Originally posted on 4.30.20
The early Church insisted on the Acts 2:38 salvation experience.
A thoughtful person doesn’t have to read far into the book of Acts to notice how the early Church insisted on the tenets of salvation prescribed on the Day of Pentecost. We see this, for example, in Acts 8. Though there were miracles, faith in Christ, and baptism in Jesus’ name, the salvation experience of the Samaritans was deemed insufficient (vv. 5-16). Peter and John, not obscure Christians, came from Jerusalem that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Ghost (v.17).
In Acts 10:44-48, we notice Peter’s insistence of baptism in Jesus’ name, coming in the form of a command, even after Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost.
In some cases, people who had been previous believers in Jesus, but had not yet been informed of the Christian tenets of salvation, were called to the Acts 2:38 experience. This is obvious in Acts 18:24-28 regarding Apollos, who was taught by Aquila and Priscilla, ministry companions of Paul. It is noticeable again in Acts 19:1-6, involving the charter members of the Church at Ephesus, which occasion was superintended by the Apostle Paul on his third missionary journey.
The early Church expected interference from the devil.
Paul knew that wolves would enter, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:27-28). What form would this attack by the enemy take? We see clearly in the Galatian Epistle that one form had to do with altering the plan of salvation— in this case, even after people had received it. That’s what was essentially taking place.
The Galatians had been baptized in Jesus’ name and filled with the Holy Ghost. That was their salvation experience in Christ. It is abundantly evident in the Epistle. See, for instance, Galatians 3:3,27. But some of the saints at Galatia were being convinced that regard for the Law, involving circumcision, was necessary as well. That teaching implied that the singular means of salvation in Christ, provided by His death, burial, and resurrection (Acts 2:38), was insufficient. It equated to saying Christ Himself was insufficient to save. Paul argued against the heresy by claiming that any addition to what had been established in Christ from the beginning of Christianity is a departure from the Gospel, from Christ, and from grace (Galatians 1:6-9; 5:2-4). Paul stressed that no one had the authority to alter it, not even himself or an angel from heaven (1:8). His references to the Gospel, Christ, and grace all refer to Acts 2:38 for they all allude to what had been established as faith in Christ from the beginning of Christianity (Acts 2:14-39). There is no point in the Apostolic period that can be referenced biblically when a different Gospel message was preached.
How is this general Apostolic maintenance of doctrine accounted for?
In the case of the eleven, they were taught by Christ about coming deceivers, perhaps most potently by Christ’s parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13). As you may recall, they were intrigued by it even before they understood it. It must have immediately impressed them as having profound and significant meaning. With its dramatic explanation, they became poised, no doubt for life, to maintain the truth. Additionally, being personally called by Christ to be fishers of men, they would have felt the weight of responsibility for the souls of mankind. It would have been good had the historic Church maintained their Apostolic posture.
Faith alone
Some people think they’re standing for the truth when they insist that Christian salvation is by faith alone, that is, by merely expressing belief in Christ for salvation. We’ll treat this subject at a later time but let us presently give a short explanation of how they are wrong.
Oftentimes, people will not consider the tenets of Acts 2:38 because they deny, for instance, that baptism is for the remission of sins. Their reasoning for dismissing the clear and express statement of Peter is that they believe justification (remission of sins) only occurs by faith in Christ alone. Here, they usually cite Paul, although they almost always misquote him.
Have you ever considered that those who want to interpret justification by faith to mean mere belief in Christ nearly always insert the word, alone? Paul apparently never felt the need to add the word, alone, to faith when he was referring to salvation in Christ because he never did it. He simply referred to faith in Christ. And he was writing at a time in Christian history when there were people who were mingling elements of the Law into Christian practice. People add the word, alone, today because they are trying to make Paul’s theological expression mean something that he didn’t mean.
It’s important to understand there’s a difference between faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone. (The word, alone, is used in reference to faith, not Christ.) Faith in Christ includes believing what He taught. Believing and obeying Acts 2:38 is faith in Christ. Those who teach that salvation is by faith in Christ alone say that people are saved (justified) simply because they believe in the Person of Jesus Christ. What’s important to understand is that Paul, in his teaching of justification by faith, never referred to faith in Christ alone because it is not what he believed. He always referred to faith in Christ, which includes His Person and His teaching.
Paul’s expression, justification by faith, does not mean that justification comes by mere faith in Christ as if that were sufficient. Paul’s own conversion example shows otherwise. Three days after his coming to believe in Christ on the Damascus Road, he still had to be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 9:18; 22:16). That proves he wasn’t justified by his faith in Christ alone, even though he came to believe so earnestly. The Christ-prescribed tenet of water baptism was necessary for that. Neither had he received the necessary Holy Ghost until Ananias laid hands on him (Acts 9:17). Paul couldn’t have taught something in his Epistles that would contradict his own conversion experience. Justification by faith means that justification (remission of sins) comes through faith in Christ, Who solely provided us means of salvation, often referred to as tenets of salvation, apart from works of the Law or other self-effort. The Apostles of Christ were commissioned to preach these tenets, which they did beginning on the Day of Pentecost.
Some people insist, but wrongly.
While we have to commend certain persons for holding firmly to their doctrinal position, we must point out the error of that particular position when it is wrong. Those who believe they are holding to the truth of salvation when they insist that there is nothing to do but believe in Jesus fall prey to a common flaw of interpretation. They use a backward interpretive methodology that is fatal to sound doctrine. That means they are viewing salvation doctrine from a backward perspective instead of following the biblical flow of revelation. They are taking the theological expressions of the Epistles, that summarize the Acts 2:38 salvation experience, as the formula for salvation. They err in doing so because they thus ignore the sequence of biblical revelation, which first reveals the salvation tenets in Acts and then treats that very salvation theologically in the Epistles, often summarizing it as justification by faith. And, by their backward interpretive methodology, they cannot properly explain the true plan of salvation, Acts 2:38, and so end up explaining it away, if they even address it at all.
Recognizing the forward sequence of biblical revelation is absolutely necessary to properly interpret Scripture. In this way, the New Testament can be easily reconciled. The Gospel accounts are about our Savior (and the salvation that was present in the pre-Christian era). The book of Acts showcases Christian salvation, involving thousands of people. The Epistles summarily reference Christian salvation as, faith in Christ, or as, justification by faith, simply because, theologically, salvation is a product of faith in Christ.
Conclusion
If a person doesn’t believe our interpretation of the meaning of justification by faith in Christ, he must at least admit this position is a possible interpretation of the expression. I humbly hope everyone who makes that honest concession will come to the full understanding of this important doctrine. May the grace of God help us all.