached the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12), and he preached Jesus (Acts 8:35). He preached the Word of the Lord. Did he say "be baptized?" No, but did the Eunuch understand after hearing the Word of the Lord, that he needed to be baptized to be saved? Yes! (Acts 8:36). It is implied in the text and we wouldn't know that unless we looked at the whole picture and put the verses together. Sometimes, a synecdoche is used (synecdoche = part for the whole"). For example, Acts 5:14 says "believers were added to the Lord." Who are the "believers," those who simply have faith or is it a reference to those who have obeyed the Gospel? Acts 2:38, 41, 47 help us answer that. My point through all of this is that we must obey God by meeting His conditions. Faith alone will not save. Confession alone will not save. Repentance alone will not save. Baptism alone will not save. None of those conditions alone will save, but one who obeys from the heart the "form of doctrine" (pattern of teaching) (Rom. 6:16-18) will be saved according to the Bible (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9). I hope I didn't misrepresent you or say anything out of line with Scripture.
I appreciate your response, my friend. =)
The question is not whether Jesus has the power to forgive sins. The question is whether it's a good idea to combine different Scriptural explanations for how to be saved, as if we need observe ALL of them or remain objects of God's wrath.
We have the text. We should agree on what the text says, and agree on what the text does not say. We don't have more than the text, and it would be irresponsible to create doctrine - especially on a primary issue like salvation - on the basis of what we assume must have happened. I'm sure we can agree that Scripture is all we need to teach doctrine responsibly.
Peter's time with Cornelius certainly came after Jesus died, so there's no question as to which covenant applied to him. There's nothing in Acts 10 to suggest that Peter told them to repent, right? We can't pretend to know more than the text tells us... and the text says nothing about repenting of their sins, does it? Along with that, the text tells us clearly that they were speaking in tongues and praising God before their baptism. Unless we are to believe that this happens to the unregenerate, the text indicates that they were saved - having received the Holy Spirit just as the disciples had - before they were baptized.
I'm simply suggesting what seems obvious: that each and every Scriptural explanation of how to be saved can and does stand on its own. None of them are missing crucial components. None are incomplete. None need to be amended with passages from other texts, even if they existed when the instructions were given.
I appreciate you, Drew!
yes, very good points!
I also think it's interesting that in Luke 4:34, an evil spirit/demon cries out in a loud voice that it knows that Jesus is the holy one of God. also in Luke 4:41, demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ the Son of God!" So demoons know and believe that Jesus is the son of God and they confess it as well. But Jesus didn't say, well, because you believe and confess that I'm the son of God, you're now forgiven or saved.
like you say, repentance is necessary, and it's unfortunate that so many leave it out. just like baptism, the circumcision of Christ, being crucified in union together with him. the demons aren't doing that.