For the record:
INTRODUCTION TO MY BOOK "THE WAY MORE PERFECTLY."
The question of what the New Testament teaches about the plan of salvation varies greatly in the Christian world. There are those who claim requirements that some may feel are lacking, taking away from the Word of God, while there are those whose requirements might be considered too much, adding legalistic demands that are not truly part of salvation.
To some, being saved means that someone has accepted Jesus into his/her heart. That’s likely the most popular concept today. It’s commonly said that salvation comes when a person makes Jesus Christ one’s personal Saviour. There is no question that Jesus indeed must become our personal Saviour, however, just how exactly is this accomplished according to Scripture?
What does the New Testament actually teach about this? Does the Bible tell us to make Jesus our personal Saviour, and then leave it at that? Are these statements even found in the Bible? What does the Bible really tell us about this important issue?
Over the years, I’ve come to notice that many people tend to approach the issue of salvation from an emotional perspective rather than a truly biblical perspective. Those who approach this matter from an emotional perspective alone will end up surveying all of the varying denominational plans of salvation, and discover that every denomination has sincere adherents. The conclusions that result from such an assessment are actually based more on an assumption of what God should do with a soul in such circumstances, rather than on what God has said He will actually do as written in the Bible.
The types of questions that surface from this emotional perspective include whether or not God will require everything as stated in His Word about salvation for those who end up falling short. Their assumptions lead them to believe that as long as people are sincere, God wouldn't allow them to be lost even if they never correctly knew or understood the full plan of salvation. Many end up looking back to their dear, departed loved ones who loved the Lord with all of their heart, when confronted with a view that might not agree with the way their loved ones experienced “salvation.” However, if we take the more trustworthy approach of standing solely upon the Word of God and what it states regarding salvation, without adding to or taking away from it, then we will come to a conclusion that is far removed from emotional assumptions.
With all this being said, what is the best way to deal with the question of who is actually saved and who isn't? Some are quick to say that if a person has not followed the biblical plan of salvation, then they are lost and bound for hell. Others claim we cannot judge at all, even if the Bible itself outlines the process and people do not follow it. Then the popular question arises regarding how God would deal with a person who is partway through the salvation process and suddenly dies.
Many who believe in a plan of salvation that involves more than just “one simple step” of mental assent consider those not fully compliant to be in a state similar to that of an unborn fetus. There’s life present, but actual new birth has not yet occurred. Since an unborn fetus is considered an actual soul, then these people feel such an individual is still saved even though actual new birth has not yet occurred. However, they believe such a person will not have any rewards for having worked for the Lord when they make it past judgment day.
What are we to do? Should we stand on what the Bible alone says, and propose that all who don’t qualify are lost, or do we leave it up to the Lord to decide on Judgment Day?
One time I heard a preacher declare that Jesus alone holds the keys of death and hell and that we, the Church, were only given the keys of the Kingdom. He believed that this was grounds enough to declare that it wasn’t our place to say who’s lost when it comes to this sort of question but that we are only to simply tell them how to get saved. The only thing wrong with that idea is that in
Revelation 1, the keys of death and hell actually correspond to the keys of the Kingdom. Though I do not believe that this minister’s use of scriptural references referring to the keys of death and hell refer to such a position, I must say that I strongly agree with his conclusion to leave it in God's hands.
Having had numerous conversations with many preachers and Christians from all types of ministries over the years, I have arrived at what I feel is the best conclusion. I simply and prayerfully tell people what the Bible says about how to be saved, and leave it up to God to decide what He will do with a soul who falls short of it.
Why do people feel the need to say what God will do with a soul who doesn’t fully comply with what’s required for salvation, when the Bible is silent about what He will do with a soul in certain situations?
I cannot agree with the people who approach this topic with an emotional response and feel that coming short of the Christian plan of salvation means one is still “saved.” Neither can I side with those who are rigid and claim everyone is lost who does not fully comply. I only do what the believers did in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles—preach the truth in love, and nothing more or less.
Did the Apostles preach salvation with threats of hell?
Did Peter, Paul and the other apostles throw threats of “hell” into the equation when they informed people as to how to be saved? Priscilla and Aquilla educated Apollos in what the Book of Acts describes as a more perfect manner about the way of salvation. Did they say he was lost for hell before he would respond favourably with his newfound understanding? Did they say he had better qualify himself for God by obedience to what they added to his understanding or else he’d be lost for perdition? No. Look for yourself! They only told him more than what he currently knew, and we are informed that he complied.
Acts 18:24-26 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
We don’t read he was lost for hell before he heard of the way more perfectly, nor that he’d be lost for hell should he disobey it. We only read that Apollos was instructed “in the way of the Lord” before he heard more truth. We’re not told if he was “saved” or not. When we read about the extent of his knowledge, we find he only understood the baptism of John the Baptist. His situation reminds me of the disciples of John in Ephesus in
Acts 19 who hadn’t yet heard of the Holy Ghost baptism, nor of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. They only knew of John’s baptism unto repentance.
Were they saved? We’re not forthrightly told. Some feel that Paul’s question to John’s disciples as to whether or not they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed, infers to us that they were saved. They reason that it’s the element of believing that saves us. However, they knew nothing about Jesus Christ. Can one be saved without having known anything about Jesus Christ? Paul had to inform them that John was a precursor to the ministry of Jesus. Their belief didn’t include the cross of Jesus whatsoever!
At any rate, hell wasn’t mentioned to either the disciples of John in Ephesus or to Apollos. Why did the disciples not make any reference to hell? There’s no doubting hell is real. But take notice that they didn’t hurl the issue of hell at everyone to whom they ministered in the Book of Acts. I think we should pattern our method of relating truth to people after the same manner and with the same understanding.
continued...
Hybrid Mode
