There are many good books, podcasts, etc. on the authenticity of the Bible, of which the reader can avail himself.  But, from a personal perspective, I can say this: To know the Bible is to know that its author is God.  In other words, as you learn of its amazing message and perfect coherence, you soon realize it could never have been the product of man.  I’m always amused by those persons who doubt its inspiration.  They thereby reveal their ignorance of its content.  The Bible has been poured over for thousands of years by some of the brightest minds that have ever lived.  And it has convinced them of its divine authorship.  But one doesn’t have to be a genius to be impressed. 

One of its profound aspects is its ability to unceasingly provide understanding and inspiration.  Its heights cannot be scaled, nor its depths plumbed, nor its ranges traversed.  I have been studying and teaching it for 46 years— nearly all of my adult life— and still feel like I’m just beginning.  In fact, I know my life will not provide me sufficient time to even scratch its surface.  The accumulated knowledge of the centuries and millennia have not exhausted it.  And, as I learn and hear what others have learned, I get the distinct impression that we are never nearer to reaching the end of the Bible’s truth than when we began. 

Good Christians don’t actually try to impose their beliefs on other people but they do try to share their faith.  I can think of two reasons why:

1/ Any person who has found such an important truth as salvation will naturally want to share it.  He will feel that way out of profound love and appreciation for what he has received and also out of love for his fellow man, whom he knows will also benefit eternally from it.  A person cannot have the Spirit of Christ and not have a burden for the lost.  The stakes are high.  There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.  A saved person sincerely wants others to be saved.

2/ Every Christian has a responsibility to share the Good News with others for whom Christ died.  Sharing Christianity is mandated by Christ because evangelism is the only way lost individuals can be saved (Mark 16:15).  The good will on the part of the Christian to share Christ’s saving message with others may be lost upon them because they are often comfortable and hardened in their depraved state of sin.  They don’t realize their dire need for salvation.  They often interpret a Christian’s witness as a kind of unwelcome confrontation.  And, in reality, it is a confrontation of sorts.  The Gospel call is a divine summons to forsake sin and surrender to Christ.  It is often accompanied by conviction of sin, which is always uncomfortable. Paul described his personal encounter with Christ as being apprehended by Him (Philippians 3:12).  Many of us may have originally resisted evangelism being directed at us but it is how we got saved.  Therefore, we know it works and we try to help our fellow man find the same great salvation.

Through a strong sense of the need for evangelism, the early Christians turned their world upside down and cleansed it of some of the most vile paganism.  They made the world a better place for you and me.  Succeeding generations of Christians felt the same inclination and obligation to tell others about Christ.  If all of these throughout history had not done their part, Christianity would never have taken hold as it did and would not have come down to those of us today who love its saving message.

People who ask this question would reason this way: “If Christians don’t believe in abortion, they don’t have to get one.  But let the rest of us do what we want.  It should be each person’s choice.” 

Christians understand the position of those who promote abortion.  Pro-abortionists simply desire the liberty to do as they will regarding the unplanned human life that has been conceived.  But they do not understand the spiritual dynamic of their choice to which Christians are privy.  There are at least three important considerations regarding abortion.

1/ The Bible is clear that God is the Author of life.  And He made human life in particular in His Own image (Genesis 1:26; 2:7,21-22).  From that initial point, successive human life occurs by a process of procreation that begins with conception.  The Bible is even clear that God grants conception (e.g., Ruth 4:13).  Therefore, conception of a human being is part of God’s will for human life and is not to be terminated by man.

2/ Since human life is from God, He is always against the unjust taking of it (Exodus 20:13).

3/ Sinning against God’s command to preserve human life defiles the land (Numbers 35:30-34).  In other words, it renders the country worthy of divine judgment.  On the other hand, doing what is right promotes the wellbeing of a country (Proverbs 14:34).  Christians understand this spiritual dynamic and want the blessings of God upon the land for the good of everyone. 

Because of these spiritual realities, Christians have an obligation to stand up for God’s truth, upon Whose earth and under Whose government we live.  And, it is not just a matter of personal preference.  It is for the good of all society.  Sinners are insensitive to this precisely because of their selfish activity in sin (Ephesians 2:1).   

Living for God is a very different life experience from living for the world.  The old expression is, “We are in the world but not of the world”.  People who are in the world are a part of the world system— its values, goals, and entertainment.  They depend on the world system for their satisfaction (Proverbs 15:14b; John 15:19; 1John 4:4-5).  On the other hand, people who are living for God find Him as the fulfilling purpose of their lives (John 15:11).  He is their goal.  His will is their desire.  There is great joy in knowing Him.  It is an entertainment all its own to discover Him and observe Him in one’s life and in creation.  To learn the many great revelations of His Word is a delight unparalleled in the world.  To someone who has found this pearl of great price, it’s difficult to understand how anyone could walk away from it. 

But people are fallen human beings who were each created with free will.  And the world is powerful.  So is sin and temptation.  And walking with God, though far superior to anything the world has to offer, is only so if a person has turned his back on sin and the world and has fully embraced Christ.  Paul describes this new life as walking in the Spirit (Romans 8:4; Galatians 5:16).  But if a person fails to walk closely with God, the world will encroach upon his heart and interests and will pull him away, even as happened to Demos (2Timothy 4:10).  I think persons who were truly saved and then backslid did not follow up on living their new life in Christ.  Perhaps they did not cultivate communion with God in prayer, which is central to relationship, or did not maintain regular Church attendance to be in the presence of God and to be spiritually fed with the preached Word of God.

Persons that backslide also fail to understand the context of salvation.  Ideally, when a person repents of his sins, he does so because he perceives that he is given a chance to escape the damnation of hell (Matthew 3:7; 23:33).  Salvation occurs in the context of judgment.  All sinners are lost.  Heaven does not await them as they may flatter themselves to think.  People who get saved are literally salvaged from the destruction of the human race.  To understand that fact is important.  How can one lightly go back to a state of condemnation?  While persons who thrive in Christ are those who delight in the abundant life He offers (John 10:10), there is also this secondary fact of the coming judgment and wrath of God that should warn those becoming cool in the faith to draw nearer to Christ (James 4:7-8).  Saved people still have a sinful nature and can be led away by it.  The world is strong, sin can be attractive, and the devil is cunning ( 1Peter 5:8).  While here on earth, we will always need to persevere in our walk with God (Jude 20-21; Philippians 2:12).  The proper and lasting response to God is total surrender and total devotion.  It will also be “joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1Peter 1:8). 

Hell is the most disliked subject in the Bible.  Some people refuse to believe in God or the Bible because of the doctrine of hell.  They find it inconceivable that God could prepare such a place for any human being. 

At the same time, there is a tendency to believe in heaven, or something like it.  Many peoples throughout human history have had a system of belief that includes some idea of a future utopia.  Oftentimes, some people that don’t accept the Bible’s doctrine of hell do believe its message about heaven.  But, since the Bible teaches both, its authority cannot be cited to teach one and not the other.

The doctrines of heaven and hell really go together logically.  When you consider both ends of the spectrum of human behavior, it’s inconceivable there would be one future place of reward without the other.  Certainly everyone is not deserving of the same future state.  That’s universalism, the belief that all souls receive the same reward, regardless of how life was lived here below.  That defies justice and, therefore, God.   

Hell is logical.

If a person thinks about it, how could there not be a hell when people are free to reject God?  Certainly, that has a consequence just like choosing God has one.  The idea of there being both heaven and hell is perfectly symmetrical.  Right and wrong choices imply different outcomes.  If you had good parents growing up, you probably didn’t get a treat when you disobeyed them.  It’s more likely the rewards that awaited you corresponded to your behavior.   

God has promised to provide wonderfully for people who choose Him and love Him (John 10:10; 1Corinthians 2:9; Ephesians 2:7).  The eternal future of the redeemed is unimaginably blissful and bright.  For them, literally, the best is yet to come.  What does that leave the person who rejects God and His provision?  The answer is simple— its opposite.  Hell is all that remains for those who will not have all the good that God offers.  And that spells misery.

But is hell fair? 

Is the punishment of hell commensurate with the crime?  Are bad decisions made in time worthy of eternal consequences?  I think the answer to this question has two parts.

1/ To sin against God is a crime of infinite proportions.  It is the ultimate treason and rebellion since it is committed against the Ruler of the universe.  The debt of such sin could never be fully paid by a mortal human being.  Therefore, the punishment would be eternal because the debt is infinite and precludes any possible release from hell (Matthew 5:25-26).  Jesus, Who was the infinite God incarnate (Colossians 2:9), paid this infinite debt with His Own life when He suffered the punishment of our sin on the cross (Acts 20:28).  To reject or neglect that gracious salvation leaves a person with no alternative but to pay the debt himself, which he will never accomplish throughout the eons of eternity.  This is one reason it is so important to accept the Gospel.  At the expense of Christ, it offers us perfect reconciliation with with God (2Corinthians 5:19).

2/ Regarding commensurate reward relating to time and eternity, the same can be said about heaven as was said about hell.  Does our making right decisions here on earth over a few years deserve eternal bliss in the presence of Almighty God?  On their own merits, certainly not.  But, yet, no one has a quarrel with that outcome.  The fact is, God has predicated eternal life with Him on our acceptance of His Gospel.  It is part of His wonderful grace.  And, conversely, failure to respond to and obey the Gospel is a choice to remain lost, resulting in suffering the misery of hell forever.  In both cases, life on earth is probationary and has profound consequences.  We are literally choosing between eternity in heaven or hell.  Both result from decisions made in time. 

The time-eternity relation is just since it is declared as conditional and operates in both the realm of heaven and of hell.  Realization of that fact makes the decision to be saved one of wisdom versus folly more than an issue of good versus evil.  Evil persons get saved.  We were all evil sinners.  That’s who Jesus came to save (Mark 2:17).  But a wise consideration of the reality of heaven and hell leads a person to salvation.  And, in light of eternity, it’s extremely foolish to remain lost for very obvious reasons.  Coming to Christ is self-loving, self-respecting, and self-preserving.  The preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost was to “save yourselves” (Acts 2:40).  That’s only wise (Matthew 7:24-27).  And it’s the only way you can significantly help someone else. 

Time has eternal consequences.  Life on earth is a probation.  Therefore, choose wisely (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).  Eternity is too long to be wrong.   

Most sadly, some persons will be cast into that horrible place we call hell.  But there may be confusion in the minds of some people as to how souls come to be there.  God doesn’t send people to hell.  Every person has free will to choose his own destiny, so, in that sense, people send themselves.  No one will ever be able to justly blame God for being in hell. 

From the beginning of human history, God has warned people of the power and consequences of their choices (Genesis 2:17; Deuteronomy 30:19-20).  Christ gave the most dire and descriptive warnings in the Bible about future judgment and hell (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-27; 23:33; Luke 16:19-31).  All of this was so that people would consider their actions and choose right.  Responsibility and accountability are inherent in the human experience.

God is the Judge of all the earth and, therefore, will, by His authority, punish souls (Matthew 10:28; John 5:27).  But He judges them on the basis of their own moral choices, as true justice demands (John 5:28-29; Revelation 20:11-13).  The net result of this is that God eternally disposes of people according to their own free agency.  Each person is responsible for his own salvation (Philippians 2:12). 

Free will enables each person to choose his own destiny.  People who go to hell will have chosen it by choosing sin over salvation, which is often accomplished by simply neglecting the wonderfully great salvation God has provided (Hebrews 2:3).

Do earthly judges send people to prison?  Absolutely, and in some cases, to death.  Do they send innocent persons to prison?  Of course not.  Neither does God send His children to hell. 

The operative word in this question is, “children”.  God has revealed that He will indeed assign deserving souls to hell but He does not send His children there.  The point of confusion with many persons who may ask this question is their misunderstanding of unsaved people’s relation to God.  People often mistakingly think that all persons are children of God.  While there is a vague, natural sense in which this is so, since our origin is through the procreation process designed by God in creation, yet, in a very real sense, sin has estranged us from God and has rather made us children of the devil.  The Apostle John made this clear (1John 3:8-10).  Jesus, shockingly, told the Jews of His day their father was the devil (John 8:44).  In His parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus said those who embrace false doctrine are children of the devil (Matthew 13:38).  Paul was in theological agreement with John and Jesus (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Being so profoundly alienated from God by sin is the reason we need to be reborn of Christ.  Those who are born again are the true children of God.  Paul made an interesting contrast when he referred to the two “Adams” in 1Corinthians 15:45.  Everyone naturally descends from the original man, Adam.  But natural birth leads to sin and alienation from God.  Jesus, on the other hand, is the “last Adam”— a new source of generation.  As He described to Nicodemus, we must be born again of water and the Spirit, whereby we thus become His sons and daughters (John 3:5).  From this new birth, we have eternal life and look forward to continued relationship with Christ forever in heaven. 

Well, the most significant word in that question is “good”.  It is a relative term, even when limited to referring to persons.  It cries for a standard by which it can be used universally.  “Good” may mean different things in the mind of the speaker and the hearer.

Human beings judge others by a standard relative to themselves (2Corinthians 10:12).  And, by that standard, we may call many people good.  They are good relative to us, according to the standard by which we judge people.  I knew a person some years ago that mentioned that his father-in-law was the best person he had ever known.  He supported his judgment in this way: he never heard the man cuss around women or children. 

It’s normal to regard people that are kind, or generous, or caring as good.  But, when you think of good relative to salvation, that is, good as a means of salvation, no person is good enough, no, not one (Psalms 14:3; Romans 3:12).  Every person, including people that are kind, generous, and caring, needs Christ and His Gospel.  None is sufficient without Him.  Cornelius provides a good biblical example of this point.  You could say he was as good as they come.  Check out what the Bible says about him (Acts 10:1-4).  But he still needed salvation.  An angel from heaven told him to send for Peter, who would tell him words by which he could be saved (Acts 10:5-6; 11:13-14). 

We can see, then, there is an appreciated human goodness that is recognized by our fellow man but which does not qualify a person for heaven.  If goodness was sufficient for entrance into heaven, there would have been no need for Jesus to give His life for all.  But we know He came because everyone was eternally lost (2Corinthians 4:3-4).  We were all condemned in Adam (Romans 5:14-19).  In our fallen, natural state, we are actually evil (Jeremiah 17:9).  That is what Jesus said, too, judging by a perfect standard (Matthew 7:11; 19:17).  But Christ came to regenerate us and give us a new nature (2Corinthians 5:17; 2Peter 1:4).  And when He comes back to rapture His Church away, our redemption will be complete and we will be perfected.  That’s why we all need His salvation regardless of how good we are.

What do you suppose would have happened to the good man, Cornelius, if he refused to be saved?  Do you think he would have gone to heaven?  God is the Judge.  But consider what He has said in His Word: 2Thessalonians 1:8-9; 2:10-13.  We can say for sure the Gospel of Jesus Christ is our hope.  In this, we are safe.

Psalms 116: 12-13

What shall I render unto the LORD for all His benefits toward me? 

I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

Christ has given His all to save us. The greatest thing we can do in return is to receive His great salvation, be thankful for it, live it with all our hearts, and tell others about it.

Actually, it was Adam who made that choice for us. This fallen world is not the one God designed. The terrible things that can occur on earth are the consequence of Adam’s sin.  Even natural disasters are a result of the Fall (Romans 8:21-22).  Had Adam never sinned, we would have been protected from sickness, disease, sorrow, and death, just as we will be in heaven. 

Life as it is now on earth was not God’s original plan for the human race but He has everything under control.  Jesus came to deliver us from all the effects of the Fall.  All the miracles He did were to demonstrate that the things that are broken now will one day be fixed.  He’s preparing a place where there will be no leprosy, or blindness, or deafness,  or scarcity of food, etc..  Someday, everything will be made new (2Peter 3:13). 

Sometimes, the question is framed this way: “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?”  The question implies that only bad persons should experience bad things.  Well, trouble is universal.  No one is exempt (John 16:33a; 1Peter 5:9).  But while we’re here in hardship, God gives us grace.

Psalms 23; 34:19; 46:1 

John 16:33b

Romans 8:28

1Corinthians 10:13

2Corinthians 12:8-9

1Peter 5:7

The best is yet to come— in the next world that Christ is preparing for us (John 14:1-3).  But we must lay hold on it, as Paul said in 1Timothy 6:19.  And, the life he referred to in this verse is life that is really life— life as God intended it!

Some people ask this question in reference to baptism.  They, thus, discount the importance of baptism by suggesting that, in the grand scheme of one’s life, how could a few gallons of water make much of a difference?  By focusing only on the water, they miss the real significance of the act of baptism.  There are at least four things to consider:

1/ Burial with Christ into His death (Romans 6:3-5). 

When we are immersed in the waters of baptism, we are buried with Christ into His death.  In this way, we personally identify with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

2/ Baptism in Jesus’ name is the means whereby we receive remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). 

Because we are buried with Him through baptism, we encounter a mystical contact with His blood, which washes away our sins.  And this is authenticated by the saving power of His name (Acts 4:12). 

3/ Baptism saves (Mark 16:16; 1Peter 3:21).

Jesus and Peter both declared that baptism saves.  Who could deny its importance?  And, to fail to do it means failure to be saved.

