We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 14 is entitled “Stand in the grace of God.”
When I say in this installment that if the Church of Christ is to be saved it must, as the above passage indicates, stand in the grace of God, and not simply believe in it. The Church of Christ has a head knowledge of grace, but at the gut level it does not, generally, know the grace of God. To put it another way, we must come to terms with the grace of God, recognizing that it is a reality to be realized. It is like living in a house wired for electricity and not being plugged into the power. This is why we’re not going anywhere, we’re not plugged in. (pp. 163-164).
Being the pragmatic individualists that we are, a “do-it-yourself” people, we can’t believe there are really any free lunches, not even in religion. Grace can’t really be a completely free gift, we figure, for we have to do our part — by repenting or being baptized, or going to church, or something! — for it is illogical that God would freely bestow his grace apart from our cooperation. It is our pragmatism, our humanism, our fleshly pride — yes, our logic — that causes us to do what Paul sought to avoid, nullify the gift by failing to realize that it is free, unconditionally free. Of course it is illogical, that is what makes it grace. There is no logic in giving heaven itself to people that do not deserve it. (pp. 165-166).
I think Garrett nails it. We accept a theoretical grace but often deny an effective grace. Grace covers sins we commit but not sins committed by others. We conveniently define “grace” to not apply to doctrinal error, so that we who have perfect doctrine can go to heaven but those who err cannot.
Only grace will free us from our legalism. Only grace will deliver us from the backwater of our sectarianism. Only grace will give us the assurance of our salvation. So long as we are deceived into believing that “we have to do it” and that righteousness is at least partly our own doing, we can never be sure of our standing with God. We must realize that God’s grace is not auctioned off to the highest bidder. We can do nothing to merit it, we cannot work enough to earn it, we cannot be good enough to deserve it, we cannot be rich enough to buy it, we cannot muster enough power to wrest it. Grace is God’s free gift, all because he loves us, abundantly and extravagantly.
When we “stand” in the grace of God, trusting in his goodness and mercy, then love, joy, and peace will flood our hearts. We will then be a more gracious people, magnanimous, full of life and enthusiasm, eager to praise God for his great mercy. We will take ourselves less seriously and be able to laugh at our foibles. We will not be so uptight, we’ll quit worrying, be less critical of others, more accepting, more forgiving. (pp. 171-172).
Our working definition of grace is reflected by our hearts. We become like whom we worship. Those who worship a God of astonishing grace becoming astonishingly gracious people. Those who worship a God of tightfisted grace for only those who know the secrets of the silences, well, they become tightfisted people who dole out their own grace very sparingly as well.
So, the “fruit” of understanding and fully accepting grace is extending grace to others…
Sort of in line with Luke 7:47(b) But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”
Philip Yancey’s book, What’s So Amazing About Grace, makes much the same point. As he describes his youth and the gracelessness he experienced in his church/Bible College, it sounded strangely like my own youth – even though the Baptist church he grew up in supposedly has more grace than the CoC.
He does a beautiful job of describing the results of a grace-filled life. I heartily recommend this book. It is not a “doctrinal,” but a practical study of grace.
Jerry
“Grace can’t really be a completely free gift, we figure, for we have to do our part — by repenting or being baptized, or going to church, or something! — for it is illogical that God would freely bestow his grace apart from our cooperation.”
Do you honestly believe that the grace of God that brings salvation is bestowed upon those who are unpenitent and unimmersed? Do you honestly believe that that God bestows his grace that brings salvation upon sinners APART FROM THEIR COOPERATION?
If the grace of God which brings salvation were truly unconditional (without any conditions), then why would ANYBODY not be benifiting from it? Do you guys believe that EVERY person alive is currently experiencing God’s free and “unconditional” gift of his grace? If not, why not?
Think about it… if God’s grace is really intended for all men (which it is Tit. 2:11), but if all men are not experiencing it, then it must obviously be conditional.
Please explain how it can be extended unconditionally and yet still have conditions?
I believe that the actual truth is that it is a FREE GIFT and yet still be conditional and require our cooperation. Again, if it were unconditional and did not need any cooperation from man…then nobody would be lost.
Jay:
Since you think Leroy Garrett “nails it,” then the question becomes why you believe that “The ultimate test of salvation is faith in Jesus?” Your “everyone is saved by their faith in Jesus” ignores the truth that we are saved by grace through faith (though I know you do NOT agree with that). But before telling me I have missed your conclusions, read on….
