What MUST I Do To Be Saved?
“WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?”
So cried out the jailer to Paul and Silas, haven fallen trembling to his knees, when he found that although an angel had opened all of the doors of the jail in the night, the prisoners were still there. And they answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (NKJ, Acts 16:30-31) If he must do more than that in order to be saved, would they have not so have told this earnest and distraught questioner?
When Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, only to hear, for the first time in human existence, “you must be born again,” Nicodemus, in shock, asked Jesus, “How can these things be?” Then Jesus went on to speak the best-loved words of instruction and assurance that we know: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:1-18) If more than belief were required, would not Jesus have said so?
Apparently for emphasis and clarity, Jesus said essentially the same thing over and over, four times in a row, in verses 15, 16, 17 and 18. Could he have been more clear about what was required for salvation? Would he have left out anything that was absolutely essential?
In the case of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11), when Peter said to him and his household simply that “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” (Acts 10:43) while he was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard. This was taken by Peter, and later in Jerusalem by all the disciples, as incontrovertible evidence that they had indeed been saved. Yet “believing in Christ” was all they were told to do to be saved at that point, and presumably, all they had time to do before the Holy Ghost fell on them in the split second before Peter finished his sentence. No more than the minimum of “believing in him” could have happened, at least at that point in time.
Jesus said in John 6:37, “him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out,” requiring nothing more than coming to him. In John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone that seeth the son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” And in John 6:47, again, “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” None required more than believing.
When Peter began his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, he declared that the day foretold by the prophet Joel had arrived, in which “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This passage was also repeated, for the third time in the Bible, by Paul in Romans 10:13. The only standard it requires for salvation, “calling upon the name of the Lord,” is probably the most minimal standard in scripture. But that it is repeated three times in the Bible by Joel, Peter and Paul, underscores its importance and certainty.
Yet Peter ended that same Pentecost sermon by commanding his hearers, some of whom were apparently among those who consented to the killing of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Here, repentance and baptism were, at the very least, commands. Were they also requirements for salvation? If they were, then how was the jailer of Paul and Silas saved, without being required either to repent or be baptized? How were Cornelius and all his household saved instantly, according to the witness of the Holy Spirit and all the disciples, without having even a second to either repent or be baptized? How was the unbaptized thief on the cross able to be with Jesus that day in paradise? We can only conclude that repentance and baptism are important commands and much to be sought after and hoped for. But that they are not absolutely required for salvation.
In the passage that led Martin Luther to salvation, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast,” only grace is required for salvation. In fact, Luther made this his motto, and the great cry of the Protestant Reformation: “fide sola” or “grace only.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Luther soon added another “only; “escritura sola” or “scripture only” as the sole authority for Christian belief and doctrine, rejecting the Catholic authority of tradition, and even the authority of reason, when contrary to scripture. We still hold to these foundational positions. So we look to scripture only, and not to our reason, for the answer to foundational questions such as “what must I do to be saved?” And even though our ability to reason insists that there must be more, our final authority is always scripture.
Then why do we so yearn that all should repent, and should even be required to do so? It is because we know its great importance, how crucial it is for the Christian life. Yet, if it is not absolutely essential for salvation, there will be some who are saved without it. For these, we must work to make repentance a part of their discipling. Not everything to be hoped from Christians will occur in the instant of being born again, or even soon after, unfortunately. That is why Christ called us to be, not merely evangelists, but disciplers as well. (Mt.28:19-20.) “Teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you” cannot be done instantly, like taking a pill. It requires time spent in teaching.
For myself, repentance was absent. I was so God-struck, so smitten with his love and the joy of it (even though in prison,) that repentance never occurred to me as a part of it at that point in time. It did come later, but not at first. My own experience is that repentance is life-long. How could it not be, when we are sinners, always with something new to repent of? And when we remember, with sorrow that is essentially inconsolable, because, even though God forgives us our sins, the harm we have done to others still is not undone? (If only we had early knowledge of what remorse is really like, how devastating it can be, we would try so much harder to avoid the sins that cause it!)
Perhaps, if we look to the meaning of the word “repentance”, literally “turning” or in the Greek original, “metanoia”, it would assist our understanding of this issue. We think of repentance as it should be, a godly sorrow for our sins, a real grief and turning away from them. But is simply accepting Christ not also “turning?” Is it not a turning from death to life? From unbelief to belief? From rejecting Christ to accepting him? In each instance, the most basic kind of turning possible? In this most basic meaning of the word, widely accepted at the time of writing the scripture, does not every one who “turns” to Christ also minimally “repent” then? Even if such “repentance” does not, at least at first, reach the level of “godly sorrow” that Paul hopes to find?
Then why, in the passage from John Wesley recently quoted, without comment, by my good friend Shane Raynor in http://www.wesleyblog.com/, does Wesley apparently suggest that repentance is essential for salvation? It might be because in Wesley’s time, there was a much greater awareness of what sin was. The danger of hell and its horrors was also much more believed, and more present in common thinking, than it is today. So, perhaps in Wesley’s wide experience (and have many brought more souls to the Lord than he?), this was the pattern he commonly encountered at the point of conversion.