4/ Obedience to the Word of God.

Water baptism in Jesus’ name is a command of God (Acts 2:38; 10:48).  A person never fares well disobeying God.  This is especially true when the command involves such an important consequence as salvation and is so easy to do. 

According to Peter, it’s not “a little bit of water”.    It’s “the answer of a good conscience before God” (1Peter 3:21).  Peter even pointed out in this verse that the water, though the medium, is not the source of cleansing that takes place in baptism.  Baptism is the divinely prescribed means to wash away sins.  Obedience to that command is what an informed and conscientious person does in order to have his conscience clear before God.  What person awakened to his sins and sorry for them would not have his conscience cleared of them in the sight of God?  Remission of sins is the greatest bargain a person can receive.

Q: “Is a little bit of water really going to make a difference?”

A: Yes, it has tremendous efficacy.  It saves!

A similar question could be asked related to other great outcomes we observe in Scripture.  For instance, when Jesus made the clay and smeared it on the blind man’s eyes (John 9), why did He involve a medium to the miracle at all?  Would a little clay make a difference?  Yes, if Christ adds significance to it.  And why did Christ require the poor blind man to go to a certain pool to wash it off?  Were those few steps to the pool going to make a significant difference?  It seems they did.  Would you have refused such an easy remedy involving a little water in order to receive such a wonderful result?  Probably not.  Baptism in Jesus’ name is the greatest human need because it involves the greatest human dilemma— sin.  Anything that is efficacious in removing sin should be sought out diligently— especially when it is so easy and simple. 

Hypothetical considerations are not the basis for doctrine.  And the person asking the question is not in the hypothetical situation.  Therefore, he has the ability (and obligation) to obey the Scripture’s commands. 

As to the question, only God knows the answer.  All judgment belongs to Him.  To us belongs the obligation to obey His Word, which is very specific about baptism.

The reason some people ask the question is because they have an agenda to trap you in your answer.  They want you to reply that such a person would still be saved because of his good intentions.  And then they will claim that you proved their point that baptism, then, was not necessary after all.   

In this simple question, there are two very important theological words that should be understood— justified and faith.    

1/ The word, justified essentially means a person’s sins have been accounted for (remitted) in the eyes of God and that the person is no longer under the condemnation of them.  Implied in the expression is the notion that justification occurs by a divinely prescribed means.  It is clear from the book of Acts what that means is in the Christian era, namely, baptism (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  This is the experiential way to be justified.  Theologically, it can simply be expressed as, by faith, since it is faith in Christ that leads a person to be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). 

2/ The word, faith, likewise, is highly theological.  It has various meanings depending on its theological context.  For example, sometimes we refer to, the faith, as Christianity in general.  Other times, it means faith by itself (James 2:14; Mark 4:40).  Mostly, it means faith that actuates, as we see in the honor role of faith in Hebrews 11.  In the many examples provided there, faith is clearly seen to be what prompted righteous action. 

So, back to the question: Aren’t we justified by faith? 

The answer is: yes and no, depending on a person’s theological use of the word, faith.  Experientially, a person is not saved by faith (alone) but by the obedience of faith to the terms of salvation (Romans 1:5; 16:25).  Upon hearing the Gospel, a believing person is prompted by faith to obey its saving tenets (Mark 16:15-16), which results in justification (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  Therefore, theologically, a person can be said to be saved by faith since it initiated obedience to the tenets of salvation.  This is how the Apostle Paul used the expression in his epistles.  All the epistles in the New Testament were written by and to persons who had previously received the Acts 2:38 salvation experience. 

From this understanding, we can conclude that there is an experiential and a theological way to view justification.  The justification we see take place experientially in the book of Acts occurred through repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  But all of this was prompted by faith in Christ.  Hence, the basis for obedience to Gospel terms is faith.  Therefore, references to that salvation in the epistles were theologically abbreviated to justification by faith.  It was perfectly understandable to those to whom Paul and others were writing because of their common salvation experience.

Oftentimes, when Paul referred to justification by faith, he was contrasting salvation in Christ to attempting salvation by the works of the Old Testament Law, or some aspect of it (e.g., Galatians 3:21-29).  He, therefore, stressed that Christians are justified by faith.  Theologically speaking, faith refers to our confidence in the salvation provided by Christ as opposed to reliance on any other means or any additional means.  Paul never meant that we are justified simply because we believe in the Person of Christ.  This is clear by what we observe of actual Christian salvation in the book of Acts, including Paul’s own conversion (Acts 9; 22:16) and ministry practice (Acts 19:1-6).   

Faith in Christ means three things in the Christian era:

1/ Faith in Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah.

2/ Faith in His atoning sacrifice for our sins.

3/ Faith in what Christ prescribed for salvation. 

The principle of salvation in the New Testament is faith in Christ (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9).  That is not the plan of salvation but it is the principle of salvation.  Justification by faith in Christ simply means that we are saved by what Christ prescribed for salvation rather than by any other means.  Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation because the tenets expressed therein were mandated by Christ in His Great Commission.  The Great Commission is a mandate.  Therefore, the tenets of salvation that are contained in it are mandated by Christ for use in evangelism.  On the Day of Pentecost, Peter spoke as a commissioned minister and preached the plan of salvation that every New Testament minister is commissioned to preach. 

Acts 2:38 is how we are justified by faith.  And all the examples of salvation in Acts bear it out. 

We’re thankful for every soul saved throughout redemptive history.  And the case of the thief on the cross displays the tremendous grace and mercy of God in that it involved a notable criminal, at the end of his life, calling out for salvation at a time when Christ was enduring unimaginable suffering for the sins of the world.  It’s comforting to know that God, at all times, is merciful to all persons.

The famous thief on the cross is usually cited as providing sufficient basis for someone believing in Christ to be able to legitimately claim salvation today.  In actuality, the only thing someone may personally claim from the example is that, had he been there at that time instead of, or along with, the thief, he could likewise, expect salvation.  That’s because God is merciful at all times to all persons, respecting none.  But the fact is that we’re not there, but here.  In a similar way, if we were with the faithful people of God at the time of the Exodus, we could have been emancipated from Egypt just as those we read about were.  But the fact is, we are not there, but here.  In addition, had we been following Joshua, we could have gone into the Promised Land, too.  But, again, we were not there, but here.  We could go on citing many other situations throughout redemptive history.  But the point remains, we were not there, but here.  We are in the Church age. 

The point of bringing up these examples is to show that redemptive history was an ongoing process, ever leading to, and culminating in, the Christian era.  The thief on the cross was the last recorded soul to be saved prior to that era, which began on the Day of Pentecost.  We are living in the New Covenant and can only be saved by its terms. No other means is necessary, or is offered to us.  People often erroneously think that they can choose an example of salvation from anywhere in the New Testament and apply it to themselves.  That simply is not so.  Regard must be paid to the specific dispensation in which we live.  (A dispensation is a definite period of time in redemptive history in which God “dispenses” a specific means for souls to be saved.). In the Church age, that means is Acts 2:38.  For this reason, the thief on the cross is not an example of Christian salvation.

Legalism is a system of salvation that depends on keeping certain laws or mores, by which a person can be judged good or bad.  It can be referred to as works-based since it involves doing good works or deeds.  It’s not uncommon to hear of someone who has recently passed away as being now in heaven because, while on earth, he or she was a “good person”.  That basis for judgment is a form of legalism. 

The Old Covenant was a legal system of 613 laws, all of which were to be kept.  Of course, no one could do that perfectly, so God, in His mercy and goodness, along with the Law, also provided a sacrificial system by which the offending, but penitent, Jews could obtain mercy and regain standing with God.

The New Testament, in contrast, is a system of faith in Christ.  That does not mean that it is a system of mere faith in Christ, as though just “believing in Jesus” is sufficient to save someone.  Faith in Christ involves obedience to Him (Hebrews 5:9; Acts 5:32).  It means that we believe in Christ as the Messiah and depend on His atonement for our sins, which we believe to be efficacious for our salvation.  Such salvation is offered to us through tenets of faith, to which we comply in faith-inspired obedience.  They involve repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  They are necessary for salvation as indicated by Jesus in His Great Commission (See Post 14).  They were stated as imperative on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39). 

Some people deny the tenets of salvation because they say requiring them would make Christian salvation legalistic, or, dependent on works.   But obeying a command of Christ which He ordained for salvation is not legalism or a condemned work.  It is actually an act of faith because it trusts what Christ says.  Obeying Christ’s word is faith in Christ.  Disobeying it is unbelief or rejection of Christ. 

Some people think Christian salvation cannot involve any kind of human effort.  That’s just unreasonable.  It would mean that a person couldn’t even make a decision regarding Christ because even that involves human effort.   Jesus said belief itself is a work (John 6:29).  But it certainly is not a condemned one.  Free will involves decision.  And making a decision is human effort.

Bedsides this, the tenets of salvation are commands.

Repentance is commanded (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 17:30).

Baptism is commanded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 10:48).

Receiving the Holy Ghost is commanded (John 20:22; 3:5; Romans 8:9). 

Obeying Christ’s commands is a necessity, not legalism.  Obeying them does not take away from what Jesus did for us on the cross; it honors Him for it.  Faith in Christ means that we are trusting what salvific means Christ has provided for us rather than trying to achieve salvation by our own means.  Obedience to His commands is never reliance on self-effort.  It is absolute faith in Him and what He prescribed for salvation.  There is not a better expression of faith (James 2:17-20). 

Paul wrote the book of Galatians to counter the error of legalism that had crept into the Church.  He didn’t disparage the tenets of salvation, which the Galatians had obeyed (Galatians 3:27), but he condemned their addition of circumcision for salvation as though the tenets Christ provided were insufficient.  That is legalism— adding another feature to Christ’s tenets of salvation. 

People who represent Gospel tenets as legalistic usually also oppose attempts at personal holiness as also being legalistic.  Holiness is a New Testament command of God just as it was in the Old Testament (Leviticus 11:44; 1Peter 1:15-16).  And holiness plays out in practical ways.  The New Testament itself touches upon elaborate hair styles, expensive dress, adornment, and modesty (1Peter 3).  It, thereby, gives principles of practical holiness to be maintained by the Church throughout history.  It is not legalism.  It is personal consecration to God, which is necessary to see God (Matthew 5:8; Hebrews 12:14).  Paul asserted that we are to walk in the Spirit so as to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16).  Even Church attendance is required in the New Testament (Hebrews 10:25).  Is the New Testament, then, legalistic?  Not at all.  There is appropriate behavior that accompanies salvation (Hebrews 6:9). 

There are really two main overarching imperatives in the Christian era:

1/ Be saved.

2/ Be holy. 

The beauty of the New Testament over the Old is the very distinction it has to make us holy.  The Old Testament was too weak to be able to do this (Romans 8:3-4).  That’s why sacrifices were continually made.  Once forgiven, the offerers of the sacrifices would return to sin, creating the need for another sacrifice (Hebrews 10:1-2).  But, when we were born again, we received a new nature, one by which we’re enabled to live above sin.  That’s the whole purpose of regeneration.  And that’s why Christ only had to die once.  He died to “put away sin” (Hebrews 9:26).  He puts away our sin when we’re baptized in Jesus’ name.  And, by walking in His Spirit, we live new lives (Galatians 5:16; Romans 8:4; Ephesians 4:22-24; 2Corinthians 5:17).  This is the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy that God would give us a new nature and new heart.  Ezekiel further said that, by His Spirit in us, God would cause us to walk in His statutes and judgments (Ezekiel 36:25-27). 

Though new birth in Christ has produced a cataclysmic change in our lives, we are not yet perfect.  So, in the event of personal sin as we walk in the light and make our journey toward heaven, Christ is our advocate and cleanses us from all sin (1John 1:7-2:2).

Be ready.  Christ is coming back for His Church that has fulfilled the tenets of salvation and that is living holy (Ephesians 5:27). 

Be careful when asking a biblical question that is worded that way.  It may reveal that you just don’t want to believe something.  The Bible rarely says things just the way a person demands that it does in order to believe it.  The Bible, rather, is a book that needs to be properly studied to ascertain its truths (2Timothy 2:15).  It typically yields its truth to hungry and honest hearts more so than forcing itself upon us.  This is nearly always the case in its most important doctrines.  And, it may not reveal everything topically all in one place.  Teaching may be derived from Scripture here and there (Isaiah 28:13).  In addition, sometimes the Bible shows things rather than says things.  It often teaches from examples (1Corinthians 10:11).

When sound and diligent study is not applied to Scripture, misinterpretation ensues.  Scriptures, misinterpreted and misapplied, have been used to support the strangest ideas.  Even popular doctrines— some regarding salvation— have only an intellectual veneer to support them. 

A more suitable question than the one that is the subject of our heading is, “What does the Bible say about…?”  A question framed in that way suggests that the person actually wants to know what the Bible says.

We can certainly say that everyone has sinned and does sin.  The only exception was Jesus Christ. 

People sin because, since the fall of Adam and Eve, human nature is sinful.  That means people are sinners by constitution.  People are not sinners because they sin but they sin because they are sinners.  That’s why Jesus came— to save sinners, to regenerate them and change their constitution.  He came to make us holy.  Unless we are made holy, we will not be able to live with Christ in heaven (Matthew 5:8; Hebrews 12:14).

Here’s the difference between saved and unsaved persons: People who are genuinely born again of the water and the Spirit, as Jesus described to Nicodemus (John 3:5), the fulfillment of which we see on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38), receive a new nature (2Peter 1:4).  Our old man is buried in baptism in Jesus’ name.  And when we receive Christ’s Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, we are born again.  New life is imparted to us.  We become new creatures (2Corinthians 5:17). 

Once a person has been born again, his life should be vastly different, as relating to sin.  He does not continue in his old sinful ways.  A cataclysmic change occurs in his life, which is evident to others.  Christ’s Spirit abides within and empowers the person to live above sin (Romans 8:2).  However, this doesn’t mean he is perfect yet.  The Bible acknowledges that a Christian may sin.  See 1John 2:1-2.  “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”  But saying “if”, not “when”, here, John expresses the experience of sin in the case of the redeemed as the exception rather than the rule.  But, if sin occurs, we still have the advocacy of Christ to cleanse us.

In Scripture, this regenerated person is no longer described as a sinner, even though the sin nature is not yet entirely eradicated.  But the saved person is designated a saint because the sin nature is in the process of being subdued by the greater power of God’s Spirit within (Galatians 5:16-17; Romans 8:2-4).  We call this process sanctification.  The process will be complete when the sin nature is totally eradicated at the Rapture when our bodies are changed (1Corinthians 15:51-58; Philippians 3:21).  That future event is known as our glorification (Romans 8:30).  Because we are on this prevailing course of total sanctification, we are called saints from the point of conversion.  Perfection is our certain destiny so the Bible calls us by that certain outcome.  We are, thus, denominated saints.  But when we get to heaven, we will be fully constituted saints.  There will no longer be the possibility of sin. 

The simplest way to understand Matthew 28:19 is to realize that it was a command given to the Apostles by Jesus and that it was fulfilled by them in the book of Acts two thousand years ago.  Therefore, it’s not so much a question to us as to how to interpret it now as it is to see how they interpreted it and then follow their inspired Apostolic example (John 17:20).  All their baptisms were done in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:6).  That shows us how Matthew 28:19 is to be fulfilled.    

Another point to realize about the formula given by Jesus for baptism is that Matthew 28:19 is not to be considered alone.  In a later instruction, Jesus made it clear that baptism was to be administered in His own name (Luke 24:47).  This is how the Apostles knew what Jesus intended in Matthew 28:19.  Most people who insist on using Matthew 28:19 by simply repeating the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost never take into consideration Christ’s later teaching in Luke or the Apostles’ fulfillment of the command in Acts.  The matter is really that simple. 

There is another short lesson about Matthew 28:19 on this website posted on the Salvation Bible Study  page, lesson 11. 

It’s surprising to learn how incorrect people’s understanding is of God’s grace.  It’s often perceived as a simple and handy Get Out Of Hell Free card without having to do any more than believe in Jesus. 

Now the grace of God is a wonderful thing.  It could even possibly be described as a Get Out Of Hell Free card because, apart from the grace of God, no person would have anything to look forward to but hell.  Our salvation rests completely and solely on God’s Grace. 

But all important biblical concepts are necessarily defined in God’s Word.  Grace is no exception.  That pertinent definition is located in Titus 2:11-15.  It involves salvation that denies evil and results in holy and righteous living coupled with a great anticipation of the soon coming of the Lord.  The grace of God doesn’t overlook sin; it eradicates it.

Acts 2:38 is the salvation provided by the grace of God.  It involves total remission of sins and the regenerating power of God’s Spirit.  The Bible does not contain anything more gracious. 

How can I be held responsible if I didn’t ask to be born?

© 2020 by James V. Maurer, Sr.

Why did God create me and subject me to the possibility of going to hell for not pleasing Him when I never consented to being born?  How can He hold me responsible for something in which I did not choose to be involved?

