Paul was a tremendous Christian and missionary, probably the best ever in both categories. We are especially grateful for him because he brought this precious Gospel into Europe, which is how many of us in America were able to receive it. He said he was indebted to those who didn’t have the Gospel (Romans 1:14-15). We are certainly indebted to him for bringing it to us (Fact). But, as great as he was in commitment to Christ and in missionary zeal, he did not set salvation doctrine. That was all determined before he even got saved. He accepted the doctrine that had been revealed by Peter on the Day of Pentecost, loved it, and promulgated it.
What’s odd concerning this reality is that many people, who, for some reason or other, want to dismiss Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation, cite Paul as their authority to do so. That’s a huge theological blunder. Let me explain.
Some people, for example, will readily toss out any salvation requirement that has to do with baptism. They feel free to negate the imperative of Acts 2:38 because, they say, Paul taught that salvation is by faith, which they interpret to mean faith alone, apart from the tenets of salvation. Therefore, they insist salvation can be claimed solely on the basis of believing in Jesus. However, this is not at all what Paul practiced or taught. This same error can be seen on major Christian websites. They hereby misunderstand Paul and wrest Scripture.
I think Paul would be profoundly upset if he knew how people have misinterpreted his writings. He worked harder than any other Apostle to bring the Gospel to the world. He wrote more of the New Testament than any other person. And his epistles, especially the Roman one, were intended by him to clarify the Gospel of Christ, not confuse it. Paul never said anything in Romans that contradicts Acts 2:38. In fact, the epistle to the Romans, along with all his other epistles, supports and corroborates it.
How people get confused
People err when they isolate general comments Paul made about faith in Christ and do not consider the larger context of biblical revelation in which they lie. Paul, and every other biblical personality, for that matter, fits into this larger context. Each person and verse of Scripture is in tight association with the Bible as a whole. No contributor of revelation or verse of Scripture disagrees with any other. That’s because God is not the author of confusion (1Corinthians 14:33). His Word is very clear to those who find its knowledge (Proverbs 9:8-9).
Larger contexts of biblical revelation
Let’s consider some of the larger contexts in which verses in the book of Romans reside.
1/ The larger context of Paul himself
Paul, like every other person used of God, was consistent with himself. He was consistent in what he received as salvation and what he preached and taught about it. And, fortunately, for those who really want to be sure about what the Apostle believed, the New Testament provides a large picture of him to examine. He is perhaps the greatest standout in the entire New Testament, save Jesus Christ. Half of the book of Acts covers his dramatic conversion and ministry. And we have numerous epistles written by him, which comprise roughly half of the New Testament. That’s a huge amount of Pauline material to assess.
Paul’s conversion experience
Paul’s conversion experience is well documented in Scripture. Luke chronicles it in Acts 9 and Paul himself recounts it twice (Acts 22, 26). It plainly shows that Paul’s conversion was no different than anyone else’s since the Day of Pentecost. He repented on the Damascus road, was baptized in Jesus’ name by Ananias, and received the Holy Ghost (Acts 9; 22:16). Does anyone really think he would have preached or taught something other than what he received?
Paul’s preaching practice
According to the wisdom of God, we have an account of what Paul taught as the terms of the Christian Gospel. We see it in Acts 19:1-6 with those who became charter members of the Ephesian Church. A superficial reading of this passage shows that Paul believed wholeheartedly in baptism in Jesus’ name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. He even insisted that these, who had previously received John’s baptism, be re-baptized in Jesus’ name. Does anyone really think that he would have taught in his epistles something different from what he actually preached?
2/ The context of the book of Romans as a whole
The book of Romans supports Acts 2:38. (It must. Acts 2:38 was Paul’s own salvation experience. He wasn’t a backslider by the time he wrote Romans.)
There are clear references to Acts 2:38 in the book of Romans. In chapter 6, Paul cites baptism and links it with eternal life. In chapter 8, he stresses the importance of receiving the Holy Ghost. It is not assumed that every person who merely believes in Jesus Christ has the Spirit. In the short context of verses 8-11, he uses the conditional word, if, four times, indicating that receiving the Holy Ghost is a separate experience from every other aspect of salvation. And, as with water baptism, Paul links having the Spirit with eternal life (v. 11).
3/ The context of redemptive history
Everyone who comes to know God finds his unique place in the course of redemptive history and has a role to play in relation to it. Redemptive history is a kind of evolving timeline in which God works to save mankind. And each person can only operate truly and effectively in association with that point on the timeline of redemption in which he lives.
