All the many verses of the Bible combine to present one picture of salvation. In that way, the Bible is like a puzzle with its numerous pieces, which forms a picture that could not have been discernible apart from correct assembly. Every verse of Scripture is a specific part of the whole and uniquely contributes to the picture just as each piece of a puzzle serves the purpose that was intended for it to help yield the end result. When Scripture is given a meaning it did not inherit from inspiration, it is like forcing a puzzle piece into a place where it doesn’t belong. Chaos, rather than completeness, follows. That amounts to wresting Scripture (2Peter 3:16). And error in the picture of the Bible is most serious.
By using the analogy of a puzzle, we’re not suggesting that the Bible is a puzzle, or that’s its message is difficult to discern. But it’s similar to a puzzle in that its many verses must correctly align to give a true and complete picture of redemption. Failure to categorize verses of Scripture correctly gravely distorts its picture.
Into which category does each Scripture fit?
Often, with pieces of a puzzle, it’s easier to know where one doesn’t fit than where it does. It’s common to make many attempts at correctly placing a puzzle piece. So with Scriptures. Because of the theological nature of the Bible, many verses sound as though they describe salvation. And, indeed, they do. But they may not describe how to be saved. Many people are not aware of this important categorical distinction so they unwittingly interpret Scripture to mean what God never intended. In other words, they try to make it fit where it doesn’t belong, like a misplaced puzzle piece. They interpret it to describe how to be saved when it simply doesn’t fit in that category.
Categorical distinction can be rightly determined by a set of interpretive rules even while the express purpose of the verse may not be readily known to the person making the judgment. This is similar to knowing where a puzzle piece doesn’t fit even though knowledge of its correct placement is not yet known. The chief rule to follow to avoid the error of placing Scripture in a category in which it doesn’t belong is to follow the sequence of biblical revelation. The order in which the Bible was given and came to be received is the best safeguard to prevent interpretive error. We will develop this point further in a future blogpost.
The difference between describing salvation and describing how to be saved
As mentioned, many people are unaware of this distinction, which is the reason for a lot of confusion regarding salvation. There are many correct ways to describe salvation but there is only one correct way to tell people how to be saved. For example, salvation can be described in the following ways:
1/ “Salvation is free.” Indeed, salvation is free but that doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have to believe anything or do anything to be saved.
2/ It’s also true to say, “Salvation is through faith in Christ”. But that doesn’t imply salvation is obtained by mere faith in Jesus apart from obedience to the tenets He personally prescribed to secure it. Christ’s teaching about salvation cannot be ignored with impunity.
3/ In fact, a person could say, “I’m saved because I believe in the Bible”. There is nothing theologically wrong with that statement. It’s just not the whole picture. It’s a brief summary statement about salvation being based on the Bible. But merely believing the Bible is the Word of God is not sufficient to save. We must believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus and the salvation it offers through the Gospel.
So you see, there are many ways to describe salvation. But simply describing it is not the same as stating how to be saved. For example, in John 3:16, Jesus described salvation. No one who believes in Him would perish. But, a few breaths before, in John 3:5, He described how to be saved— by a new birth involving water and Spirit. So, verse 16 must include what Jesus taught about salvation in verse 5, for believing in Christ includes accepting His teaching. This example should be really easy to understand. Verse 16 has to refer to what preceded it for that is how all language and reason work.
There are more summary references to salvation in Scripture than uses of its tenets.
Just by the nature of theology, it will occur more frequently that salvation will be briefly referenced or described than that it will be presented. Summary references to salvation occur when a brief reference to salvation suffices to carry the thought of the speaker or writer. This is often the case in theology. Declarations of the plan of salvation or descriptions of how to be saved occur most in active evangelism. That’s why we see the tenets of salvation taking place frequently in Acts, whereas, in the Epistles, where there is no evangelism, summary references to salvation are used. If someone is not familiar with this distinction, the book of Acts, with its emphasis on the tenets of the faith, may seem to differ from the simple expressions of faith in the Epistles. Acts is where Christian salvation is taking place. The Epistles merely theologize about salvation to persons already familiar with the salvation message and, therefore, summarily refer to the salvation experience. When talking about salvation to persons already saved, it’s not necessary to repeat the tenets.
Conclusion
In actuality, there is no difference between the salvation message in Acts and that of the Epistles. It only appears to be so when a person fails to view them organically. They are in perfect agreement. There is only one way to be saved, that is, there is only one plan of salvation. It was prescribed by Jesus in John 3:5 and in the Great Commission. And it was revealed by Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38; Hebrews 2:3). But there are many ways to summarily describe that salvation (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24; 5:1; 1Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).