While most people may not have ever thought to ask this question, some have, especially when confronted with the concept of divine judgment and the possibility of going to hell.  Notice that the question has in it a tone of hostility towards God.  It does not express a regret for having received the amazing gift of life but it resists the inherent accountability to live one’s life as the Creator determines is best.  The questioner seems to ask why he cannot do as he pleases with impunity.  It’s as though he actually asks, “Why doesn’t God just leave me alone and let me live my life the way I want to?”

The question is based on ignorance and selfishness.

Selfishness is easy to understand. Every person would prefer to have everything his own way all of the time without repercussions.  Selfishness is the synonym for sin for it will ultimately result in sin if left unrestrained.  Selfishness is not easily remedied because to do so is to limit the self, which smarts. 

Ignorance is easily cured with education, if a person is open to it.  Volition always dominates the human soul and is also linked to selfish motives, which can jeopardize true education.  In this post, we will attempt to educate the soul who asks the question that is our present subject. 

Human understanding about life is limited.

The question we presented at the outset betrays a very shallow understanding of human life on earth.  It represents life as being totally egocentric, as though all that matters is the personal human perspective.  That would be fine if the individual was his own Maker or if his origin was otherwise independent of God.  But, since human life is granted by a divine Creator, it involves purpose that only God fully understands (Proverbs 20:24; Jeremiah 10:23).  Therefore, God’s will for the human race and for the individual must be wisely sought and considered by each person (Acts 17:27-28a). 

It should be natural for us as intelligent creatures to want to understand our origin and purpose.  The twin philosophical questions, “How did I get here?” and “Why am I here?”, confront every thinking person.  You could say that, from an anthropological standpoint, they are the mother of religion.  The philosophical questions, however, do not tend to surface in the hot pursuit of carnal pleasure.  A lower drive prevails in those moments, which doesn’t care for religious or philosophical interference.   

Fortunately, the Bible reveals the purpose of God in creating human beings and also tells us how to live.  It is, as it were, a blueprint by the Architect of life for fulfillment and joy of living (John 15:11; 10:10; 13:17).  The commandments of God contain promises related to life’s duration and experiences (e.g., Ephesians 6:2; Deuteronomy 28; Psalms 19:7-11; Acts 2:38-39). The Bible’s greatest promise relates to eternal life (1John 2:25).  That requires the understanding of human probation.  Life on earth is actually a test which tries our worthiness to live eternally with God.  It is this concept of probation that the questioner chides.  But he is so blinded by his sin that he cannot see the massive and gracious opportunity he has to know and live with God blissfully forever.   

Ignorance of the destructive nature of sin 

Sin can be defined as living amiss from the Creator’s design for human life.  It is a kind of insanity because it is a temporary defiance of God Himself and will be met with complete and final eradication by God (1John 3:8).  There is no future in sin.  Therefore, there is no future for the sinner, at least not a promising one.  If he does not bow in repentance and submission to God, he will be destroyed in hell.  God uses one of two means to put away every person’s sin— either the sacrifice of Himself on the cross or eternal punishment in hell. 

Even from an earthly perspective, sin is destructive for the individual and others whom he affects.  God’s revealed purpose for mankind is for our individual and societal good.  He withholds no good thing from any person (Psalms 84:11).  The only thing He prohibits is that which is harmful to us.  Since sin is amiss from God, it is, consequently, harmful— both to the individual and to society as a whole (Proverbs 14:34).  For example, family breakdown weakens society.  But even one sinner does enormous damage (Ecclesiastes 9:18b).  Not only is sin self-destructive but, since no one lives his life separately from others, it negatively affects others as well.  This truth is graphically illustrated in the story of Jonah where all the problems at sea to the mariners was due to Jonah.  Sin always affects those in close relation to us.  How many persons have been heartbroken due to a family member’s sin?  The questioner of our topic apparently doesn’t understand the significance of his behavior, both as relates to himself and to others. 

The reason God granted us life. 

The questioner fails to grasp the superlative act of human creation.  God wanted to share the greatest thing imaginable— personhood, something He alone possessed.  He made us eternal, relational beings much like Himself— in fact, in His very image (Genesis 1:26-27).  This act of granting personhood is so good and gracious that it is unfathomable.  It, perhaps more than anything, shows how generous and unselfish God is.  He even went to Calvary to sustain it.  Each human life, therefore, is a dramatic expression of the will of God to grant personhood.  It involves individual freedom and self-actualization.  Since God made us in His image, He possessed us with abilities and capacities for creativity and every kind of construction.  And, being in relation to Him offers meaning and satisfaction to life beyond mere utility (Psalms 16:11). 

But, because our lives are derivative, they can only be fully realized in connection to God Himself (John 15:4-7; Acts 17:28).  As C.S. Lewis said, God is the only food in the universe.  We are sustained by Him and we thrive in Him. His Word, by which we are bound to Him, is described by James as the perfect law of liberty.  Not only does it liberate those who obey it, but pours blessing upon them (James 1:25). 

Our lives are so integrated with God that hell itself is a kind of compliment.  It shows that God did not create us for any reason but for Himself (Colossians 1:16).  He said He loves us jealously (Deuteronomy 4:23-24; 6:14-15) and hell confirms it. 

The law of the eternal fitness of things.

But, what about the reference in our topic question to our not being involved in God’s decision to make us?

Granted, creation of a human being is a very serious thing.  It produces a personality and soul that will live forever somewhere.  If every person eventually or automatically went to heaven, there would be no controversy about God creating us apart from our consent, for no one would eternally suffer.  But, in the present state of affairs, one of the places of eternal abode is hell, in which case, as acknowledged by Jesus, it would have been better for the persons going there to have not been born (Matthew 26:24).  That fact prompts the question, “Was God justified in creating us without our permission when such an awful possibility exists?”.

I believe the answer to that question takes the following form:

The Bible reveals a truth with which surely no one would squabble.  There is no law against doing good (Galatians 5:23b).  God could, therefore, not be impugned for sharing life and personhood.  It is personal, specific and all encompassing.  Nothing more exciting or dramatic exists!  It is also coupled with living in His presence, which is surpassingly wonderful and is that for which we long (1Peter 1:7-9).  It is the greatest of all imaginable gifts.  And, it was unattainable apart from creation.  Therefore, God was justified in creating human life because what He gave us is supremely good and gracious.  And, it is never wrong to be good and gracious.  It was eternally fit for God to do so and many will forever praise Him for it.  May we all strive to be in that number. 

But, inherent in creating intelligent life with free will is the possibility of rebellion against God, which results in eternal condemnation in hell. 

From this chain of reasoning involving free will, someone may charge that God exposed the people He created to the possibility of hell.  We cannot deny that.  But, if the consequence of hell is the result of free will, that proves it is a choice, and not coercion.  No one has to choose it.  And though sin is inevitable to fallen creatures, they are still not without hope in escaping hell.  Jesus came to earth to cancel the condemnation of hell to those who will believe the Gospel and obey the plan of salvation.  By going to the cross, Jesus literally took our hell.  After Calvary, no one can blame anyone but himself for going to hell for he effectually chooses it for himself if he rejects or neglects the great salvation Jesus purchased for him (Hebrews 2:3).  Those who go to hell do so in spite of Calvary.  Choosing our eternal destination is what makes free will the most serious endowment we possess. 

Should God, in view of faulty human choice, have decided against creating human beings?

God graciously chose to create human beings, for which many will be eternally grateful.  But some would argue that, because so many people would be lost (Matthew 7:13-14), God should have aborted His mission to create our race.  That choice, by the way, would have eliminated the possibility of all the righteous people from the foundation of the world being able to enjoy their God.  The wicked, who refuse to live God’s way, would have prevailed against all those who want God and love God.  It would have been an incalculable injustice to allow the wicked to deprive the righteous of their eternal good.  God, in His wisdom, apparently judged that the eternal suffering of the damned should not preclude the eternal joy of the redeemed that He had planned for them (1Corinthians 2:9; Ephesians 2:7).  Had God, on the basis of keeping the ungodly from a possible hell, refrained from the creation of mankind, the plan of God regarding His image-bearing creature would have been thwarted.  Sin would have, effectually, conquered God.  It would not have been appropriate that the wicked should so overrule the grace and sovereignty of God. 

The precedent for such a decision by God was in the creation of the angels.  God foreknew that about a third of them, if we interpret the Scriptures correctly (Revelation 12:3-4), would be eternally lost and suffer the torment of eternal punishment (Matthew 8:29; Jude 6).  Even though this reality loomed, God chose to proceed with the creation of angels for His glory and for the good of those who would choose well and enjoy the life God gave them. 

No human being has to be lost. 

While the lost state of man is inherited from Adam and Eve, it doesn’t have to be our end.  God has arranged for every person to be converted.  Each covenant and dispensation of God throughout redemptive history was graciously designed for the salvation of our race.  Creating mankind with free will did expose every person to the possibility of hell.  But God covered that possibility to the extent that no person needed to be lost.  He brought redemption (Genesis 3:15).  In doing so, Jesus assumed, not the guilt, but the punishment of every person’s sins.  In the face of redemption, no one should be lost.  In fact, every person who will be lost will be so by a deliberate choice of sin over salvation.

The profound human role in the creation of fellow humans.

I think the topic question, “How can I be held responsible if I didn’t ask to be born?”, is to be more directly raised to our parents, who knew full well of the process of procreation and were more directly responsible for bringing us into the world than even God.  Indeed, God created the potential for the mass of humanity but the actual proliferation of mankind has been through procreation, which is the free choice of human beings (Genesis 1:26).  We choose to bring other human beings into the world.  Humans, therefore, are responsible for creating humans.  The hostile questioner of our topic should more appropriately ask his parents why they brought him into the world.  But I think few parents have ever been asked this question. 

And not only did our parents bring us into the world but they, in most cases, held us accountable to their teaching, scolding and disciplining us when necessary.  And, all of this was for our good, whether we liked it or not at the time.  But, as we mature, we tend to look back and give them honor for it (Hebrews 12:9).  If our parents held us to a family and societal code of manners and ethics, how much more should God have the right to tell us how to live when the plan for the human race was His Own.

Most people are in agreement with God’s decision to create human life. 

The fact that most people by far choose to live out their lives and die naturally, most of whom also bring children into the world, testifies to the goodness and righteousness of God in creating our original parents with the potential of populating the world.  It glorifies God in granting life to our race.  Even after the Fall, Adam and Eve choose to bring human life into the world.  And, though we all know life in a fallen world is hard and presents many challenges (John 16:33), yet the world continues to increase in population, bearing witness to the fact that most human beings consider life, as conceived by God, as good.  And who doesn’t get excited when another child is born? 

Life is all about choices.

We stated at the outset that the hostile questioner was really asking, “Why doesn’t God just leave me alone and let me live my life the way I want to?”  How many teenagers have thought the same thing of their parents?  But it’s not likely to happen because the parents love them too much.  And, what’s really interesting is that those same teenagers, often within a period of only a few years, themselves bring children into the world and begin to assume the same caring roles as their parents!  If loving parents are not inclined to overlook proper instruction and discipline of a child, how can it be expected that God will? 

But, on a deeper level, that question about being left alone by God involves a choice— a choice to be rid of God.  And that is more or less what hell is— a place where God is not.  When a person rejects God, he rejects all the mercy and grace of God, though he may never think the process through.  He may think he can reject God and still have all the provisions of God, dispensing only with His frown and justice.  The person therein reveals his ignorance.  Hell is a place devoid of the gracious provisions of God.  His perfect justice is all that is present there.  Hence, the choice to be rid of God is a choice for hell itself.   

The greatest privilege of man is to know his God. 

Why would a person not want to know his Creator?  Why would he not want to know his parents?  In both cases, he can expect to experience love and kindness, especially in the case of knowing God (Psalms 40:5; 27:10).

What About All The Denominations?

© 2020 by James V. Maurer, Sr.

For more info, please write: [email protected]

I think there are two serious questions that arise when considering the many denominations within the realm of apparent Christianity.  They are as follows:

I. Are all Christian denominations equally valid in the eyes of God?

II. Are the denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the singular plan of salvation helpful or harmful to the Christian cause?

Let’s consider the first question.

I. Are all Christian denominations equally valid in the eyes of God?

In other words, can a person be saved in any denomination?

First, we all can attest to the fact that there are certainly good people in all denominations.  We all know some of them.  Most of us even know good people that are not religious, or that are of a different religious faith altogether.  Rating our fellow man by a human standard of goodness, based on decency and morality, qualifies many people to be categorized by us as good, no matter what their religious affiliation, if any.  We recognize human goodness in many places.  And that’s fine.  It’s even good to do so.  People deserve all the dignity and respect due them. 

But, on a deeper level— one predicated on the Scriptures— I would have to deny that all denominations are equally valid.  I come to that conclusion primarily based on what they teach regarding the plan of salvation because I believe salvation to be the most important thing in the world.  I can’t imagine a single worthy comparison to it.  And, if a church or denomination doesn’t teach the Christ-prescribed and book-of-Acts-honored plan of salvation (Acts 2:38), nothing else I can think of matters at all in the end.  That conclusion may be simplistic but I can find no way around it.  A person’s spiritual state when he leaves this world is still the most important aspect of his life.  I imagine that one second after death, nothing will matter more to the deceased than that he gave due attention to the Bible’s tenets of salvation and his consequent walk with God. 

If a belief system denies Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation, it denies people the biblical application of the precious blood of Jesus for the remission of sins and the incomparable, necessary infilling of the Holy Ghost.  To deny them this is to deny them eternal life with Christ, notwithstanding their faith in Him.  And the Bible certainly acknowledges that people of faith can be lost (Matthew 7:21-23; James 2:19).  Therefore, I don’t believe all denominations are equally valid in the eyes of God because validity is ultimately based on a proper understanding of God’s Word, especially as it relates to salvation doctrine. 

Regarding the second question:

II. Are the denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation helpful or harmful to the Christian cause?

I personally have thought much on this subject.  I think this question is best answered by breaking it down into two individual questions:

A/ How are denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation helpful to the Christian cause? 

B/ How are they harmful?

Let’s look at the first.

A/ How are denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation helpful to the Christian cause? 

My previous Catholicism

I will begin with my own pre-conversion religious experience.  I was raised Catholic.  How do I, as an Apostolic, look back on it?  My answer has two parts to it.

1/ I am bound to say that I learned some valuable things as a Catholic.   

  • I learned the healthy fear of God. 

  • I learned the good habit of regular Church attendance.

  • I learned respect for the house of God and for the ministry. 

  • I learned to praise and worship God, however inferior it may have been.   

  • Very importantly, I learned to pray.  (My parents’ examples before me in this area were most helpful, too.) 

  • I learned to regard the Bible as the Word of God.

  • I learned about Jesus dying on the cross for me.

  • I learned other valuable Bible knowledge.

All of these points were helpful but perhaps the last one about obtaining Bible knowledge was especially so.  I recall when a faithful Apostolic witness, whom I had never met before (Don Crilley), told me about receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues.  I was aware of the experience happening on the Day of Pentecost because I learned of it in Catechism class.  I assumed as a school boy that that was the end of it.  But Don floored me when he said it still takes place today.  That is what piqued my curiosity and interest.  Thankfully, I had a basis for understanding his witness due to previous religious education, limited as it was.  If not for that, I may have been totally unable to relate to what he was saying or I may have been spooked by the whole thing and dismissed it out of hand. 

2/ I was also angry at the Catholic church when I found the truth.  That’s because I realized that I had trusted their belief system for my soul and that trust was not warranted from a biblical standpoint.  They had misled me about salvation and that’s no small matter.  To fail to tell someone the truth about his soul is as serious as it gets.  After our conversion, the woman, who is now my wife, and I confronted our priest as to this important discrepancy.  He could give us no answer. 

The positives and negatives that could be said about my Catholic experience, I think can be said generally about the denominations.  In the following remarks, I will be referring to the denominations as those Christian faith systems that do not accept Acts 2:38 as the singular plan of salvation for the Church age.  They comprise mainline Christianity. 

The denominations are right on many things and, therefore, are helpful to the Christian cause.

1/ Denominations help promote the name and knowledge of Christ. 

Paul gloried that Christ was preached at all (Philippians 1:18).  Accordingly, I think we have reason to rejoice anytime Jesus is being taught in any measure.  No one knows everything about Christ.  We’re all learners.  Anything we can know about Him is better than nothing and anything we can learn more about Him is an improvement over what we formerly knew.  To those who are just learning of Him, His attractive beauty may inspire lifelong interest and lead to a person finding the truth. 

2/ Denominations tend to promote the Bible as the Word of God. 

Virtually every denomination exposes its members to the Bible.  That is right and good.  Some people who join denominations never had a Bible before, or never read it.  Coming to embrace it as the Word of God is a tremendous step that has great potential.  The Bible is very useful in this life.  There are many life lessons that tend to good and healthful living.  And people exposed to the Word of God are thereby exposed to the truth it contains about salvation and can, therefore, find Acts 2:38. Or, their desire for God and His truth may lead them to be open to additional truth by an Apostolic witness.

The doctrines of the Bible are numerous and it is always helpful to learn any of them.  Any practice of the Bible’s teaching is beneficial to that person and to the world.  God honors and blesses all regard for His Word.  Obedience to any portion of it brings good in that measure.  Therefore, we’re thankful for every person, church, or organization promoting knowledge of the Word of God. 

