Please reach us at jim@intothedeep.today if you cannot find an answer to your question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9.4.21
Acts 16:31 provides an example of Paul in evangelism. Does it show he taught that salvation is by faith alone? Some think so. And, in a way, at first glance, it seems to. But, before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at it.
Context, context, context
It’s widely known that nothing bears on the meaning of Scripture like context. That’s true of any communication. There are many kinds of contexts besides the chapter context where a Scripture is located. Actually, each Scripture fits into quite a number of contexts. Our post today concerning Acts 16 will reveal some important ones that usually get overlooked.
Acts 16:30-31 has provoked much controversy as to its meaning. One reason is because people limit their reading of the local context. They stop reading at verse 31 in order to claim that salvation is by mere faith and do not consider what follows in the next two verses, which paints a fuller picture of the evangelism that took place.
To properly understand Paul’s answer in Acts 16:31, a person must understand three significant contexts in which it resides. All three govern the meaning of what can be assumed from verse 31.
Acts 16:31 is in the context of:
1/ A patently strategic missionary enterprise (vv. 25-34)
Step one in evangelizing a pagan, which the jailer was, is leading him to faith in the Person of Christ. That’s standard missionary strategy because salvation results from faith in Jesus. And that is precisely what Paul was attempting to do in verse 31.
But just believing in a man called Jesus apart from the Gospel is not saving faith. The Good News includes the pertinent information about Christ’s atoning sacrifice and resurrection and what He taught in His post-resurrection Great Commission about receiving salvation. That is the common sequence in all effective evangelism and it is implied in verse 32, where it is stated that Paul and Silas gave the jailer the word of the Lord. We know that word included Christ’s teaching on baptism because it is the most noticeable thing about his conversion.
So, the missionary context of Acts 16:31, which is evident in further reading, bears on the meaning of it.
Acts 16:31 is in the context of:
2/ Paul himself
By that, I mean that Paul’s own spiritual state bears on the meaning of what he said. Each person speaks from his own insight and experience. Therefore, Acts 16:31 must be interpreted in the light of Paul’s conversion experience and ministry practice seen elsewhere in Acts. The Bible is consistent and so are its commissioned Apostles about the plan of salvation. The context of Paul himself is necessary to consider because he could not be teaching something here that contradicts what he personally experienced and taught elsewhere. He himself taught that there is only one salvation experience (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 1:8-9). In other words, what we see in Paul’s conversion is what he would have taught the jailer. The biblical record makes it clear that Paul experienced Acts 2:38. This is evident from Acts 9 and 22:16. And what we see Paul insisting on in another evangelistic context in Ephesus, where much more detail is provided, is what he would have insisted on in every case of evangelism. His missionary outreach to the Ephesians reveals that he insisted on the Acts 2:38 tenets (Acts 19:1-6). Paul was consistent with himself. He would have taught the jailer what he taught others and received himself.
Acts 16:31 is in the context of:
3/ The divine authorship of the book of Acts
Christ had a purpose for everything that was recorded in Acts. The entire record, with its many instances of evangelism and personalities presenting it, combines to show that the book has a singular and unified message of salvation. There is no account of difference between Apostolic personalities and especially none within a single person. Nothing in Acts even hints that there are two ways to be saved. The purpose of the book of Acts is to provide a template for salvation and a model for evangelism since conversion and evangelism would come to be duplicated many millions of times throughout the Church age. It provides the standard for evangelistic procedure and doctrine. Its Gospel tenets were introduced by Peter on the Day of Pentecost and were supported by multiple ministers, involving thousands of people. Acts 16:30-34 dovetails perfectly with all the other examples, including those involving Paul himself.
Conclusion
Scripture is clear upon diligent study (2Timothy 2:15). But a superficial or light-hearted approach to it is not only reckless, it’s dangerous. Incentive to save one’s soul and the souls of others should compel a person to spare no pain to know the truth (1Timothy 4:16). Jesus said the truth is what sets a person free (John 8:31-32). He told Pontius Pilate that He came to bear witness to the truth and He referred to those who receive it as of the truth (John 18:37-38). The truth can be known and will be known by those who revere it and desire it. It will evade the notice of someone who scorns it, as Pilate did. Paul said we are saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2Thessalonians 3:13). True believers then become the promoters and defenders of the truth, or, as Paul said, the pillar and ground of the truth (1Timothy 3:15). Solomon said, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Proverbs 23:23).
© 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).
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.
Add an answer to this item.
Into The Deep
Copyright © 2026 Into The Deep - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.