Yes, Leroy Garrett’s focus on grace is important… and ironically invalidates some of what he has written previously. And ironically he has chosen to avoid noting many excellent lessons (I and others have heard) within churches of Christ reaching back to at least the 1960’s. Lessons that focused in baptism as an action of God’s grace. Does he mention baptism as an act of God’s grace in the chapter, Jay?
Ephesians 2:8ff. indeed sums up. And it is in baptism as an action of God’s grace that our sins are washed away and we become God’s possession. We are buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through our faith in the power of God (Col. 2:12).
A wondrous thought. And a powerful corrective to the belief that baptism is a “work.” Correct? And also a powerful corrective to some of what you have proclaimed in your weblob. You do not believe that baptism is a “work,” do you Jay? And if you do not, then what is left?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
These two statements reflect a dilemma, don’t they? On the one hand Leroy says, we are not plugged in – on the other hand he says it is wrong to “plug into Grace” (my words) by doing something. How should that work?
First of all baptism is our first step into Grace, because in baptism God redeems us and is bestowing his grace upon us! So by this we are plugging in, aren’t we? And this relationship to God needs to be maintained, it’s not a one-time-event but a relationship! Therefore going to church, or “not forsaking the assemblies” is essential!
The problem is that Leroy does not understand grace, which is demonstrated in the following quotation:
Again and again and again an unscriptural term is used to play down the role of obedience in our salvation! “Legalism” is a straw man! Shoot at him as long and as hard as you like, blow out its guts with your bazookas! Leroy is a typical Protestant using typical protestant terminology to describe things he does not understand, because he is too biased by his Protestant theology. The church of Christ is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Let the Straw man bleed and groan and suffer and die in agony, Leroy!
How can you show your righteousness apart from your works?
Alexander
@ Jerry
I have a copy of Yancey’s book in German. I warn against it with all my might – it’s heresy. I do understand where he came from, but where he ended is the other extreme! It’s a terrible misunderstanding of God’s Grace, misleading and irritating. I wrote a book against it (not against him personally, but against this Prostestant/Evangelical misunderstaning of Grace). It’s in German, though, so I fear you won’t be able to read it …
Alexander
To be ore to the point, here is an excellent article of David Servant, that refutes all the basic statements of “unconditional grace and love” (the theme of Yancey’s book):
Alexander
How do you say that works matter when eph 2:8-9 says that they are not. Hank, isn’t faith the qualifier for grace? Also, doesn’t romans 4 say that grace isn’t something that one earns? It seems difficult to argue for works in salvation, however it seems reasonable for Sanctification If grace must be earned, then by definition in romans 4 it’s not grace. I just don’t see any qualifier for receiving it except belief.
Price,
The word “works” is used througgout the NT with different meanings. Oftentimes, Paul used “works” to refer to perfect obedience. For example, in Romans 4 Paul said that to the man “who works” God OWES HIM his reward. For the man “who whorks” his wages are not a gift but a obligation. The one “who works” HAS SOMETHING to boast about. Clearly, Paul is saying that the only one who is owed anything and can rightfully boast is the man who never sins. Therefore, the one “who works”, is the one who never sinned. For the rest of us who are not saved “by works” (never sinning), but by faith, our reward is a gift which was not owed us and which leaves no room for boasting.
Price, you write:
“I just don’t see any qualifier for receiving it (grace) except belief.”
Well, at least you acknowledge some type of “qualifier” at all. For Jay and Leroy seem to be saying that grace is “unconditional” and does not need ANY “cooperation” from man. But Price, do you REALLY believe that belief is the ONLY “qualifier”? Remeber that there were many who actually believed but would not confess (Jn. 12:42). And what about those who believed but would not repent? You may argue that such did not “truly believe” if they did not repent or confess, but hen why would it be so wrong to suggest that the same couldn’t be said regarding baptism? Too, why do we insist on calling baptism “a work” and not belief, confessing with the mouth, and/or repentance?
Especially when the Bible calls belief a “work” of God? Do you believe that belief is “a work” of any kind? Do you believe repenting and being baptized are “works”? If so, do you consider them too to be the works of God, or of men?