3/ The denominations can be expert in many areas of biblical knowledge. 

They are great, for instance, in apologetics.  They are scholars in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek.  Their timelines of biblical history and harmony of the Gospel, in addition to many other things, are all very helpful.  They are eminent in every area of biblical knowledge— except the plan of salvation (2Corinthians 2:14). 

4/ Denominations can lead a person in Christ as far as they correctly teach and preach God’s Word.

Many people come to believe in Jesus in their church services.  People can have a truly repentant experience with Christ in a denominational church, no less than Paul did on the Damascus Road before Ananias was sent to him (Acts 9).  God can and does work in denominational churches to the extent that they preach the truth.     

5/ Denominations can enhance social and domestic relations. 

Teaching biblical principles relating to family and society brings stability to homes, communities, and the country and serves this world well in this present time. 

6/ Denominations also provide many humanitarian services.

Feeding the poor and providing relief in disaster are just a couple of examples. 

B/ How are denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation harmful?

1/ They give a false sense of spiritual security.

They teach people a wrong basis for claiming salvation, which amounts to a horrible deception, for to believe one is saved when he isn’t is the worst kind of deception there is.  Denominations that deny Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation do just that, similar to my previous Catholic experience that I mentioned.

2/ They fail to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). 

The denominations do not believe some of the most important doctrines of the Bible, specifically, baptism in Jesus’ name and the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues.  They, therefore, deny people remission of sins and regeneration, which is precisely why Jesus went to the cross.  This is a fundamental loss to biblical Christianity.  It’s like a house without a foundation.  And, as in such a case, many people are not prone to notice it for the abundance of other things that fill their view.  In many ways, churches that don’t preach salvation doctrine correctly still resemble those that do.  That resemblance can be confusing to untrained eyes.  It’s like looking at two houses, one having a foundation and the other not.  The difference is undetectable without closer inspection.

3/ They actively resist Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation and stand in the way of people coming to it. 

This is the most serious fault of the denominations.  It’s the charge Jesus made against the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 23:13).   Preachers are largely accountable for what people believe.  That’s what makes their profession so frighteningly responsible (James 3:1-2).  They are often the biggest detriment to people receiving Acts 2:38.  For example, no true candidate for baptism would oppose being baptized in Jesus’ name.  The sheer sentimentality toward the perfect and loving Savior Who died for us would incline people to accept His name in baptism.  But if the person baptizing them uses the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and then indoctrinates them accordingly, it will be almost impossible to convince them otherwise.  Doctrine is strong, even false doctrine, when embraced as if it were true. 

Epilogue

No one should remain in a church that does not teach the full truth about salvation (Acts 2:38). 

Until we all come to the unity of the faith, no one should remain in a church that does not teach the full truth about salvation.  If you have the beautiful revelation that Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation, you should be thankful for it and worship God among those of like precious faith.  Some people deceive themselves into thinking that their attendance in a church that wrongly teaches salvation doctrine will provide a “light” that will bring the others to the truth.  I’ve never witnessed that occur.  Instead, I’ve seen real spiritual detriment come to those who do not come out of such darkness and walk in light.  Jesus said while you have the light, walk in the light (John 12:35-36).  You will never be more poised to serve and bring glory to God than being in the Church of His redeemed. 

End time revival can be sweeping.

We have shown many fine things about the denominations and we have pointed out their serious deficiencies.  The good things they have going for them could prepare them for great effectiveness in these last days if they have a desire for truth and will be open to the light of Scripture regarding salvation.  Salvation doctrine is paramount among the great doctrines of the Bible.  Like nothing else, it glorifies the worthy name of Jesus and honors the work He did on Calvary.  And when God opens the eyes of the denominational preachers to this precious truth of Acts 2:38, it will only take a little adjustment for them to be on board with the fullness of the Gospel message and minister effectively in it.  End time revival could sweep across our nation and world like never before in the history of the Church.  Their white-hot zeal for new-found biblical revelation could even make them more effective than us, who have loved it for years.  Whole congregations and denominations could be easily swept into the saving truth of the name of Jesus.  This has to be the devil’s biggest fear.  Let’s pray for it to happen. 

(Same material as Blog Post 26) 

Paul’s Teaching On Salvation Doctrine

We have a tremendous volume of Scripture that involves Paul.  Because of that, his profile in the New Testament is second only to Jesus Christ.  The New Testament presents him in three powerful ways:

1/ First of all, about half of the book of Acts is devoted to following Paul (chapters 13-28).  It is actually impressive just how much we know and see of him in this valuable inspired history.  We see his full conversion experience, involving his surrender to Christ on the Damascus Road and his reception of the tenets of salvation when attended by Ananias (Acts 9).  Furthermore, we hear him recount his conversion experience twice (Acts 22, 26). 

From these accounts, we can see that Paul received the Acts 2:38 salvation experience that began on the Day of Pentecost. 

2/ Secondly, we observe his ministry practice, including three missionary journeys.  As you would expect from his own conversion experience, he went on to preach the Acts 2:38 salvation message.  This is evident in Acts 19:1-6, where he re-baptized “disciples” in Jesus’ name and laid hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost.

All of this specific history must, and does, reveal his position on salvation doctrine.  The Acts record of him is, therefore, the hermeneutical basis for understanding his epistles.  In other words, his actual experience explains his theology.  Nothing is more sound than that. 

3/ Thirdly, we have his epistles.  In these, he states an important theological fact— that there is only one means of salvation (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 1:8-9; 3:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-11; Titus 3:5-7).

The history of Paul in Acts along with the epistles he wrote comprises about half of the New Testament.  This gives us a larger picture of him than any other New Testament personality, save the Lord Himself.  One would think that this large volume of material would ensure correct understanding of this great Apostle.  But, instead, he is often misunderstood and misrepresented.  The confusion chiefly stems from a misunderstanding of his epistles.

Source of misunderstanding regarding Paul 

People often get confused about Paul’s teaching on salvation doctrine.  This occurs because they do not interpret the theology of his epistles in light of his salvation experience and ministry practice seen in the book of Acts.  Having this important background in mind is the correct way to approach Paul’s epistles.  Incidentally, this is true of the non-Pauline epistles, too.  All of the epistles in the New Testament must be understood in the light of the book of Acts, which records actual New Testament salvation.  That is proper hermeneutics. 

A profound fact that is often overlooked

We have pointed out that Paul’s conversion experience and ministry practice are covered in the book of Acts.  This involves a 28 year history*.  Here we see precisely that Paul received and preached the Acts 2:38 experience.  This fact gets overlooked by persons who try to understand his epistles without consideration of this important background. 

What’s really profound about all of this is that Paul was writing his epistles during his active ministry recorded in Acts**.  And, there is no way he was writing something different than he was preaching.  The only plausible conclusion to draw is that his writing was a theological reflection of what he was preaching.  This is the only conclusion that is hermeneutically sound.  Therefore, again, his epistles must be interpreted in the light of his salvation experience and ministry practice in Acts.  They overlap on the timeline and, therefore, they must, likewise, overlap in theological content. 

From these facts, we can draw three conclusions regarding Paul’s teaching about salvation doctrine:

1/ Paul’s salvation doctrine will be determined by his own salvation experience. 

No rational person is going to teach something about salvation different from his own experience.  He would be undermining or condemning himself.  Every person promulgates what he has personally experienced. 

2/ Paul’s salvation doctrine can be determined by what he preached to others. 

What is evident in his actual preaching to others accurately represents what he believes about salvation doctrine and is what he will be theologizing about in his epistles. 

3/ Paul’s salvation doctrine can be determined by what has been preached from the beginning of the Christian era. 

This fact can be drawn from his epistles because he acknowledged one plan of salvation from the beginning (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 1:8-9).  Therefore, his salvation theology must identify with what was preached from the very Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39).  Correspondingly, theological references to Acts 2:38 are seen throughout his epistles.  A couple of examples are 1Corinthians 6:9-11 and Titus 3:5-7. 

Conclusion

Paul was in perfect synch with Peter, who introduced the Christian plan of salvation on the Day of Pentecost.  He personally received and taught the Acts 2:38 salvation experience.  And, in his epistles, he declared there is only one means of salvation (Ephesians 4:5).  He also stated that no one had any authority to change it (Galatians 1:8-9).  It’s significant that Galatians 1:8-9 was written the same year that Paul ministered in Ephesus, as referenced earlier, when he insisted on the Acts 2:38 tenets when he met “disciples” who had not yet received them (Acts 19:1-6)**. 

The Bible’s singular, coherent message of Christian salvation is partly how the Gospel is said by Paul to “shine” (2Corinthians 4:3-4). 

*See the Bible Hub timeline.

**For example, the same year he ministered at Ephesus in Acts 19 (54 A.D.), he wrote the Galatian epistle. 

How can there be a good, omnipotent God if evil exists in the world?

© 2020 by James V. Maurer, Sr.

Wouldn’t a good, all-powerful God rid the world of all the evil?

This is one of the oldest and most oft-repeated arguments for atheism.  In fact, some atheists think it seals their case and proves there is no God, at least not a good and powerful one.  It often takes the form of the following simple syllogism:

Premise 1: If there is a God Who is all-good and all-powerful, He would rid the world of evil.

Premise 2: Evil exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no God. 

Fault with this logical syllogism lies in both premises.    

The fault with premise 1:  How can it be known that God would have chosen the course stated in the first premise and would not rather have chosen another one for dealing with evil?  How do we know that He is not actually ridding the world of evil in a way unknown to us?  And, how do we know that God doesn’t have a transcendent reason for allowing evil to exist?  The mind of God is infinite.  How can infinitesimal creatures even come close to analyzing His wise judgments (Isaiah. 55:8)? 

There are at least two biblical reasons that evil is allowed to exist presently:

1/ In Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares, He gives one reason for allowing evil persons to continue.  They are often necessarily intertwined in the lives of others, perhaps as parents, or children, or employers, etc.

2/ The possibility to commit evil serves in the realm of human probation.

Probation involves the exercise of free will.  Life on earth is a kind of proving ground where individuals choose between good and evil.  This is so that people may freely manifest themselves (John 3:19-21; 1Corinthians 11:19), which will affect their eternal destiny.  Free will is only possible in a realm of choice.  People must be able to choose between good and evil.  For example, Adam and Eve were presented with evil.  They didn’t have to choose it but it was an option.  Had there been no ability for them to choose, there would have been no meaningful way for God to know they were true to Him. 

The fault with premise 2:  Evil exists but does it exist temporarily or permanently?  Present existence of evil is not proof that God is not dealing with it and overthrowing it.  The human drama involving evil has not yet fully played out.  Therefore, premise 2 is not a sound argument against the existence of God. 

Premise 2 refuted: Evil exists but it is not unchecked, proving God’s handling and eventual eradication of it. 

The Bible makes it clear that evil is de facto and short-lived.  It shows the end of all evil in the final judgment of God.  God has chosen to deal with evil in four profound ways:

1/ Through a moral and biblical standard of good and condemnation of evil.

God promotes virtue in nature (Romans 1:18-20) and in His Word.  And, even though people can choose evil, it is condemned, indicating it is not above the sovereignty of God. 

2/ Through divinely instituted human justice (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13). 

This provision comes through human government, which chiefly exists to protect its citizens.  This divine provision therefore proves that evil is not allowed by God.  Even though people can choose it, evil is condemned and punished, showing God is in control of it.    

3/ Through Calvary (1John 3:8).

Calvary was God’s first response to evil.  It was planned from the foundation of the world and was enacted at the first occurrence of human sin (Revelation 13:8; Genesis 3:15).  Christ eventually came to suffer the penalty of our sins on the cross.  It was God’s most gracious handling of evil, showing Him merciful and just at the same time (Romans 3:26).  He has thereby given a space for His mercy to rejoice over judgment for the salvation of our race (James 2:13).  That is why the wheels of justice upon our rebellious planet have moved so slowly (Ecclesiastes 8:11). 

4/ Through the final judgment of God, known as the White Throne Judgment. 

For those persons throughout history that did not avail themselves of the mercy of God, the final judgment of God looms.  This is when any and all residual embodied evil left in the universe will be cast into the Lake of Fire. 

In the end, God will be seen to have both mercifully and justly overthrown all evil.  Therefore, the presence of evil is not a sound premise on which to construct an argument against the existence of God because evil is being dealt with by the justice of God and is only temporary. 

Summation:

The follow-up question asked at the outset was: “Wouldn’t a good, all-powerful God rid the world of all the evil?”

Well, that is exactly what God is doing, in the most merciful of ways!  And it is precisely what God promises for us in the next world.  There will never be another interruption of evil.  Sin will be totally eradicated from the universe.  Peace and holiness will forever prevail. 

Let’s look at the syllogism again, but in the light of our brief study. 

Premise 1: If there is a God Who is all-good and all-powerful, He would rid the world of evil.

We have shown that He will rid the world of evil, making the premise invalid.

Premise 2: Evil exists.

Evil only exists temporarily.  God is handling it in His unique way in order to save souls.  Therefore, the premise is invalid. 

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no God. 

Wrong!  Therefore, the inverse of this syllogism is true.  There is a God. 

The significance for us

God will decisively and effectively handle all the sin in the universe. With our race, God has two ways to deal with it:

1/ Through Calvary

Jesus’ death on the cross has underwritten all the means of God’s merciful redemption throughout redemptive history (Romans 3:25).  In the Christian era, we receive remission of sins through baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38-39; 22:16).

2/ Through Judgment

As previously stated, all sin that was not handled according to God’s terms of mercy throughout redemptive history will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If people living today understood the efficacy of baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, which is clearly expressed in the black and white of God’s Word, they would not hesitate to avail themselves of this tremendous grace of God.

Are we in the last days? 

9.19.20

With all the intense events of 2020 taking place before our surprised gaze, many— and not just religious people— are asking, “Could this be the last days/end of the world?”

Consider what 2020 has produced: An impeachment of our President, a deadly pandemic ushering in commercial, academic, and economic disaster, serious riots in the streets of our major cities, and now the death of one of our Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sparking increased political tension in our country in a close election year.  Furthermore, a troublesome possibility of an undetermined election result looms for November 3, stirring even more unrest.  To my knowledge, our country has never before witnessed anything like this. 

Are we in the last days?   

From a biblical point of view, I think there are two perspectives from which to answer this important question. 

1/ This is not the end of human history because the Bible foretells the coming Millennial period, in which there will be peace on earth for a thousand years.  That will be preceded by the return of Jesus (the Rapture) and the much-dreaded Great Tribulation period so attested to in the Bible.  Therefore, based on these biblical facts, mankind will be living on earth for a long while to come.

The second perspective is more pertinent presently. 

2/ The “last days”/“end of the world”, to which we generally refer, is the period of time leading up to the Millennial reign.  It includes the days just prior to the coming of the Lord and the Great Tribulation.  I personally believe that recent events indicate we are in that time period.  That’s because these dramatic current events are coupled with other significant factors that relate to the last days, such as: the designated duration of the Church dispensation, global connection and interdependence, the technological possibilities of controlling human life on earth— financially and otherwise, etc.  Reading of end time events in the book of Revelation today makes them sound more feasible than ever— and just around the corner.  In earlier days, we believed the prophecies.  But today, unlike any other time in our lives, we can see how easily they can be fulfilled. 

I know there have been many predictions and expectations in the past two millennia of the “last days”/“end of the world”.  And, in every generation, present warnings of the imminency of “the end” are dismissed on this basis.  The Bible predicted that would be the case (2Peter 3:3-4).  But, to be sure, someone in some period of Christian history is going to experience the fact of the “end of the world”.  The Scriptures were not written in vain (James 4:5).  Though prophecy tarry, wait for it, we are told, because, ultimately, it will come to pass (Habakkuk 2:2-3; Hebrews 10:37; Matthew 24:35).   

What if we’re not in the “last days”? 

Even if these are not the “last days”, no one wastes his time by getting right with God.  If life on earth, as we know it, improves and the future is filled with peace and prosperity, that brightness still would not diminish the fact that each of us is mortal and must face our personal end.  That fact is universally known (Ecclesiastes 9:5).  But that moment is not known.  In face of this glaring reality, wisdom dictates that we be ready to meet our Maker (Amos 4:12), whether these are the last days or not. 

As mentioned previously, I personally believe we are in the curious “last days”.  I have believed this for some time, much prior to 2020.  I’m strengthened in my belief now.  But, either way, I want to be ready to meet the Lord, however that may occur for me.  I think the great benefit of the disturbing current events is that they are raising awareness of the certain, biblical “last days”, which may move otherwise busy and distracted people to consider their souls.  And that is a mercy of God. 

9.25.20

In short, idolatry is any unbiblical position about God or salvation.  In Old Testament times, it was most recognizable because it embraced pagan deities.  Evangelization of the world by Christianity has largely rid the world of conspicuous pagan idolatry but more subtle and sophisticated forms have taken their place.  In a strict sense, idolatry can be defined as any aggregate of preferred terms of religion or salvation that are not consistent with the precise teaching of Scripture.  In this way, present idolatry can be very “Christian” in appearance.  Simply put, false Christian doctrine, especially as regards salvation doctrine, is a form of idolatry since it denies the true plan of salvation (e.g., Romans 8:9). 