Paul, as great as he was in spreading the Gospel, was not the one to introduce the plan of salvation to the world. That was not his calling and, furthermore, he was one born out of due time. In other words, the occasion of making salvation doctrine preceded him. The Apostle Peter, who had walked with Christ from the beginning, was given exclusive authority to reveal the plan of salvation to the world (Matthew 16:19). He explicitly stated on the Day of Pentecost that it was for everyone and that it would endure throughout the Church age (Acts 2:38-39). From that momentous point, the terms of Christian faith were settled and could never be edited (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 1:8-9; Jude 3; 1Peter 1:25). Acts 2:38 became the Apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42).
It’s important to remember that Paul wasn’t among the believers at that time. When he did come to conversion, he received the Acts 2:38 message like everyone else when it was presented to him (Acts 9). And, from that point, God called him to preach the message and to theologize about it in his epistles. His theology about the Christian experience is the point of confusion for some people.
Theologically, Paul often referred to salvation in Christ (Acts 2:38) as, faith in Christ, which it is. Often, when expressing it that way, he was contrasting it with the old system of works under the Law. This general contrast between faith and works is what people often misunderstand. They misinterpret Paul’s summary use of the word, faith, to mean mere faith apart from the tenets of salvation. In this way, they wrongly conclude baptism is a work. But Paul never spoke disparagingly about baptism or put the tenets of salvation in the category of condemned works. To be sure, he is the one, rather, who emphasized the necessity of baptism by requiring re-baptism on the part of the charter members of the Ephesian Church, as we pointed out.
In his Galatian epistle, Paul revealed his inability to create salvation doctrine. He recorded how he actually went up to Jerusalem and checked with Peter and others to be sure he was preaching correctly (Galatians 2:1-9). From this, it is evident that he had no authority to set salvation doctrine and respected what had been established by those who were in Christ before him. Even at the council in Jerusalem, headed by James (Acts 15), which decided the freedom of the Gentiles from keeping the Jewish law, Paul gave testimony of God’s grace among the Gentiles but did not make the decision that established that doctrine. Thus, while Paul advanced the Gospel, he was not one who could steer it doctrinally.
4/ The preemptive word of Jesus (John 3:5).
When speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus gave a preemptive word regarding the Christian plan of salvation. Nothing coming after could oppose it. He said that a new birth of water and Spirit was required to enter the Kingdom of God. In His post-resurrection teaching in the Great Commission, He specified the elements of water and Spirit to be water baptism in Jesus’ name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. And, of course, the Great Commission was fulfilled, as it was destined to be, on the Day of Pentecost when three thousand souls came into the Church.
5/ The context of the Great Commission
All Christian preaching is in the context of the Great Commission because it governs all preaching. Paul was a commissioned minister, as all ministers are. He could not stray from what Christ had prescribed for salvation in the Great Commission. And Jesus prescribed the tenets of salvation that were subsequently introduced by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. It is unreasonable to think that the great Apostle to the Gentiles would not take heed to Christ’s commission. We see him being told by Christ on the Damascus Road that it would be told him what he must do to complete his own salvation (Acts 9:6). Ananias, a man commissioned by Christ, delivered him the same tenets Peter preached (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16). Can anyone truly conceive that Paul would not preach the same Christian message? And, as we have pointed out earlier, he did!
6/ The Day of Pentecost
As mentioned earlier, some people use what Paul said about salvation being through faith in Christ to disregard what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. By doing so, they fail to see the consistent flow of revelation in the New Testament. The two personalities and concepts are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. What Paul said about salvation coming through faith in Christ (e.g., Romans 3:24) is exactly what occurred in the book of Acts, beginning on the Day of Pentecost. Repenting of one’s sins, being baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost is faith in Jesus Christ. Any summary reference Paul made to salvation in his epistles was a reference to Acts 2:38, which he himself received and preached to others.
7/ The context of the New Covenant
The point made under this heading is a simple but powerful fact. All biblical preachers in the Christian era operated under the New Covenant. We call it the dispensation of grace but it is a covenant nonetheless with terms and conditions just like any other covenant God made with mankind. The New Covenant was inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost and the terms for entry were announced by Peter (Acts 2:38-39). No one is authorized to preach anything differently. To do so is to breach God’s covenant. Paul did not violate the New Covenant. In his Galatian epistle, he even illustrated a point by referring to the lasting nature of a covenant between men (Galatians 3:15). Once it is agreed upon, neither party can disregard the established terms. Of even greater import and immutability is the covenant between God and man.
Conclusion
To say that Paul taught something differently in his epistles than what Peter and others preached in Acts, or to say that Paul, in his letters, taught something different from what he received for salvation and taught others in Acts is irresponsible, given all the evidence to the contrary. And, as we have endeavored to point out with these seven larger contexts by which to interpret Paul in any passage, he certainly preached the same salvation message as every other Apostolic minister recorded in the New Testament. Had he not, he would have done violence to Christ, to biblical revelation, and to the very course of redemptive history. And that is an untenable position to hold.