Hank …. I believe it says in Rom 4 that I’d there is reason for boasting it is NOT to God. It also says that it was Abrams faith not adherence to law that justified him. There just isn’t any qualifier from works according to Rom 4 or Eph 2. For salvation Now as far as growth in the Christian walk it would be foolish to assume that it could be done without effort. We learn through doing. But that is quite a different thing to being saved. Right ??
Yes I do believe that faith is the only qualifier for Salvation. I don’t know why god Sao what he said but he said it. If one truly believes he will act. If he does not act he didn’t truly believe.
I do not believe baptism saves. I believe that it is a public declaration of an existing and saving faith. God doesn’t need to be convinced of ones faith. He already knows. But the church needs to see because they don’t know. IMHO
Scripture defines faith as not works I don’t always understand but that is what it says. Faith and works both have value and God decided what that was Faith for salvation. Works for sanctification. Good thing. I can’t be perfect enough to save myself. But I can work on being a better person, husband, neighbor and it’s comforting to me that I don’t risk my salvation based on my performance.
Price, It does say that the one “who works has something to boast about, but not before God”. It also says that to the one “who works” his reward “is not a gift but an obligation”.
Price, who is the one you believe to be owed his reward? Who is it that you believe would have something to boast about? Would it not be the man who never sinned? Paul call such person the one “who works”.
Also, you frist said that “belief is the only qualifier” and I see that you now are saying “faith is the only qualifier”. Which is it? Or, are they the same?
And do you believe that faith is the same thing as repentance? Is belief the same thing as confessing with ones mouth?
Finally, you did not answer whether or not you believe that believing in God is “a work” of any sort? If you believe it is a work, but that it is the work of God (as the Bible says), what about repenting and being baptized? Are they works too? If so, are they the works of God or of men?
Price:
I appreciate your candor. And I understand that you have embraced the traditional Baptist view that baptism is a “work.” (“a public declaration”) I will mention that I am aware of some rethinking that is occurring within the Southern Baptist Convention. I rejoice in such.
Now at this point let me ask you to do a little digging regarding this. Do you find ANY text in the New Testament where the “baptism” is in the active voice? Note: You will not.
That is because baptism is not about “convincing God” of faith. That is never the teaching about baptism by the apostles. And that is why G.R. Beasley-Murray, as a Baptist scholar, could see apostolic teaching about baptism and write well about Ephesians 1:13-14 and other texts. He saw what the texts individually said… but then his Baptist heritage held him back from announcing the conclusion of his study.
If Jay wants to take up an important study, let me suggest that he, along with all of us, wade into Everett Ferguson’s thorough look at baptism in his Baptism in the Early Church. In short it is making waves in the believing world.
Below is the URL to Scot McKnight’s review:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/01/saturday-afternoon-book-review.html
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Hank. It’s a difficult question to answer without being labeled or placed into some sort of group but if we are to encourage and help one another then we should feel safe to speak honestly. Paul contrasts faith and works as well as belief and works rom 4:3-5 speaks about it as clearly as it could be spoken about. Belief isn’t works. Faith isn’t works. Are belief and faith the same. Not sure. Romans 4 seems to use them interchangeably We are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest anyone should boast. To the layman that seems to exclude faith works. Actually, I’m not sure how from this passage alone it could be made more clear that faith isn’t a work that even allows for one the possibility of boasting. Romans 4 removes boasting from personal accomplishment as well. So to me, without regard for what the baptists or ancient mystical goddesses migh think, faith-belief isn’t a work.
Not sure why that last post (1:02) claims to be mine when it was addressed to me. I assume it was Price?
Anyway, who is the one who “has something to baost about”? Who is the one who is owed his reward and it not be a gift? Paul still says it is to the one “who works”. Who is that, and why is his reward his due?
Yeah that was me. Not sure what happened. Hank, the comparison of that passage is between one who believes and one who works. Belief matters. Works doesn’t. Seems to me that the focus is belief not works so perhaps instead of spending time on what works is and what works is not we might focus on what Gos says is the priority and that is belief-faith. Belief saves. Works does not. Faith is not works. What is faith? The evidence of things not seen ?? Not trying to be evasive. Just focused on what God says is important.
Price,
Yeah, that was weird…
But, could you try not to be evasive for a minute :).
The passage couldn’t be anymore clear in saying that to the one “who works”:
1. He does have something to boast about (although of course, not before God – who is perfect)
2 That his reward is not a gift but his due.
Now, with your understanding of works in this passage, how do you see that “the one “who works” is owed his reward? And how does the one “who works” have any standing to boast? It does actually say as much, right?