.   

The Stabilizing Aspect Of Covenant

Only covenant relationship with God is authentic and, therefore, it is indispensable.  It is the rule for living for God (Psalms 50:16-17).  True Christianity is according to covenant.  It has its authority in Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34; Joel 2), the Great Commission of Christ, and its Apostolic enactment on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).  Idolatry, even if it involves the name of Christ, is non-covenantal because it is not bound to the covenant terms of Christianity introduced by its Founder, according to prophecy, and established at its inception.   

The Singularity Of Judaism

The reason Judaism was so unified and stable in its forms of salvation and worship is because of covenant.  The Jews entered into covenant with God in Exodus 19:1-8; 24:1-8.  They were told to keep the covenant.  Then they received from Moses the forms of their worship and sacrifices.  There was tremendous unity involving one Tabernacle, one priesthood, one High Priest, one rule for sacrifices, one passover sacrifice, one day on which to offer it, etc., etc.  Sure, the Jews backslid plenty.  They often turned away to idolatry but when they revived, they came back to the covenantal elements of Judaism (e.g., 2Kings 22:8). 

But Christianity has splintered into a thousand forms and some people think they are all legitimate.  What a contrast from Judaism!  How could the Old Testament shadow be so unified but the substance be so splintered?  The reason apparent Christianity is not unified, as Judaism was, is because of disregard for the distinct terms of its covenant. 

The Singularity Of True Christianity

True Christianity cannot change for the same reason Judaism could not change, namely, because of covenant (1Peter 1:23-25).  As stated previously, the covenant stabilizing Christianity was founded in the Old Testament, advanced by Jesus throughout His ministry, culminating in His Great Commission, and enacted by the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42).  The fact of Christianity being covenantal is the reason for the New Testament’s forceful statements of its unchangeableness (Galatians 1:6-9; 5:1-9; Jude 3; Ephesians 4:5, Hebrews 13:7-9, etc).   Idolatry, on the contrary, is whatever a person wants it to be. 

9.27.20

Purpose of this lesson

Many people of faith are quick to deny that baptism in Jesus’ name is for the remission of sins.  They believe the blood of Jesus has washed away their sins while they fiercely oppose the revealed biblical means to procure it (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  They reason that, because they believe in Jesus and what He accomplished for us on the cross, their sins are thereby removed.  In other words, they believe simple faith in Jesus and the atonement provides remission.  However, there is not a word of Scripture, properly interpreted, to support their view. 

This lesson is designed to answer the following question:

Because a person believes Jesus died for his sins, is it appropriate or theologically correct to disregard Christ’s prescription for the remission of sins?  —Or, in other words, can biblical faith oppose baptism?

The tremendous creation of the human race

Human beings are the height of God’s creation.  We are the most perfect specimen of earthly creation.  We are made in God’s very image.  When we see the incarnate God, we will see a fellow human being.  The Apostle John said we will be like Him (1John 3:2).  He graciously made us to share life with Him.  It is an unfathomable kindness.  It reflects the goodness and unselfishness of God perhaps more than any other thing.  We, as a race and as individuals, are very important to Him.  He loves us beyond our ability to understand.  The fact that He made us is powerful evidence that He wants us to be with Him forever.    

The declaration of God that death would result from sin

God gave us life— a life very similar to His Own— but we are not in a peer relationship with Him.  Our lives are derived from Him and are sustained by Him.  He is our God and we are accountable to Him to live our lives according to His perfect plan for us.  These are the things He revealed to us in His Word. 

When God created Adam, He warned him regarding disobedience, which we commonly call sin, the consequence of which is death (Genesis 2:17).  Because Adam and Eve failed to heed this warning, our race has suffered unimaginably because every person has inherited a sinful nature.

Sin is mankind’s biggest dilemma. 

Human beings are quite remarkable.  We as a race and as individuals have accomplished tremendous things.  But our downfall is sin.  Due to sin, we each have a sentence of death and eternal condemnation upon us (Romans 3:23; 6:23).  We each need salvation.  And however salvation would come to be, it must deal with the fact of ridding us of sin.   

The ratification of the eternal plan of God to save mankind

God’s answer to man’s dilemma of sin was the cross of Christ.  Calvary was ratified from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).  From eternity past, God foresaw Adam’s fall but still considered humanity a race worth saving— even by such an unthinkable means as dying on the cross to atone for our sins.  This, God would do in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4-5).  But a point of theological significance is that this great sacrifice of Christ would underwrite all the means of God’s merciful redemption in its various forms throughout redemptive history (Romans 3:25-26), beginning with Adam and Eve.  This means two things:

1/ Without Christ’s atoning sacrifice, there could be no salvation by any means.

2/ Each means of redemption offered by God throughout redemptive history would avail solely and precisely because of Christ’s shed blood, regardless of the dispensation involved.  (A dispensation is a specific time period in redemptive history in which God dealt with mankind in a prescribed way— for example, the Law dispensation.) 

But it is equally important to note that, while the blood of Christ underwrites all the redemption that will ever take place on earth, merely citing the fact of the atonement of Christ was never presented as a means of salvation.

The enactment of God’s plan to save souls   

As we are informed by Scripture, Adam and Eve fell into sin and our race was doomed.  But when God came to the Garden of Eden to judge Adam and Eve, He enacted His plan of redemption with the announcement of the coming Savior (Genesis 3:15).  This, as we came to understand with the fulfillment of prophecy, involved the incarnation of God Himself to die in our place. 

The institution of substitutionary sacrifice

On the ground of the coming incarnation of God as our perfect vicarious sacrifice, God instituted animal sacrifice as a temporary means of dealing with man’s sin.  It is immediately seen at the dawn of civilization and redemptive history.  An animal sacrifice was involved in the clothing of Adam and Eve.  And, we see it highly conspicuous in the religious devotion of Abel (Genesis 4:4).  It was apparently the plan God revealed to Adam and his immediate descendants for dealing with their own sinfulness and, thereby, was the means for them to obtain right standing with God. 

Next, consider the Jews of the Old Testament and their many substitutionary animal sacrifices, all intended to deal with sin, and by which they were reconciled to God. 

From these two examples, briefly presented, it is clear that God provided a means of salvation involving innocent blood. 

The necessity of these sacrifices

Those sacrifices were absolutely necessary.  This is evident from God’s rebuke of Cain, who offered inferiorly (Genesis 4:7).  The sacrifices that occurred in the Old Testament were the means for souls in those respective dispensations to be in right standing with God.  It was noted by the writer of Hebrews that remission of their sins was the all-important result (Hebrews 9:22). 

The ineffectiveness of animal sacrifices, though they were necessary

Over time, a river of blood flowed from the many Old Testament sacrifices.  But the New Testament makes it clear that not one of those sacrifices was sufficient in itself to wash away sin, nor were all of them combined (Hebrews 10:4).  Then how were they efficacious to remit sin?  Answer: They were the divinely prescribed means of salvation in their time, which would later be underwritten by the shed blood of Christ.  The animal sacrifices involved innocent blood but they weren’t, in themselves, sufficient to remit sins because remission required a perfect human sacrifice (1Corinthians 15:21-22).

The fulfillment of the eternal plan of God involving the cross 

In the fullness of time, Jesus came to give His life as a perfect sacrifice (Galatians 4:4).  John the Baptist introduced Him as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).  This is the fulfillment of what God had planned from the foundation of the world to save mankind (Revelation 13:8).  On the basis of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, every dispensational means of salvation was underwritten and, thus, validated (Romans 3:25-26).    This would be the case to the very end of time. 

The precious blood of Christ would underwrite every prescription of God for salvation to the very end of time. 

We have already explained how Christ’s blood validated the Old Testament sacrifices and enabled their offerers to be in right standing with God.  It didn’t stop there.  Every means of salvation since Calvary, likewise, is totally underwritten by Jesus’ blood.  We are currently in the Christian Church era.  The revealed means to receive remission of sins in this dispensation is through baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  Souls who will be saved after the Rapture of the Church and throughout the thousand-year-long Millennial period will have different means of salvation according to their respective dispensations.  But, once again, they will be validated by what Jesus did on the cross.  The point we want to stress here is that the atonement is associated with the divinely appointed means of salvation in every dispensation.  It is never independent of them.  Nor is the atonement efficacious apart from them because they are the divinely prescribed means necessary to effect the application of Christ’s blood.  The atonement made every tenet of salvation throughout redemptive history efficacious but didn’t replace a single one.  In no dispensation would it have been appropriate or acceptable to disregard the tenets of salvation offered by God and simply claim to have remission of sins because one believes in the atonement. 

The plan of salvation in the Christian era

Peter announced the terms of Christian salvation on the Day of Pentecost.  He specifically declared to those seeking reconciliation that baptism in Jesus’ name is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:37-38).  Ananias, a man sent by God to attend the conversion of the Apostle Paul, affirmed the same thing (Acts 22:16).  Even though we know the blood of Jesus is the basis of our salvation, we cannot dismiss the plan of salvation that facilitates it.  For someone to reason that he believes his sins are washed away merely because he trusts Christ’s work on the cross is to be ignorant of the biblical means to actually apply the blood and receive the invaluable remission of sins. 

Conclusion

At the outset, we said this lesson is designed to answer the following question:

Because a person believes Jesus died for his sins, is it appropriate or theologically correct to disregard His prescription for the remission of sins? 

I think we have shown adequately that it is not. 

Imagine for a second…

Imagine for a second if a person of faith in past redemptive history could have had understanding of Romans 3:25 and had known the role the blood of Christ would play in underwriting redemption in his time.  Would that have been reason for him to dismiss the means prescribed by God to effect remission relative to his dispensation by simply declaring, “I believe the blood of Jesus will eventually cover my sin”?  Certainly not.  The then-present means of redemption were indispensable because it was those very means that were underwritten and validated by Calvary.  For example, Abel would not have been justified by mere faith in the future atonement of Christ apart from the animal sacrifices God had required in his own time (Hebrews 11:4).  And, had any of the Old Testament saints rejected the means available to them at the time, they would have rejected the blood of Christ that came to be associated with them. 

The same is true today.  Baptism in Jesus’ name is prescribed in the Christian era explicitly and specifically for the removal of sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  This is so because, as in former dispensations, the blood of Jesus underwrites the present divinely prescribed means.  It is not appropriate today, therefore, to merely claim Christ’s atonement apart from the means He instituted to effect its efficacy.  It wouldn’t have been appropriate or effective in past dispensations and neither is it in our own.  In fact, at every point of redemptive history, including our own, had understanding of Romans 3:25 been universally grasped, it would only have been appropriate to say, when referring to the atonement, “I believe the blood of Jesus covers my sin, according to the divinely appointed means which effect it in my dispensation”.   

Baptism in Jesus’ name is that very means today.  Therefore, the person who rejects that patent Scriptural provision rejects the blood of Christ that underwrites it.  Christ’s sin-cleansing blood is only available through the indispensable tenets God has prescribed in association with it.  To repeat what we said earlier, merely citing the fact of the atonement was never presented as a means of salvation.

10.11.20

Can we Apostolics be wrong about Acts 2:38 being the Christian plan of salvation?

This question may be equivalent to the following way of reasoning: “Anyone can be deceived, right?  Then why can’t we?  And if we think so many people are deceived, how can we be sure we’re not?  The others probably think they’re right and we’re wrong.  How can anyone be sure he has the truth?” 

As we approach this question, let’s first assure ourselves that a person can know he has the truth.  This is according to Jesus.  He said a person can know the truth and the truth will set him free (John 8:32).  Having settled that important matter, let’s proceed with reasoning through our question.

Hasn’t everyone been deceived before— in some matter?  How can we be sure then it’s not happening to us now?  

It is true that anyone can be deceived.  We all have been fooled by someone or something before.  But that doesn’t imply that everyone is deceived all the time.  An honest person can be deceived.  We have all been the victim of lies.  But an honest person, upon hearing the reasons that support the truth compared with the reasons which support the lie, will come to see and believe the truth.  Because he regards truth, he will see through the lie and understand why it is untrue.  Solomon said so much.  According to him, everyone thinks he’s right, even the fool (Proverbs 12:15a).  But if an errant person will listen to sound teaching, he will be enlightened (part b of the same verse).  Thankfully, ignorance is easily remedied with instruction.

Many people don’t see the truth because they won’t listen to the reasons that support it.  They refuse to have their faith cross-examined (Proverbs 18:17).  By refusing to hear the biblical support for the truth, they prefer and embrace the lie and are, thus, willfully ignorant (2Peter 3:5).  There’s nothing more that can be done for them but to pray God mercifully deals with their stubborn heart.  This is what John referred to as the spirit of error, which will not be corrected (1John 4:6).  When this situation occurs, you have to conclude that, perhaps due to pride, their current preferred position is more important to them than God’s truth.

Sadly, in salvation matters, the Bible assures us that many will be deceived (Matthew 24:5,11).  Many people will travel the wrong road in life (Matthew 7:13-14).  And many religious people will be lost (Matthew 7:21-23).  All of those are the teaching of Jesus, by the way.  While Christ predicted gloom for many, each reference either states or implies that some few would be saved.  As we previously noted, Jesus said some will know the truth (John 7:17; 8:31-32).  From this, we can infer that the truth is knowable.  And, if it’s knowable, then those who have it must know it.

But doesn’t everyone believe he is right? 

Sure, as we have pointed out.  But not everyone knows he’s right.  Many persons who believe they are right also believe many other people with differing views are right also.  They really don’t understand what makes a person doctrinally correct.  They can use a few Scriptures or human reasonings they believe support their view, or parrot what an influential teacher told them, but they can’t explain how their salvation position is right and how Acts 2:38 or any other position is not.  For a person to know he’s right, he must understand in a substantial way exactly how his position is right and also how other positions are false, not just believe that they are false.   

It takes some learning but, ideally, a person who comes to know the truth can prove his doctrine soundly, tying in both Testaments, and, at the same time, refute all erroneous views.  The Bible will not support more than one Christian plan of salvation (Ephesians 4:5) so he should want to be able to show how only what he believes is true.  He may be accused of being dogmatic for this strong position but it is the only way he can truly help an errant soul.  Jesus was the most dogmatic person to ever live.  Where would we be if He hadn’t been?

Some people may say that everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of the Scriptures. 

That position simply is not true.  The Bible actually teaches that everyone can come to the knowledge of the truth, if he wants to. (John 7:17; Matthew 13:12).  It also states that the Gospel is not hidden in God’s Word but radiates in Scripture (2Corinthians 4:3-4).  That makes each person responsible to know the truth by being open to it in his personal approach to God and when it is presented to him (Proverbs 1:20-33). 

Humbly, we say that there is a point at which darkness is replaced by light.  Knowledge supersedes ignorance.  Truth prevails over error.  This is the fact in every column of human progress, spiritual and secular.  In the secular realm, we have come, not just to believe 2+2=4, or that the earth is flat, but to understand and know it.  By similar means of acquiring certainty, we understand the revealed plan of salvation.  No one is entitled to his own interpretation, just as in the secular realm of learning no one is entitled to his own math, or geography, or biology.  In both realms, there is one truth. 

11.15.20

Do You Understand The Gospel? 

(This is also posted on this site as Blogpost 36.)

Psalms 97:8.  Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of Thy judgments, Oh LORD.

In this Psalm, the Jews are said to rejoice because of the Word of God.  To rejoice means they had understanding and could appreciate what they understood.  Contrast this with Psalms 106:7 which describes the generation of the Exodus from Egypt: Our fathers understood not Thy wonders in Egypt.  They experienced the greatest display of God’s power in the Old Testament.  They saw the mighty judgments of God upon proud Pharaoh, crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, and, in the wilderness, their clothes and shoes did not wax old.  Yet, they failed to understand it and did not get to enter the Promised Land.  

It is through the mind (intellect) that God’s Word gets into our hearts where it is then appreciated and loved.  The same thing is true about God Himself.  To really know Him is to love Him because we understand He is altogether good to us and lovely.  I think backsliders miss this important transition of knowledge from the mind to the heart.  Jesus said, “Let these sayings of Mine sink down into your ears”.  Sinking down conveys more than just hearing, even more than mere understanding.  It implies understanding that results in agreement and emotional attachment.

In like manner, to truly understand the Gospel is to cleave to it.  That’s because it contains the only saving message there is.  Where else will you go if you desire to avoid hell and enjoy heaven (John 6:67-68)?    

Likewise, to understand the tenets of salvation is to embrace and love every one of them.  Consider what is offered sinful mankind in the precious plan of salvation.  If you comprehend it, I do not see how you cannot love it.  It was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to persons Peter convicted of crucifying their Messiah (Acts 2:22-23).  What words do you suppose they assumed awaited them when they finally asked Peter what they should do?  For their grievous offense, they hardly expected the gracious words Peter spoke.  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).  Certainly, they were surprised and relieved to hear about complete remission of sins coupled with the gift of God’s Own presence in their lives.  Since when does someone receive a gift for committing crimes?  That’s truly amazing grace.  How could they resist following through on it?  And, how could they not fall in love with Christ and the means He gave to redeem them? 