The pattern today, I can tell you from probing individual discussions with hundreds, is very different. Christian pollster George Barna also statistically confirms what I found. That is, not only is there almost no thought about hell or belief in it. There is also almost no real consciousness of sin. There is also the untaught conclusion that “I am OK with God.” The wide belief – even among believers! – is that since God is love, he forgives everyone for everything. No one is not forgiven, saved or not. No one goes to hell – except for Hitler and a few others. There is seldom the understanding that although God’s love is unconditional, his forgiveness is conditional.
Most Americans – again, even many converted believers – actually believe in a “works” salvation. That whether they go to heaven depends on whether they have been good. Their standards for themselves are pretty low, too. They think God keeps a balance sheet with “good” and “bad” columns, and that as long as the “good” column has more items in it than the “bad” column, they are OK. And each of them thinks they are doing pretty well so far. (Amazing, right? But true.)
The task of the evangelist, with today’s Americans, is convincing them they are sinners, and that is why Christ had to die for their sins. If they are not convinced of being a sinner, they will see no need for Christ. So in that minimal sense, they at least acknowledge being a sinner, and that they are helpless to save themselves without Christ, at the point of their conversion. In the eyes of God, who accepts us even when our reasons for coming to him are less than ideal, that is apparently enough. If “by their fruits ye shall know them” is the test, then there is ample proof from many that such conversions were indeed real.
The evangelist today, then, may not see a pattern of real, sorrowing repentance at the time of conversion that would probably have been the typical pattern seen by Wesley and those of earlier times; but does see the understanding by the convert that the convert is a sinner. Well, then, we must start with what we face in our times, and share Christ as best as we can. After all, that is what Luther, Wesley and many others did in their times.
Repentance by our converts, then, must be more our goal than what we can immediately expect or require. After all, did not the disciples decide not to require gentile Christians to observe Jewish ceremonial law, except for two minor ones, deciding “not to lay anymore on them?” Just so, we should not stand in the way of anyone’s conversion by unthinkingly “laying on them” more than is required by scripture, in order to be born again. Once born again, the Holy Spirit indwells them. Then the would-be discipler will have the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whose function is to “lead them into all truth.” Without that assistance, they may never come to the truth that they need to repent. And without being born again, they will not have the Holy Spirit.
So – first, salvation. Then, instantly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then, though often far too slowly, being led into all truth. But still, first things first!
So cried out the jailer to Paul and Silas, haven fallen trembling to his knees, when he found that although an angel had opened all of the doors of the jail in the night, the prisoners were still there. And they answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (NKJ, Acts 16:30-31) If he must do more than that in order to be saved, would they have not so have told this earnest and distraught questioner?
When Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, only to hear, for the first time in human existence, “you must be born again,” Nicodemus, in shock, asked Jesus, “How can these things be?” Then Jesus went on to speak the best-loved words of instruction and assurance that we know: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:1-18) If more than belief were required, would not Jesus have said so?
Apparently for emphasis and clarity, Jesus said essentially the same thing over and over, four times in a row, in verses 15, 16, 17 and 18. Could he have been more clear about what was required for salvation? Would he have left out anything that was absolutely essential?
In the case of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11), when Peter said to him and his household simply that “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” (Acts 10:43) while he was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard. This was taken by Peter, and later in Jerusalem by all the disciples, as incontrovertible evidence that they had indeed been saved. Yet “believing in Christ” was all they were told to do to be saved at that point, and presumably, all they had time to do before the Holy Ghost fell on them in the split second before Peter finished his sentence. No more than the minimum of “believing in him” could have happened, at least at that point in time.
Jesus said in John 6:37, “him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out,” requiring nothing more than coming to him. In John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone that seeth the son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” And in John 6:47, again, “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” None required more than believing.
When Peter began his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, he declared that the day foretold by the prophet Joel had arrived, in which “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This passage was also repeated, for the third time in the Bible, by Paul in Romans 10:13. The only standard it requires for salvation, “calling upon the name of the Lord,” is probably the most minimal standard in scripture. But that it is repeated three times in the Bible by Joel, Peter and Paul, underscores its importance and certainty.
Yet Peter ended that same Pentecost sermon by commanding his hearers, some of whom were apparently among those who consented to the killing of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Here, repentance and baptism were, at the very least, commands. Were they also requirements for salvation? If they were, then how was the jailer of Paul and Silas saved, without being required either to repent or be baptized? How were Cornelius and all his household saved instantly, according to the witness of the Holy Spirit and all the disciples, without having even a second to either repent or be baptized? How was the unbaptized thief on the cross able to be with Jesus that day in paradise? We can only conclude that repentance and baptism are important commands and much to be sought after and hoped for. But that they are not absolutely required for salvation.