Seems to me that the only one who could actually do either of those things is the one who never sins and therefore needs no forgiveness. Who do see as the one who is owed his reward and can boast (in any sense)?
I’d really like to know how you can make sense of that passage with your understanding of “works” as obeying certain commands of God. Do you believe that if a guy is baptized, that he then is owed his reward? I don’t.
Still, the passage says that the one “who works” is owed his reward and can boast.
Think about that….
Hank. My thoughts on Romans 4….. It says that IF abram was justified by works he would have reason to boast. Paul Clearly points out that he was not justified by works so thus there is no reason for abram to boast. Pretty straight forward.
The passage about wages being due to one who works is an everyday illustration used by Paul to contrast grace versus works. IMHO to read anything more into that would be a mistake. It would be a fantastic leap to equate an illustration of one being paid for work performed to some sense of salvation by effort when the illustration was used to make justthe opposite point.
I agree with u that baptism is not a means of requiring something of God. I see it as a similar thing to circumcision inthis passage: A outward confirmation of an inner faith. Take a look at vS 14. Faith is made void by what ??
Yes, from this passage alone one could come away with a wrong impression. But to understand salvation we cannot go by “one passage alone”, but by the totality of what scripture says on this subject.
Doing this would reveal that in our language “to believe” is an insufficient word to transate the Greek. Even “To have faith in Christ” does not fully describe or even encompass the meaning. “being faithful to Chrsit” would be as fitting a translation, yet insufficient on the other side. But looking at all the texts where faith is described, one would find that the same faith
a) puts ones full trust in the davior
b) is faithful to Christ like a servant to a King
c) is obedient
d) is convinced of the invisible truths
e) is living and growing
f) is loving sacrificially
g) is enduring and persevering
h) …
Reading all of this one cannot say faith and works are “against each other”, but faith is active and works.
Now what is Paul referring to in Eph 2? Context matters!
OK which works? The answer is found just two verses later:
Circumcision and the Mosaic Law!
Not only do Protestants generally “reduce” the meaning of faith to mental assent and trust, completely apart from any works; but they also “expand” the meaning of works beyond the limited meaning Paul gives it in each of his letters! The works Paul writes about (in contrast to Faith) are ONLY the works of the Mosaic Law. The reason is the widely debated issue whether Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul deals with this issue in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians in great detail and from many perspectives, but it is always the same question.
So, when we come with a reduced undestanding of the word “faith” and and expanded understanding of the word “works”, we have to misread Paul. We are bound to produce heresy! therefore the NT contains a warning that applies especially to people like us who only have Paul’s letters but never heard him preach and teach in church nor saw him live out the Gospel:
Peter even tells us what errors he thinks of:
Lawlessness – this is the consequence of a theology that abhorrs works as a part of our salvation. Keeping God’s commandments does not rule out grace and knowledge of Christ, but lawlessness will lead us astray both from grace and knowledge.
So, Price, maybe you trusted a false Gospel?
Alexander
Price,
Are you aware (have you noticed) that the Bible says that “to the one who works”, his reward IS HIS DUE? You do know that the Bible says that “the one who works” HAS REASON TO BOAST, right? I’m not making this up…
You wrote: “The passage about wages being due to one who works is an everyday illustration used by Paul to contrast grace versus works.”
But, to what “everyday illustration” are you talking about?
Its no “illustration” but a fact. The “one who works” IS OWED his reward (that’s what the book says) and he “has something to boast about”.
You seem to have a problem with that. Again, the “one who works” is owed his reward AND can boast. The Bible says that. Clearly, the one “who works” (in this passage) can only refer to the hypothetical guy who never sins.
You say it is “an everyday illustration” but I have no idea what you mean by that. How is that an “everyday illustration”?
Why is the guy “who works” OWED his reward? In what sense does he “have something to boast about”?
Hank… Seriously ?? You don’t understand about wages being paid formwork performed ?? That was the illustration. In a Separate verse it speaks about abram boasting IF. IF. IF. He were justified by his works. Paul says he wasn’t. You are mixing the verses together and fabricating some new theology. IMHO. Believe what u wish but your argument isn’t convincing to me. Doesn’t make it wrong. It just doesn’t convince me.