Let’s individually consider these perfect tenets.

1/ Repentance

The only thing that makes repentance difficult on the part of a guilty person is pride.  Understanding should make repentance easy.  The person who realizes his offenses to another party is obligated to repent (cease committing the offense along with a sincere apology).  It should be easier than normal if it is known that the person offended is readily merciful. 

Typically, the hardest part of forgiveness is on the part of the person offended.  That person is the one who has the greatest load to bear.  He is the one who was injured by the offense(s).  He is the one who is strapped with the burden of granting forgiveness.  It’s much harder to forgive than to ask for forgiveness.  The offended person has a lot to overcome in order to forgive.  Some people can’t find it in their hearts to do it, even when the offender is sincere.  It is wrong on the offended person’s part to refuse forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35) but I think we can all understand his position.   

Consider God.  He is the most offended party ever.  In fact, He has been universally offended by everyone, time without number.  His Person, and sovereignty, and authority, and majesty, and holiness have been despised.  Obtaining forgiveness from such a high status should be difficult.  King David never totally forgave Shimei who cursed him (2Samuel 16:5-13; 19:16-23; 1Kings 2:8-9).  But God grants us repentance (Acts 11:18).  That means He actually inspires us and leads us to it (Romans 2:4).  In other words, He helps us repent— every one of us (2Peter 3:9).  And never was anyone more inclined to forgive.  God often waits with long-suffering for us to bow before Him in repentance. 

Repentance is a rich experience.  It is a beautiful.  It is intended by God to be life-changing.  It is an encounter with God in which a sinner comes face to face with Him to ask forgiveness and to receive His help going forward.  It is the greatest thing to happen to that person up to that point.  And God shows His approval of one’s repentance by release of the burden of guilt he has carried.  Repentance is such a dramatic and uplifting experience with God that a person can come away from it thinking he has met every criterion of salvation.   

2/ Baptism in Jesus’ name

Peter stated that souls, upon repentance, are to be baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins.  This baptismal command was given to the Apostles by Christ in the Great Commission (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38).  If a person lets that saying sink down into his ears, he will not argue against it.  Instead, he will rapidly obey it because, if he deems himself a sinner in need of mercy, there is not a greater promise in the Bible.  Sin is man’s biggest dilemma— by far!  It will keep a soul from God and destroy him in hell. 

Remission of sins is more than forgiveness.  It’s removal of sin as though it never happened.  John the Baptist introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).  He not only forgives man’s sin, He removes it (See Acts 22:16.).  In comparison, we may forgive another person but we can’t remove his offense and we can’t even really forget it, try so hard as we may.  But when Christ removes a person’s sin, He no longer has cognizance of it (Jeremiah 31:34; Micah 7:19). 

Repentance and baptism in Jesus’ name require little effort on the part of the sinner.  In repentance, the burden is on God to forgive.  In baptism, the baptizer does all the work.  The baptizee is similar to a dead body being carried to burial.  But, for so little effort, the candidate is totally free of sin, as though he had never sinned.  There is not a greater bargain to be found.  It is like coming upon the greatest hidden treasure and pearl of great price (Matthew 13:44-46).  If people only understood the Gospel tenet of baptism in Jesus’ name, they would make it their first priority of business.  And they would love it and would do everything they could to promote and defend it. 

3/ The gift of the Holy Ghost

The gift of the Holy Ghost is literally the Spirit of Christ coming into a person to live and abide forever.  Christ symbolized it as His Own breath (John 20:22).  It is a glorious experience that will enable the recipient to praise God in other tongues (Acts 2:1-4,11).  It gives regenerating power that breaks the sin nature (John 3:5; Romans 6:11-23).  It is described in the Bible, even by Jesus Himself, as a gift (John 4:10; Acts 2:38; 8:20; 11:17).

Christ wants every person to receive the Holy Ghost.  John the Baptist, in predicting Christ’s coming, described Him as the Spirit Baptizer (Matthew 3:11).  Therefore, pouring out the Holy Ghost is His ministry, just as water baptism was John’s.  That fact indicates how ready He is to fill us with His Spirit.  Jesus literally went to Calvary to give people the Holy Ghost (John 16:7).  Likewise, prophecy declared that He would pour out His Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18).

If people knew about receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and understood how great it is, they would certainly call upon Christ to personally receive it.  This is exactly what Jesus said to the woman at Jacob’s well in Samaria (John 4:10).  And, receiving it is as easy as asking (Luke 11:13). 

Conclusion 

Christian salvation is in the context of wrath.  By it, we are literally saved from the wrath of God, which we deserve due to our sins.  Jesus died for us on the cross to make salvation possible.  Every tenet is procured by Calvary.  To understand this context and what Christ did in our behalf should insulate us from any future exposure to wrath.  We’re not perfect yet.  We may fall but we must not fall away.  We understand too much to jeopardize our very souls and despise the precious blood of Christ that redeemed us.  Every aspect of the Gospel is precious.  Its tenets are wonderful.  To understand them is to love them.  There is no better way to honor Christ than to walk in them.  They are our wisdom and understanding (Deuteronomy 4:6).  Therefore, we should lay them up in our heart and in our soul (Deuteronomy 11:18).  O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end (Deuteronomy 32:29). 

1.3.21 

Does it matter which Church I attend? 

Following are two of the possible answers you may hear when asking this question.  

1/ The politically correct answer is: “No, it doesn’t matter which church you attend.  Any church— and even no church— is fine.  You are God’s child by creation and He loves you just the way you are.  There is nothing you can do to enhance His love for you.  And there is no particular church that will put you in better standing with God.  All churches are equally valid in His eyes.  If you desire to belong to a church, simply choose the one that best suits you.  That’s why God has so many different kinds of churches— because there are so many different kinds of people.  Do what suits you and leave the matter there.” 

2/ The biblically correct answer is that, in our natural sinful state, we are enemies of God (Romans 5:6-10) who are lost and in dire need of salvation (Matthew 23:33; John 3:5).  Christ instituted His Church for the purpose of saving souls.   Ministers are Christ’s ambassadors who have been charged with preaching the singular saving message of the Gospel (2Corinthians 5:18-20).  The Church age was inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost.  The Gospel’s saving message was established on that day (Acts 2:37-42).  Therefore, it definitely matters which Church you attend.  Any Church that does not preach the same salvation tenets as were introduced on the Day of Pentecost preaches a false salvation message, however many other things it may teach correctly. 

Salvation is the most important business in the world.  

The precise tenets of salvation introduced on the Day of Pentecost cannot be excluded because they involve the most basic and vital aspects of salvation— the remission of sins, which comes through water baptism in Jesus’ name, and the abiding presence of God’s Holy Spirit, which comes through Spirit baptism, evidenced by speaking in other tongues (Acts 2).  Therefore, any church or belief system that denies these articles of faith denies remission of sins and the Spirit of Christ, without which, there is no salvation (John 3:5; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 9:22 implies that remission of sins is necessary for salvation).

We must own revealed light. 

If God has revealed the truth to you about salvation, don’t risk missing heaven by attending a church that doesn’t believe the truth.  There is no greater point of error for a church to be in than in matters of salvation doctrine.  Darkness in that area is grave.  We all have an obligation to walk in truth and in light (1John 1:5-7; 2John 4; 3John 3-4).  Truth and error, and light and darkness, cannot coexist (2Corinthians 6:14).  It is God’s declared will that we come out of darkness into His marvelous light (2Corinthians 6:17; 1Peter 2:9; Psalms 4:3).  

An Apostolic person cannot honor God in a non-Apostolic church.  And, he cannot help those in the church he attends if he himself is not walking in the light with the true people of God.  How could he influence anyone else to do better than himself?  What’s more, Apostolic Churches need the support of every true believer.  Misplaced loyalties cause the Kingdom of God to suffer. 

Coming to the knowledge of the truth is the very greatest evidence of God’s grace in one’s life (1Timothy 2:4).  He should, therefore, walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, including being faithful to the Church that Christ instituted.  Faithfulness to Christ’s Church equates to faithfulness to Christ.  

There are two over-arching imperatives in the New Testament, namely be saved (Acts 2:40) and be holy (1Peter 1:15-16).  Together, the two are a unit because they comprise the bonafide and verifiable recovery from the Fall (Ephesians 2:1-10; Hebrews 6:9).  Along with being biblical, this is also logical.  If the Fall of mankind plunged us into the abyss of sin and corruption, then recovery from the Fall should involve remission of sins and regeneration of the old nature, resulting in a new man (Ephesians 4:22-24; Romans 12:1-2; 1Corinthians 6:9-11; 2Corinthians 5:17).  In other words, salvation should restore us to being upright again according to God’s original design for our race.  This is, in fact, the salvation Christ died to bring us and is the very essence of Christianity (1Thessalonians 4:7).  Those who humbly receive it become a part of Christ’s blood-bought, Spirit-filled Church.  They have taken on the name of Jesus in baptism and make up the Bride of Christ.  They are the true evangelism force of Christianity who have obeyed the saving tenets of the Great Commission and faithfully represent Christ’s Gospel to the world (Revelation 22:17).  

In short, obedience to the plan of salvation revealed on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37-39) and walking daily in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16; Romans 14:17; Ephesians 5:9; Jude 20-21) is what Christ requires for us to be in the Rapture of His glorious Church (Ephesians 5:27).  I think the Apostle Paul expressed this most succinctly in 2Thessalonians 2:13.  “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” 

 I wish everyone believed and taught the fulness of the Gospel message so that more souls would be ready for the Rapture.  But you can be ready.  I hope you will find an Apostolic Church.  You can’t afford to miss the soon coming of the Lord.  The Rapture is not just a means of escaping the worst events ever to come on the earth (Matthew 24:21; Revelation 9:6), it will be the greatest moment imaginable, when the saints of the ages meet their Lord in the air and go off to live with Him forever in the Holy City.  It is our hope (John 14:1-3; 1Thessalonians 4:13-18).  

How can anyone argue against the tenets of Acts 2:38? 

1/ Repentance 

Only a rebellious soul would be against repentance (turning to Christ with all one’s heart). 

2/ Baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins 

Who could argue against the name of Jesus, the only saving name under heaven (Acts 4:12)? 

Who could argue against a clear biblical means to receive remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16)?  Remission of sins is man’s greatest need and the most important part of salvation. 

People who oppose Acts 2:38 are blinded to its privilege and benefits (2Corinthians 4:3-4).  If people could see the ineffable privilege of taking on the name of Jesus, there would be long lines of souls waiting to be baptized in His glorious name.  Nothing in the world is more efficacious than being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. 

3/ Holy Ghost baptism 

Who could argue against being filled with the Spirit of God?  It is an argument against Christ Himself, Who is the Spirit-baptizer (Matthew 3:11).  To not receive the Holy Ghost is alienation from Christ (Romans 8:9-10).  And, being filled with the Holy Ghost is how we are going to be raised with Christ at the end of this life (Romans 8:11).  

I wish everyone believed and taught the fulness of the Gospel message so that more souls would be ready for the Rapture.  But you can be ready.  I hope you will find an Apostolic Church.  You can’t afford to miss the soon coming of the Lord.  

How can a person know he’s saved?

1.23.21 

This is a great question.  There are a lot of ideas about salvation out there.  

Can a person assume he is saved if he believes in God, or Christ? 

The following Scriptures answer that question in the negative. 

James 2:19-20 

Matthew 7:21-23 

Luke 13:23-27 

John 8:31-32 

Does a person have assurance of salvation if he has a personal relationship with God? 

According to the example of Cornelius, personal relationship with God that is non-covenantal does not equate to salvation (Acts 10; 11:14). 

What if a person seems to be highly used of God?  Doesn’t that imply he is in right standing with God? 

Not necessarily, according to the following Scriptures. 

Matthew 7:21-23 

2Corinthians 11:13-15 

Remember that Judas was used of God in preaching and miracle ministry, as were the other Apostles (Mark 3:13-19), but Jesus said he was a devil (John 6:70).    

Someone may say, “But God answers my prayers.  I, therefore, know I’m saved.” 

God’s goodness in answering prayers only proves that He is good, and merciful, and kind to all people (Psalms 145:9).  Answered prayers show that God is active in the world just as He was when He walked on earth.  Whose need did Jesus not then meet?  Jesus loved people then and wanted to help them.  He still does.  He hasn’t changed since He ascended to heaven (Hebrews 13:8).  But Christ’s kindness in answering prayer does not prove the person is saved.  Thankfully, Jesus answered many of my prayers in my pre-conversion days.  In Mark 5:11-13, Jesus even answered the prayers of devils.  

Vague doctrinal statements

Many in the present pop-Christian culture love vagueness in salvation doctrine which lacks distinct tenets of salvation or a precise Scriptural base.  The more vague the Gospel can be expressed, the better they like it because it’s easier for them to defend.  They don’t have to interpret Scripture, which is hard work and requires study (2Timothy 2:15; 2Peter 3:15-16) and is according to precise rules of interpretation.  Just using the name of Jesus or one of His many titles seems to assure them of belonging to Him and dismisses them from having to explain error in opposing beliefs. 

Turning again to the question of our subject matter, how can a person know  he is saved?

First of all, salvation is not a matter to be determined subjectively.  That would give license to chaos and all manner of reasons for anyone to claim salvation.  Nothing would be verifiable and everyone’s belief about salvation would be just as valid as another’s.  What’s more, Scripture would have no role to play.  Salvation would be decided solely by personal belief, however that would be ascertained.  The wisdom of God avoided that mess by founding salvation doctrine precisely on Scripture, rightly interpreted (Romans 10:17; 2Timothy 2:15; 1Corinthians 1:21).  

✦ The Gospel is the only thing that can save people today (2Corinthians 4:3-4).  

Jesus gave the Gospel in order to save people in His absence.  He commissioned His ministers with the tenets of salvation in the Great Commission.  They include repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  Therefore, we are now His ambassadors (2Corinthians 5:18-20) and can only speak what we are authorized to speak by our commission.  What Jesus prescribed is the sole means of salvation.

✦ Therefore, obedience to Gospel terms is the only proof that a person is saved.  

Since there is no other way to be saved but by Gospel terms, there is no other way to know a person is saved but by obedience to those terms.  A person has either obeyed the Gospel and is saved or he did not (2Thessalonians 1:7-8; 2:13-14).  He is either born again of the water and Spirit or he is not (John 3:5).  He either has obeyed the biblical tenet to receive remission of sins or he did not (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  He either has received the Holy Ghost as they did in Apostolic times or he hasn’t (Romans 8:9).  It really is that simple.  Only the Gospel can save.  Therefore, obedience to it is the only determinative proof of salvation.  

When a person has obeyed the tenets of salvation, he can immediately, and with biblical assurance, claim salvation.  If he has not met the conditions of Christian faith, no one does him any favor by telling him he is saved.  In fact, telling a person he is saved is the most serious business in this world (James 3:1).   

✦ The same Gospel is for one and all (Jude 3).  

The conversion of the Apostle Paul is a great example of this fact.  Saul of Tarsus had a dramatic, audible, one-on-one, life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ (Acts 9) yet he received the same Gospel tenets that were introduced on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).  He repented on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:6), and, three days later, was baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 22:16) and received the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17).  His example emphasizes that no encounter or relationship with Christ supersedes the Gospel plan of salvation, which exclusively has the power to save (Romans 1:16).  We also see this fact displayed in Paul’s own ministry practice involving previous believers in Christ (Acts 19:1-6).  

Conclusion  

There is only one way for a person to be saved.  He must obey the Gospel tenets prescribed by Christ in His Great Commission and declared on the Day of Pentecost to be efficacious for the Church age (Acts 2:37-39).  Accordingly, a person can only know he is saved if he has fulfilled these Gospel terms.  There is nothing else to go by.  Jesus described the way as narrow but it is wide enough to admit any earnest soul (Matthew 7:13-14).  Someone has wisely said, “We are graciously saved.  We do well to heed the terms.”  

Amen.

5.12.21 

Every Scripture is inspired (2Timothy 3:16).  The Greek word for inspired implies that every Word is God-breathed, or, spoken by God (Matthew 4:4).  Therefore, every Scripture has specific divine meaning according to to God’s purpose in saying it.  Because God is consistent with Himself, the meaning of His Word cannot change (Malachi 3:6; 2Timothy 2:13).  From this simple understanding of the nature of God, we can soundly conclude that every Scripture only has one meaning.  

Interpretation of Scripture is the most important thing in the world. 

The Word of God is the most important thing in the world.  It is the means by which God will save and judge mankind.  Therefore, the interpretation of Scripture is, likewise, the most important thing in the world.  Proper interpretation of Scripture is just as important as Scripture itself, for what good is Scripture if it is not properly understood?  Jesus complained that the Jews of His day hadn’t acquired the Scriptures’ message (John 5:39-40).  That ignorance rendered the Scripture of none effect to them.  They missed the advantage to be gained from it (Romans 3:1-2).  So, what good did the Sabbatical reading of the Scriptures do them?  How often do people today say that they believe in or love the Bible but are ignorant of its content?  