In the passage that led Martin Luther to salvation, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast,” only grace is required for salvation. In fact, Luther made this his motto, and the great cry of the Protestant Reformation: “fide sola” or “grace only.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Luther soon added another “only; “escritura sola” or “scripture only” as the sole authority for Christian belief and doctrine, rejecting the Catholic authority of tradition, and even the authority of reason, when contrary to scripture. We still hold to these foundational positions. So we look to scripture only, and not to our reason, for the answer to foundational questions such as “what must I do to be saved?” And even though our ability to reason insists that there must be more, our final authority is always scripture.
Then why do we so yearn that all should repent, and should even be required to do so? It is because we know its great importance, how crucial it is for the Christian life. Yet, if it is not absolutely essential for salvation, there will be some who are saved without it. For these, we must work to make repentance a part of their discipling. Not everything to be hoped from Christians will occur in the instant of being born again, or even soon after, unfortunately. That is why Christ called us to be, not merely evangelists, but disciplers as well. (Mt.28:19-20.) “Teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you” cannot be done instantly, like taking a pill. It requires time spent in teaching.
For myself, repentance was absent. I was so God-struck, so smitten with his love and the joy of it (even though in prison,) that repentance never occurred to me as a part of it at that point in time. It did come later, but not at first. My own experience is that repentance is life-long. How could it not be, when we are sinners, always with something new to repent of? And when we remember, with sorrow that is essentially inconsolable, because, even though God forgives us our sins, the harm we have done to others still is not undone? (If only we had early knowledge of what remorse is really like, how devastating it can be, we would try so much harder to avoid the sins that cause it!)
Perhaps, if we look to the meaning of the word “repentance”, literally “turning” or in the Greek original, “metanoia”, it would assist our understanding of this issue. We think of repentance as it should be, a godly sorrow for our sins, a real grief and turning away from them. But is simply accepting Christ not also “turning?” Is it not a turning from death to life? From unbelief to belief? From rejecting Christ to accepting him? In each instance, the most basic kind of turning possible? In this most basic meaning of the word, widely accepted at the time of writing the scripture, does not every one who “turns” to Christ also minimally “repent” then? Even if such “repentance” does not, at least at first, reach the level of “godly sorrow” that Paul hopes to find?
Then why, in the passage from John Wesley recently quoted, without comment, by my good friend Shane Raynor in http://www.wesleyblog.com/, does Wesley apparently suggest that repentance is essential for salvation? It might be because in Wesley’s time, there was a much greater awareness of what sin was. The danger of hell and its horrors was also much more believed, and more present in common thinking, than it is today. So, perhaps in Wesley’s wide experience (and have many brought more souls to the Lord than he?), this was the pattern he commonly encountered at the point of conversion.
The pattern today, I can tell you from probing individual discussions with hundreds, is very different. Christian pollster George Barna also statistically confirms what I found. That is, not only is there almost no thought about hell or belief in it. There is also almost no real consciousness of sin. There is also the untaught conclusion that “I am OK with God.” The wide belief – even among believers! – is that since God is love, he forgives everyone for everything. No one is not forgiven, saved or not. No one goes to hell – except for Hitler and a few others. There is seldom the understanding that although God’s love is unconditional, his forgiveness is conditional.
Most Americans – again, even many converted believers – actually believe in a “works” salvation. That whether they go to heaven depends on whether they have been good. Their standards for themselves are pretty low, too. They think God keeps a balance sheet with “good” and “bad” columns, and that as long as the “good” column has more items in it than the “bad” column, they are OK. And each of them thinks they are doing pretty well so far. (Amazing, right? But true.)
The task of the evangelist, with today’s Americans, is convincing them they are sinners, and that is why Christ had to die for their sins. If they are not convinced of being a sinner, they will see no need for Christ. So in that minimal sense, they at least acknowledge being a sinner, and that they are helpless to save themselves without Christ, at the point of their conversion. In the eyes of God, who accepts us even when our reasons for coming to him are less than ideal, that is apparently enough. If “by their fruits ye shall know them” is the test, then there is ample proof from many that such conversions were indeed real.
The evangelist today, then, may not see a pattern of real, sorrowing repentance at the time of conversion that would probably have been the typical pattern seen by Wesley and those of earlier times; but does see the understanding by the convert that the convert is a sinner. Well, then, we must start with what we face in our times, and share Christ as best as we can. After all, that is what Luther, Wesley and many others did in their times.
Repentance by our converts, then, must be more our goal than what we can immediately expect or require. After all, did not the disciples decide not to require gentile Christians to observe Jewish ceremonial law, except for two minor ones, deciding “not to lay anymore on them?” Just so, we should not stand in the way of anyone’s conversion by unthinkingly “laying on them” more than is required by scripture, in order to be born again. Once born again, the Holy Spirit indwells them. Then the would-be discipler will have the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whose function is to “lead them into all truth.” Without that assistance, they may never come to the truth that they need to repent. And without being born again, they will not have the Holy Spirit.
So – first, salvation. Then, instantly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then, though often far too slowly, being led into all truth. But still, first things first!
posted by Old Neocon at 7:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home