Furthermore it says that abram IF he had reason to boast…. it was NOT before God. There is perhaps some reward from man. Jesus spoke of those that made a big deal of their “works” receiving their reward So, i guess it depends from whom one is interested in receiving a reward. Go isn’t impressed with works. I think Isaiah described our works in leas
Than flattering terms.
Beyond this our opinions seem to degrade to argument and from that I’ll decline to participate. Ive tried to express my belief but each man is responsible for his own belief. I’m certain you have carefully considered yours Bleasings
When everything you do, everhow its done, is considered a work, even thinking, its easy to understand how works save us!
That is the thinking and reasoning of many in the churches of Christ.
If Jay and Leroy are correct in claiming that the grace of God (and I assume that they mean also the benefits of such) is really given “unconditionally” and without requiring any “cooperation” from man…would that not mean then that everybody is experiencing the benefits of God’s grace?
How do people not see that?
Hank,
I did not quote all of Garrett’s essay. In context, I think you and Garrett would be largely in agreement. Here’s another section —
Garrett, Leroy (2010-10-29). What Must the Church of Christ Do To Be Saved? (pp. 168-170). SCM e-Prints. Kindle Edition.
Hank and Price, I’ve corrected this post to fix a typo that resulted in the wrong author being shown.
Jay, thanks for clearing that up. I agree with that illustration and believe that that is the traditional understanding of all “traditional” coc’s. I don’t see how anybody would/could have a problem with that other than those who have argued that men are saved before and without one bit of obedience and/or cooperation.
But Jay, does not the part you did quote in your original post above contradict what you just now added? If he believes what you just added (the illustration of Campbell and the sea), how could he before or after write that men are saved (enjoy God’s grace) “unconditionally” and without “cooperation”?
Hank,
You ask a fair question, and only Leroy can answer completely. I would propose this theory —
Contrary to the beliefs of many here, there remains a strand of thought in the Churches of Christ that distorts “cooperation” and “condition” to make baptism literally into a “work” in the Pauline sense and thus argues that certain works are essential for salvation. See, for example, Goebel Music, Behold the Pattern at pages 506-508.
Of course, we see in the comments on this site a struggle to reconcile the necessity that Christians do good works (conceded by all to some degree) with Paul’s repeated declarations that salvation is a “free gift” and by “faith not works.” It would hardly do to declare, as some do, that we enter for free and then have to start paying for our salvation (justification is free and salvation is not).
In this light, it’s easy to see why Garrett would push us as far from a works salvation as possible when we understand that Galatians refers to a works salvation as “a different gospel.” There are those who wish to push us into a works salvation, whether or not called by that name.
We’ve covered how the Bible reconciles “not saved by works” with “saved to do good works” many times. But it looks like I need to post something on the question once again. It is, I admit, a difficult one unless you address it relationally.
I applaud Garrett’s encouragement to move as far away from a self-salvific approach as possible…Baptism was never intended to be a sacrament…IMHO…
However Faith and/or Belief are defined, they both necessitate obedience to be real… Obedience MUST follow true faith… Don’t have a problem with seeing good deeds as the things that “accompany salvation” Heb 6:9 but accompaniment isn’t the same as the act of salvation itself…That’s ALL about Jesus…again, IMHO.
Price, I think one problem is that some will see your statement (“Obedience must follow true faith”) as additive, rather than resultant. If said obedience is additive, that is, if it is something we do in addition to our faith, then we have fallen into a salvation by works. If, OTOH, such obedience is a consequence of faith, an effect, if you will, then this both retains the necessity of obedience and the proper place of works in our soteriology– as immutably connected to, but subsequent to and separate from, our salvation.
Garrett states the traditional CoC position on grace with bullseye accuracy. Until we can embrace something so radical, so other-worldly as grace, we will continue to half-sole it, to try to make it just a bit less than what it is so that we can have our personal contribution recognized. Unfortunately, the world is full of self-help promoters, and this watering down of grace renders us just one more of those “how to do better” programs.