An even worse scenario is drawing a wrong meaning from Scripture through misinterpretation.  At any point the Scriptures are misinterpreted, a false understanding is substituted for the true.  Literally, misinterpretation substitutes someone else’s meaning for God’s.  It gives people, who are placing their trust in the Word of God, a false understanding.  Essentially, misinterpretation makes the Bible untrue.  It’s important to realize that the Bible is only true when correctly interpreted.  There is perhaps nothing more evil and dangerous than misinterpretation of the Bible.  That is why the devil promotes it (e.g., Matthew 4:6).  To use a verse of Scripture apart from its intended purpose is to corrupt the Word of God (2Corinthians 2:17).  Scripture only means what it was intended to mean.  It cannot be made to take on a meaning that is not inherent in it by divine inspiration. 

Misinterpretation of Scripture takes away from, and adds to, the Word of God, both of which are forbidden (Revelation 22:18-19).  As Jonathan Edwards pointed out, misinterpreting Scripture is making a new Scripture.  It that way, misinterpretation adds to the Word of God.  What’s more, it replaces the true meaning of Scripture, thus, effectually removing Scripture.  It is a handy and unsuspecting way for the enemy to oppose the Word of God.  False doctrine results from misinterpretation of Scripture and true doctrine is, thus, lost. 

Proper study of Scripture results in truth (2Timothy 2:15).  

According to 2Timothy 2:15, study of the Bible results in the ability to discover truth and properly administer it.  It does not result in false doctrine.  The Bible does not at all, or ever, support false doctrine (Proverbs 8:8-9; 21:30).  Study of Scripture results in clarity of doctrine and the acquisition of more truth (Psalms 119:18; Matthew 13:12).  Therefore, people who use the Bible to teach false doctrine, not only contradict the Bible relative to what they teach, but are themselves a contradiction inasmuch as they deny what the Bible declares to be so, namely, that study of the Scriptures would result in truth.  This conflict with the claim of Scripture cannot be the fault of Scripture but must be the fault of the interpreter. 

The area of Scripture that has the most false doctrine associated with it is salvation doctrine.   

Students of Scripture can generally agree on many things in the Bible but there is more than a plethora of ideas and doctrines relating to the plan of salvation.  And, of course, this is the most critical area of all, one of infinite importance, which, if missed, ultimately renders the other doctrines of little consequence.  

The Bible is abundantly clear that there is only one truth regarding the plan of salvation (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 1:8-9; Jude 3; 1Peter 1:23-25).  But, contrarily, we see in general Christianity that there are numerous ideas about the plan of salvation.  I can only think of two possible explanations for this disparity:

1/ Not everyone studying Scripture, as it relates to salvation, is studying it to obtain God’s absolute truth.  Or, 

2/ Many who study employ improper study procedures that do not result in truth.  

This latter point involves a wrong interpretive paradigm; the former involves insincerity.  Every false doctrine is the product of improper study or improper motive.  People often approach Scripture with a pre-conceived view of Scripture or with an agenda to prove their point.  Those who have rejected or resolved not to accept Acts 2:38, or baptismal regeneration, or speaking in tongues, etc. will not be open to the truth and will find ways to misinterpret Scripture.  And they may find satisfaction in doing so, especially when a false view is popular. 

It is possible that some people approach Scripture in the same way Peter tried to affect doctrine in Matthew 16:22.  He pressed to negatively affect the doctrine of the cross and the resurrection, both of which would affect our salvation.  At the time, Peter had no aim to truth but rather to design his own truth.  For this, he was sternly rebuked of Christ (verse 23).  He temporarily had preference for his own wishes over the plan of God.  This could be the same fault of others who study the Bible but never arrive at the truth (2Timothy 3:7).  People can be blinded by the dominance of a fixed idea.  

Without controversy, sincerity and proper hermeneutical study are imperative to those who teach others doctrine.  Personal shame will be the lot of those who do not render correct interpretation of Scripture (2Timothy 2:15).  And teaching doctrine is a serious responsibility that can involve condemnation (James 3:1). 

Conclusion 

✦ To the extent that Scripture is important, interpretation of Scripture is important, since it is the means by which we come to understand the Bible’s vital message to us. 

✦ False doctrine is not the teaching of Scripture (Proverbs 21:30).  False doctrine is a corruption of God’s Word.  Therefore, to the extent that Scripture is important, false doctrine is dangerous and is to be avoided and condemned.  

✦ A person only regards the Bible to the extent he regards correct interpretation and doctrine.  Jesus pointed out to the Jews of His day that their regard for Scripture, which they pretended to esteem, was superficial (John 5:39-40).  They didn’t receive its message even when their sacred Scriptures were being fulfilled before their very eyes.  

✦ Every Scripture only has one meaning.  Therefore, there can only be one true interpretation of each verse and of the Bible as a whole.  That fact has some important implications which are usually overlooked or are unwelcome: 

1/ There is only one Christian plan of salvation.  

2/ All preachers and teachers should be proclaiming the same thing about how to be saved.  

3/ All Churches should believe and teach the same thing.

4/ All believers should have the same salvation experience.  Notice the practical Apostolic emphasis on that point in Acts 8:12-17; 18:24-28; 19:1-6.

I know this is not what we observe in general Christianity.  That’s the point of this post.  But, logically, it should be, since there is only one true interpretation of Scripture. 

6.9.21

The following points can be made from a reading of Luke’s narrative of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9) and of his own recounting of it (Acts 22,26).  (We will refer to the Apostle, even in his pre-conversion state, as Paul rather than Saul for sake of simplicity.) 

1/ Paul was confronted directly and personally by Jesus Christ and heard Him speak audibly. 

2/ Christ revealed Himself to Paul. 

3/ Paul came to have faith in Christ.  He addressed Him as Lord and surrendered his life to Him (Acts 9:6).   

4/ Paul received a charge to preach (Acts 26:16-18). 

5/ Strangely, it must seem to some, Christ commanded Paul to go into the city and await a messenger who would tell him something that was necessary for him to do.  And it would seem it was a matter of faith to warrant such strong language.  Jesus said it was something he must do (Acts 9:6).  

(It was not information regarding his future ministry.  Christ had already told him that, as noted in point 4, and Ananias added nothing to it.). 

A person gets the sense from the narrative that all is not complete regarding Paul’s salvation experience.  Christ did not pronounce him saved and Paul did not go on his way rejoicing, as the eunuch did in Acts 8 (v.39).  He was left blind so as to force him to meet with the person that will be sent to him.  It’s as though the newly-believing Paul needed an incentive to follow through on Christ’s directive.  

The person that was sent to Paul was a man named, Ananias.  His message to Paul was indeed a matter of faith.  It regarded remission of sins and receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16).  This comports with Christ’s Own Great Commission to His ministers which involved remission of sins, to which is coupled the gift of the Holy Ghost. (See Jesus’ Great Commission throughout the Gospels and its fulfillment in Acts 2:38-39.)  That leads us to the next point. 

6/ During his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road, Paul did not receive remission of sins.  That occurred three days later when he was baptized (Acts 22:16).  

7/ During his encounter with Christ, Paul did not receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17).  That, likewise, occurred three days later. 

Jesus sent Paul away without remitting his sins or filling Him with the Holy Ghost.  He brought conviction on Paul, as He alone can do (John 6:44), and prompted him to go to a commissioned man.  

Implications 

1/ There is no such thing as justification by faith alone.  There is justification by faith, which is how the biblical expression is phrased.  Justification, indeed, is based on faith in Christ, which leads a person to obey the required tenets of salvation, as Paul did.  Justification involves remission of sins.  And that occurs through water baptism in Jesus’ name.  It was that way for Paul.  And, it is so for everyone else.  That was Peter’s declaration on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39).  

2/ Christ does not automatically remit our sins when we come to faith in Him.  Paul’s example of conversion makes this fact clear.  As per Jesus’ commission, ministers administer baptism in Jesus’ name, which plunges them into a mystical burial with Christ (Romans 6:3-5) and washes away their sins (Acts 22:16).  Once the blood of Christ is applied through baptism, and the convert is into Christ (Romans 6:3), then future sins become covered as the person walks with Christ in the light (1John 1:7-9). 

3/ A person who comes to believe in Jesus is not immediately filled with the Spirit at the initial moment of faith.  This fact is proven by Paul’s own conversion experience and is corroborated by many other examples in Acts.  (See Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6.) 

4/ Some people think that Paul taught in his epistles that salvation is merely by faith.  But that was not his own experience. Therefore, it could not have been his teaching.  (It was also not his ministry practice, as in the above reference of Acts 19:1-6.)  

5/ Faith in Christ means believing and obeying what He prescribed for Christian salvation in the Great Commission. 

From the perspective of salvation doctrine, the study of Paul’s ministry practice is a good follow-up to to his conversion experience.  One will find they are identical.  And, of course, they must be.  And they must be the same as what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost.  I cover Paul’s ministry practice in Blogpost 27.  For a link to that lesson, click Here.

6.16.21

Who do you regard higher for salvation issues, Peter or Paul?  

If you could speak with either Peter or Paul about the plan of salvation, which would you choose?  Which Apostle would you be most inclined to trust or consult for salvation issues? 

These questions may seem strange at first because both men are reliable and would tell you the same thing regarding the plan of salvation.  They both received and taught Acts 2:38.  This is clear in the book of Acts.  

But, surprising, and sadly, many people find Peter and Paul to have opposing views on salvation doctrine.  How do they come to that conclusion?  They do so by misinterpreting Paul’s teaching on justification by faith without regarding his experience in Acts, which covers his own conversion and ministry in detail.  The book of Acts basically dedicates half of its pages to Peter and half to Paul.  It does this for a good reason— so that the writing of each man can be understood.  If people would focus on what the book of Acts shows regarding Paul’s experience, they would not get confused in his epistles.  This would especially be so if they experienced Acts 2:38 for themselves. 

Let’s look at how people miss Paul’s teaching.  As stated previously, They get confused by his theological terminology, namely, justification by faith.  They think that means justification is by faith alone, rather than by the principle of faith in Christ, which means that those who believe in Jesus will receive remission of sins because they will accept what He taught about it.  

Justification involves remission of sins.  

Justification is about remission of sins.  Paul said that himself in Acts 13:38-39.  In this passage, which occurred during one of his missionary journeys, he quoted a basic tenet of the Gospel— forgiveness/remission of sins (The Greek word is the same for both English words.).  In the Great Commission, Jesus said that the Apostles would have a role in remitting sins (John 20:23) and that remission of sins should be preached among all nations, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).  This was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.  Peter presented baptism in Jesus’ name as functional in justification.  He specifically said baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Paul was met with the same teaching when he came to Christ.  Ananias, who was specifically sent by Christ to Paul, called for him to be baptized, indicating that, by doing so, his sins would be washed away (Acts 22:16).  Paul knew that baptism is functional in justification because that was his own experience. 

Many people interpret Paul as teaching that salvation is by faith alone.  They cite justification by faith references in Romans or Galatians, or they may cite Ephesians 2:8-9.  But all of these refer to the salvation of Acts.  This is especially easy to prove in the case of Ephesians 2:8-9, which is a theological description of what Paul preached to those in Ephesus in Acts 19:1-6, involving the Acts 2:38 experience.  

Paul is often treated by theologians as setting the boundaries for salvation doctrine. 

I have noticed on theological websites that Peter’s announcement of the plan of salvation on the Day of Pentecost involving baptism for the remission of sins is discounted from being taken literally because, they say, Paul said that salvation is by faith, as though baptism is not an act of faith.  They treat Paul’s epistles as being able to bear upon the meaning of Acts 2:38 so that it cannot be taken literally.  The fact that they are being anachronistic does not seem to bother them.  Acts 2:38 had been preached long before Paul came on the scene.  Romans and Galatians came along about twenty-five to thirty years after the Day of Pentecost.  And, as pointed out earlier, Paul received and taught Acts 2:38 himself.  Rather than Paul’s writing bearing on Acts 2:38, Acts 2:38 must bear on Paul’s writing.  Previous revelation bears on the interpretation of what comes later.  Instead of someone saying, “Baptism cannot be necessary for salvation because Paul told us salvation is by faith”, they should say, “Salvation cannot be by mere faith because Peter told us on the Day of Pentecost that baptism is for the remission of sins, making it vital for salvation”.  Therefore, the “faith” that Paul referred to is the principle of faith by which salvation is obtained, not the means.  Acts 2:38 is the means, which is surely and solely based on faith in Jesus Christ.  Paul makes this point regarding baptism in Colossians 2:12.   

Peter and Paul agreed on the plan of salvation. 

There is only one faith (Ephesians 4:5).  Peter and Paul were both saved in the same way and preached the same thing.  Any perceived difference between the teaching of Peter and Paul is the fault of misinterpretation on the part of the reader.  

Paul consulted Peter.  

If you could consult with either one of these Apostles on the subject of salvation doctrine, which would it be?  I’m certain some people would prefer to consult with Paul.  And, that’s fine.  Paul would make it clear that he was not at odds with Peter.  In fact, he personally met with Peter (Galatians 1:17-18).  It seems this was to be sure his preaching was not deficient.  For even on a later occasion with other Jewish leaders, including Peter, he made that point (Galatians 2:1-9).  Paul apparently trusted Peter implicitly.  He acknowledged in his Galatian letter that God had worked through Peter effectually (Galatians 2:7-8).  Paul had received divine revelation but wanted to be sure he had not misinterpreted anything.  He deserves respect for that.  

Why Peter?  

Peter received particular notice because he was chosen by Christ to be the spokesman on the Day of Pentecost.  He had been given special authority to reveal the plan of salvation.  And Christ noted that what he revealed would be binding (Matthew 16:19).  Therefore, no one would be more qualified to consult than he.  Peter was on hand when the door of Christian faith was opened to the Jews (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8), and the Gentiles (Acts 10).  Peter was even referred to by Paul as the Apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8).  Peter was endorsed by an angel from heaven (Acts 10:1-5).  To discount Peter as being uniquely qualified to address salvation issues would reveal either ignorance of him or prejudice against him. 

Conclusion 

Peter had a most significant role to play regarding the disclosure of Christian salvation doctrine.  What he revealed on the Day of Pentecost is binding and, therefore, bears on the meaning of all other theological references and summary expressions of salvation.  And no one, save Christ, could be more fit to answer a salvation-related question than Peter.  

6.20.21 

Some people think Jesus and Peter were at odds in their teaching on the Christian baptismal formula.   We have commonly heard some say, “I’d rather take Jesus’ word in Matthew 28:19 than Peter’s in Acts 2:38”. 

What did Jesus teach about the baptismal formula? 

To answer this question by merely referencing Matthew 28:19 is the epitome of shallowness.  I believe it is one of the common areas in which a person will be ashamed at the judgment for not studying the Scriptures sufficiently (2Timothy 2:15).  Jesus did not limit His teaching on baptism to Matthew 28:19.  All four Gospel writers cover the Great Commission and quote Jesus making a reference to baptism.  The combined study of these make it clear that Jesus taught baptism was to be administered, beginning on the Day of Pentecost, in His name.  (See the Various Bible Lessons page, #10, Water Baptism And The Great Commission. You can access that page here.)  The Apostles and other ministers of the New Testament were not negligent of the command but followed through on it by baptizing in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins.  Thus, the full-orbed Great Commission and its fulfillment in Acts provide the surest proof of what Jesus taught about baptism.  On the Day of Pentecost, Peter was simply the first witness of Jesus’ teaching on the subject (Luke 24:47-48; Acts 2:38-39).

The only other possible conclusion to draw is that the Apostles did not carry out Jesus command but followed Peter’s formula instead.  And that idea is simply not plausible.  That would mean Jesus’ High Priestly prayer that the Apostles were uniquely qualified to spread the Good News was meaningless (John 17:6-20) and would destroy the trustworthiness of the Scriptures (2Timothy 3:16).  Imagine a Bible in which there was such confusion (2Corinthians 14:33)!  It would also mean that there is no fulfillment of Matthew 28:19 in the New Testament.  That, likewise, is just not plausible.  The correct view is that the Apostles fulfilled Matthew 28:19 by baptizing in Jesus’ name, which is precisely what Jesus explained to them in Luke 24:45-47 just before His ascension into heaven.  

Is baptism a work?  

7.31.21  Revised 8.8.21

People often discount the role of water baptism in salvation by saying something like this: “Baptism is not necessary for salvation because baptism is a work.  Romans says…”.  They proceed with referencing something they don’t understand and sometimes misquote.  They may even mis-reference the Scripture verse on which they place their souls.  People who hold this disparaging view of baptism usually believe the only way to obtain salvation in Christ is by mere belief in Him, which they believe is not a work.  By the word, work, they mean an illegitimate, or, non-salvific, human activity by which a person is attempting to be saved.  

The point we wish to make in this post is that baptism is an act of faith; it is not a work.  Admittedly, there are some semantics involved here so let’s distinguish between an act of faith and a work.   

Definition of an act of faith 

Relative to salvation, I define an act of faith as an action corresponding to biblical revelation.  True faith is always based on Scripture (Romans 10:17).  The Bible reveals baptism in Jesus’ name to be for the remission of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16).  Therefore, following through on baptism is an act of faith— faith in a biblical tenet, not a work designed to circumvent faith.  

Abraham, the father of the faithful, is a good Old Testament example of faith.  His leaving his homeland without knowing where he was going was an act of faith.  But it was not arbitrary faith.  It was revelation-based (Genesis 12:1).  It was obedience to a divine directive.  The writer of the book of Hebrews said that Abraham obeyed out of faith (Hebrews 11:8).  He left his dwelling place because he believed God to be faithful to His Word.  

There is also a sense in which Abraham’s faith and obedience can be considered works— because action is involved.  James described Abraham’s actions in that way.  When he summarized Abraham’s acts of faith, he said Abraham was justified by works (James 2:21).  But his works were only in correspondence with his faith, which was based on God’s Word.  Faith, by definition, is always seen in its corresponding action (James 2:18; e.g., Mark 2:5).  For this reason, James could say Abraham was justified by his works, though it was not work in the sense of attempting righteousness (right standing with God) apart from the specific revelation of God.  He simply believed God and acted on it.  Similarly, faith in Jesus will move a person to obey what He prescribed for salvation.  And that obedience is never derogatorily classified as works. 

Definition of works that are condemned in Scripture   

A condemned work in the New Covenant dispensation is an attempt to gain salvation by an act other than what is prescribed in the covenant.  The tenets of salvation, instituted in the Great Commission and fulfilled in the book of Acts (Hebrews 2:3), do not fall into this category.   

Baptism requires action but it is a prescribed action that is associated with, and actuated by, faith in biblical revelation.  Sure, someone could decide to be baptized having no faith at all.  His baptism in that case would be worthless.  But someone who is earnest in his faith will want to receive the remission of sins that is promised in the Word of the Lord through baptism in Jesus’ name.  It is indeed an action, but an action prompted by faith in Jesus.  

Baptism is commanded. 

Baptism is not a work in the negative sense.  In other words, it is not an effort apart from biblical revelation to attain salvation.  In the sense that it is an action, someone may still insist it is a work.  To this argument, we would say, if baptism is a work, it’s a work— more precisely, an action— that is prescribed.  

Prescribed is a serious enough term but the Bible even expresses the requirement of baptism more forcefully.  In Scripture, baptism is a command.  It was revealed as an imperative by Peter on the Day of Pentecost along with repentance.  And, about ten years later, it was commanded by him as well upon the Gentile converts who had just received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:48).  In keeping with his order for Jews and Gentiles to be baptized, Peter said in his Epistle that baptism saves (1Peter 3:21).  That’s a reasonable and necessary conclusion when it is understood that baptism is for the remission of sins.  

Baptism is an imperative of the New Covenant.  Jesus made this clear as well in the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47).  Nothing on the order of a biblical command could be condemned as a work.  Even if someone prefers to call baptism a work, it’s incumbent upon him to obey the command if he wants to be saved.  It’s not so important what a person calls the command; it’s very important that he regards it as an imperative and does it. 

Being careful about semantics 

Semantics have their dangers.  A person can get hung up on viewing Scripture semantically and miss its message.  For example, those who categorically regard salvation as being devoid of works of any kind may easily dismiss the Bible’s message of salvation involving baptism due to a misunderstanding of the true nature of faith.  They may fail to see how baptism is itself faith.  Failure to see the Bible’s true message while constantly engaging it is not a new error.  Consider the failure of the Jews in Jesus’ day.  They were constantly in the Scriptures and properly regarded them as the source of life, which is all well and good.  But Jesus told them they were all the while missing its message (John 5:39).  Hardly anything could be sadder. 

Another example of semantics possibly interfering in the interpretation of Scripture regards simple faith itself.  Most people would not consider the act of believing a work.  Yet Jesus referred to faith in Him as such (See John 6:29).  Certainly, believing, in a strict sense, is an action.  It’s an action of the mind and of the will, which still requires effort.  And, in this strict sense, any human effort could be considered a work.  Jesus also implied in this verse that faith in Him is a human responsibility.  It is, therefore, a tenet of the Gospel, requiring a person’s response, which is an effort. 

Another pertinent example of this is receiving the Holy Ghost.  Who would think of that as a work?  Yet, the Apostles of Jesus said that God gives the Holy Ghost to those who obey Him (Acts 5:29-32).  That statement makes a very strong impression.  Obedience is typically associated with human effort of some kind.  Similarly, the writer of Hebrews said that salvation comes to those who are obedient to Christ (Hebrews 5:9).  We don’t believe the New Testament offers a works-based salvation in the sense of performing meritorious works of righteousness to obtain salvation, yet its great salvation does involve Christ-ordained tenets requiring human commitment, will, and obedience, all of which come through effort.  And effort is work.  The most effortless course to take would be atheism.  It doesn’t require anything. 

Baptism could never be considered a work in the negative sense. 

Again, work, in the negative sense, implies an effort to gain righteousness apart from biblical revelation.  It’s an attempt at self-justification.  Justification means being made right in the sight of God, which necessarily and primarily involves remission of sins.  No mortal has ever devised a means to remove sins.  There is simply no human remedy to sin and its consequences (Psalms 49:7-8).  Self-justification is humanly impossible.  That’s why reconciliation to God has always involved a God-authored means to deal with sin.  

Under the New Covenant, Jesus made baptism functional in justification.  He specified in the Great Commission that baptism in Jesus’ name is for the remission of sins (Luke 24:47), which explains why He declared baptism to be salvific (Mark 16:15-16).  Therefore, on the very basis of the stated functionality of baptism, it could never be deemed a human work.  If it was a work, then it could be rightly said that we, by baptism, justify ourselves because baptism in Jesus’ name definitely remits sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16).  But, patently, human beings cannot effect their own remission of sins— except by explicit obedience to the specific means offered by Christ in the Gospel.  Therefore, obeying the important tenet of baptism can never be considered a works-based substitute for salvation.  Rather, obeying what has been authored by Christ in order to receive remission of sins is the purest and truest kind of faith in Him.  It is literally by obeying the terms of the Gospel that we are justified by faith in Christ. 

8.12.21 

A concerned or inquisitive person has to wonder why there are so many interpretations of Scripture.  I can only see two possible causes.  Either: 

1/ The Scripture itself is ambiguous.  

Or, 

2/ The fault lies with the interpreter. 

✦ Regarding the first possibility, the Bible declares that God is not the author of confusion (1Corinthians 14:33).  It asserts conclusively that its message is clear (Proverbs 8:6-10; 21:30; ).  Paul expressed in 2Timothy 2:15 that proper study yields true doctrinal understanding.  What’s more, scholars agree with this assessment.  One of the four main aspects of the Bible, of which there is widespread agreement, is what is known theologically as the Bible’s perspicuity.  That simply means that the Bible is clear in its message.  Therefore, its main subject— salvation— is clearly presented without confusion, which implies that there is only one plan of salvation and that all persons of faith should agree on it.  

✦ The second possibility for the many interpretations of Scripture is that men and women are not interpreting the Scriptures properly.  It’s funny how that just has a ring of truth about it.  And there are many reasons for this being the case.  A few of the human weaknesses that contribute to misinterpretation are: 

1/ Insincerity 

Some people are not serious enough about learning the truth. 

2/ Bias 

Some people have a strong personal preference for salvation doctrine to be what they have or want. 

3/ Personal corruption 

In Luke 8:15, Jesus said dealing with the Word of God requires honesty.  Not everyone is honest in his approach to Scripture. 

4/ Lack of hermeneutical understanding 

Some people have an interest in the Bible but lack the correct interpretive methodology.  They have been taught wrongly about how to view the many references to salvation in Scripture.  

If you notice carefully the four reasons we have listed here, only the fourth has some degree of innocence associated with it.  It still has a negative effect on a person’s ability to know the truth but it is one that is based more on ignorance than on evil.  That leads to another question.  Why is there an evil hindrance involved in studying Scripture?  Studying anything else in the universe doesn’t seem to pose such resistance.  I think the answer to that question relates to the nature of Scripture.  Let me explain. 

Scripture is not neutral. 

Mankind throughout history has found joy in studying this wide universe and has benefitted tremendously by it.  The advantages derived from learning are numberless and fathomless.  As humans have found joy in learning of the natural realm, one might expect that true knowledge of God would appeal to him even more, as a person may delight in knowing the artist more than his art.  But there is something unique about the Bible.  It is the Word of God.  It is not neutral about mankind.  And it is not on par with, or inferior to, mankind.  It is above mankind.  Its purpose is to rule mankind.  Our subordinate relationship with God means we are also subordinate to His Word.  There is no other knowledge in the universe to be acquired that is in that category.  The Bible’s purpose to rule our lives, and thoughts, and behavior is the cause for the resistance it meets from its readers and interpreters.  And this resistance, however imperceptible, can skew one’s judgment when interpreting— thus, Jesus’ emphasis on honesty when approaching Scripture (Luke 8:15). 

Education in any other realm of knowledge is different from education in the knowledge of God.  This is because our relation to God is different from our relation to the universe, which is the basis of all other knowledge.  In relation to us, the universe poses no threat of authority over us.  In fact, we have authority over it.  God placed mankind over creation (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalms 8:6; Hebrews 2:7).  This relation to the universe makes our study of it impartial and unbiased.  We approach the universe with a strong desire to know all we can about it because the knowledge it reveals will only give us more freedom and greater potential for good future use of it.  And, importantly, we can view it and gain its knowledge without it impinging upon our lifestyles.  It never interrupts our will to live as we want.  It’s amoral, non-imposing knowledge actually enhances our will to live as we want when we apply that knowledge to our advantage.  It suits us well.  Many and varied have been the products of properly applied scientific knowledge. 

But in the case of acquiring the knowledge of God, we are not superior to, or even on par with, the subject of our quest.  We are created beings who are subordinate to God.  As we gain understanding of Him, we learn that we are sinners who must surrender to Him and obey His will.  This is much different from learning about other things and is precisely where the difficulty comes in when interpreting His Word.  Consider this strange and unique scenario in the acquisition of the knowledge of God which we have just described.  You have sinners reading and interpreting a document that requires them to change dramatically, some of whom would rather change the truth of God into a lie (Romans 1:25), and others who wish to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 4), and all of whom by nature are unlike God and disinclined to Him (Romans 3:10-18).  Every member of Adam’s race has a natural hostility to God and a strong reluctance to change his sinful lifestyle.  Our natural opposition to the Bible’s message, then, must necessarily contribute to the possibility of misinterpreting the Bible.  We are self-interested creatures with a pressing will to have it our way, even if that way is not good for us (e.g., Naaman, 2Kings 5).  Therefore, when human nature meets the holiness represented in God’s Word, what must be the certain result?  The answer: exactly what it is— many interpretations of the Bible and a tendency for the truth to be the least popular, which is precisely the reason other interpretations have come into being and proliferated among fallen creatures.   

Incidentally, man’s natural hostility to God and His truth is the explanation for all the idolatry throughout human history (Romans 1).  Man is incurably religious because he was made to worship God.  But he wants to have religion his own way.  Actually, all false doctrine, even that which bears the name of Christ, is a form of idolatry because any departure from the truth of God is a measured denial of Him (Jude 3-4) and a setting up of something in His place (Mark 7:7-9).  The only proper response to God is full surrender and full devotion, and that being according to His Word.  God wants every person to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:4).  Let me close this post on a very positive note.  You can be a person who uses his opportunity on this planet to do just that.  By doing so, you will make the world a better place. 

Why do some people think Paul taught salvation terms differently than Peter?  

8.31.21 

Did Peter and Paul agree on salvation terms?  Could they possibly have taught differently on such an important matter?  If they did, wouldn’t that prove there is discrepancy in Scripture?  Could there be more than one way to be saved?  Could one of them have been slightly wrong?  If they did indeed teach the same thing, how do some people get confused?  

🔴 The Great Commission governs all Christian evangelism. 

Peter and Paul taught the same thing!  There is no doubt about that.  Paul expressed in his Galatian letter that he differed nothing in theology from Peter (and the other Christian leaders) (Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9).  They believed and preached the same salvation message.  They had to.  They were both governed by the same Great Commission, as are all of us.  That commission asserted the tenets of salvation that Peter announced to the world on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39).  

🔴 Acts reveals that Peter and Paul both believed, received, and taught Acts 2:38.  

They are both covered adequately in Acts to prove this.  

🔹Peter in Acts 

In Acts 2:38-39, Peter revealed the plan of salvation for the Church age.  

About ten years later, in Acts 10:44-48, Peter opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.  The tenets of salvation had not changed due to time nor to class of people (Acts 11:15).  Cornelius, his kinsmen, and near friends received the Acts 2:38 salvation experience. 

🔹Paul in Acts 

Paul’s conversion is recorded in Acts 9.  He even recounts it in Acts 22 and 26.  He repented before Christ on the Damascus Road and followed His directive to go into the city to receive further instruction (Acts 9:1-6).  It is clear that the man who attended Paul’s conversion, Ananias, insisted on the tenets of Acts 2:38 (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16).  This shows that Paul himself experienced what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost.   

In Acts 19:1-6, we see Paul in ministry practice.  This is where he superintended the conversion of the Ephesians.  They were already believers in Christ at this time (v. 2), which means they had previously surrendered to Christ.  But they were not aware of Jesus’ name baptism or of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  When Paul informed them, they received both, fulfilling the terms of salvation preached on the Day of Pentecost. 

Thus, Paul is clearly seen in Acts to have received Acts 2:38 and to have preached it to others.  

🔴 Paul in the Epistles 

But why does Paul say in his epistles that we’re justified by faith?  Did he change his mind about salvation terms?  Did Paul disagree with himself in Acts?  The question becomes, Did Paul teach differently in his epistles than what he received and preached in Acts?  Of course, the answer is: No, he did not.  He was consistent with himself.  

🔴 The nature of the Epistles 

Theologizing is different than evangelizing.  Paul evangelized in Acts.  There, he received and presented the tenets of the Gospel.  That’s why we can see him confer with the Acts 2:38 message Peter preached.  But he theologized in his epistles.  He wasn’t presenting the Gospel in his letters; he was contrasting its principle of faith in Christ with the principle of works prescribed in the Law of Moses.  Of course, he did make references to salvation tenets.  For example, he spoke of baptism in Romans 6, and of the necessity of the Holy Ghost in Romans 8.  He spoke of both tenets in Titus 3:5-7 and other places.  But his main doctrinal focus in his letters was to contrast faith in Christ versus the Law of Moses.  Baptism was never compared to the works of the Law.  

The principle of salvation is certainly faith in Christ alone, plus or minus nothing.  Any addition to Christ dismisses a person from Christ.  That is clear from Paul in Galatians (5:1-4).  But the means to obtain salvation in Christ includes the tenets He prescribed. 

🔴 Paul was a theologian. 

Paul was trained from youth in theology.  He knew how to consolidate theological concepts into concise bits of verbiage.  Probably no New Testament writer was as concise in his expression as Paul.  He often used theological shorthand.  He could present theological knowledge with amazing economy of words.  Here are some examples: 

Ephesians 4:5  is the tersest description of Christianity.  

Ephesians 2:8-9 is a theological summary of the Acts 2:38 experience upon which he personally founded the Ephesian Church (Acts 19:1-6). 

Colossians 1:15  is a clear and precise declaration of the Godhead stated in the fewest words possible.  

Other similar concise Pauline expressions of the Godhead follow: 

Colossians 2:9-10

1Timothy 3:16 

Acts 24:14 

Romans 9:5 

Because of Paul’s prior training, the role of theologizing the grace of God fell to him more than to any other Apostle precisely because he was best fit to do so.  He was expert in theology.  He had a theologian’s mind.  He had been a student of Scripture all his life.  Therefore, he was called upon to expound the Christian faith in his many epistles.  No other writer touched upon so many doctrinal issues as Paul. 

It is this very theology— the matter of dealing with salvation doctrine in concise terms— that confuses some people.  For instance, Paul summarized the salvation experience as faith in Christ, which indeed it is.  And those to whom he wrote had previously experienced Acts 2:38, so they knew what he meant perfectly.  But those who read Paul’s epistles now and have not received the Acts 2:38 experience will fail to see this connection.   And because people miss this simple fact, they misinterpret Paul to teach that salvation in Christ is by mere faith, apart from the tenets Christ enjoined, which it is not.  The true theological meaning of faith in Christ in Paul’s epistles is faith that adheres to Christ and to His terms of redemption.  As Paul said in Romans, we are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).  That redemption was set forth by Christ in His Great Commission and was clearly presented on the Day of Pentecost, where thousands of people received it (Acts 2).    

🔴 Conclusion 

If Peter and Paul preached the same salvation message, how do people get confused and not recognize it? 

I believe the answer is threefold, as I have endeavored to show in this post: 

1/ They don’t realize that the Great Commission prevents discrepancy in preaching among the Apostles.  

2/ They fail to regard what the book of Acts reveals about Paul’s conversion and preaching. 

3/ They don’t understand the theological nature of the Epistles.  The difference people perceive between Acts and the Epistles is due to the difference between presenting salvation and theologizing about it.