Laymond… it would be difficult to assign a cold hearted attitude to the Apostle Paul. Yet, wasn’t it him who said in II Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Even Paul knew there was no free lunch. it seems to me that Paul drew a line in the sand and made it a command that lazy people should not benefit from the efforts of those that were industrious. I have a great deal of compassion for those that have suffered from no fault of their own…even those that have made bone-headed decisions..but I have little sympathy for those that choose dependence as a way of life… but that’s just me…
Charles… I don’t see good deeds as additive to Salvation. I do see it as additive to Sanctification.. We learn through our service…our mistakes. Our successes…One can’t make mistakes or achieve any substantial goal if he never makes an attempt… However, as important as Sanctification is to our understanding and growth, I do not equate it with our ultimate Salvation and Security in Christ Jesus… IMHO
Price,
You say “IMHO” too much (IMHO).
Charles, you write:
“If said obedience is additive, that is, if it is something we do in addition to our faith, then we have fallen into a salvation by works.”
How do you explain Acts 2? Specifically, when all those convicted sinners cried out “what shall we do”, how do you make sense of Peter’s exhortation of “SAVE YOURSELVES…”?
How do you not see that as something they were to do?
In Colossians 2:9-14, Paul says (vs. 12) “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” At our baptism, we are made alive. Brought to life from the death of sin. Up until baptism, one is dead in their sins. At baptism, one who is dead is buried, is raised with Christ, and is made alive by God. And notice that it is the work of God, through our faith, that we are made alive. Not our works, but God’s works.
Verse 13 of this passage also shows that it is at this point, when we are made alive, that God forgives us of all our trespasses by cancelling out our record of debt.
Great point, Kirk. That’s what the Bible teaches….
Hank, Kirk…. are you saying that when someone agrees to sell you something on credit because you have promised to pay them…and you get what you were promised, that you should be able to walk away from that obligation because that’s what the Bible teaches ?? Surely not….
Price,
While I can’t speak for Kirk (don’t even know the guy), I don’t believe either one of us are saying anything about anybody buying anything on credit and then not paying for it. Where does the Bible teach about that anyway? Not really even sure of what you’re talking about….
Hank, Kirk…oops my bad…confused posts… I knew it didn’t sound right…I’ll try and be more observant…
Hank, if one can save himself, he needs no Savior.
It is by grace you are saved, and not of works (I heard this somewhere) so Peter’s words can only be interpreted within that context. Here, the encouragement to “save yourselves from this corrupt generation” is VERY different from “save yourselves from your sins”. Only the lingo is similar, the meanings are unmistakably distinct.
Charles,
Are you suggesting that when Peter exhorted them to save themselves from that corrupt generation, that he was not exhorting them to be forgiven of their sins??
If not, in what sense do you believe he wanted them to be saved (from that generation)?
I need to check to see if anybody else believes like you do about that passage, because I’ve never heard anybody else ever suggest anything other than that Peter did have in mind forgiveness of sins when he exhorted them to “save yourselves.”
Of course, as in Jay’s illustration above, them saving themselves would only be in the sense that they would be “grabbing on to” the lifeline that God had extended. Namely, by repenting and being baptized.
Unless, Peter meant that after they were forgiven by repenting and being baptized that they should run away from the resy of th crowd who did not repent and be baptized because maybe the unrepentant would want to kill them?
I just don’t know how you can believe that saving themselves from that crooked generation did not imply becoming Christians and being forgiven. That’s just a really odd take…
I can’t speak for Charles, but in the Acts 2 passage, Peter’s impassioned speech does not address their personal sins at all, he is exhorting them to repent (or change direction) of their unbelief about who Jesus was/is and what He accomplished. He tells them what happened, reminds them of prophecy and then tells them to change their minds about this man Jesus. Repent of their sin of disbelief. I think we read into the text the idea that it’s about repenting of our personal human sin(s).
And, like Hank, I had always been taught this passage was about turning away from our personal sin.
I’m looking at it again right now and he never once talks to them about their personal sin. He just makes his case for Jesus as Lord and Savior. It’s a “believe me when I tell you these things, cuz’ you’ve been told all along that this was gonna happen. Now don’t be like all these others that won’t believe me, you save yourself from these falsehoods” kinda message.
I think “saving themselves from this crooked generation” does imply believing that Jesus Christ was/is the promised Messiah or as you say becoming Christian and being forgiven or justified.
Nancy,
Me too. There’s really just no other way of interpreting that and I am really curious to learn more of how Charles sees that.
Clearly, saving themselves meant becoming Christians and being forgiven. And the way they were to do that there was by repenting and being baptized..
They can’t save themselves, they must look to Jesus for that. “saving themselves” in my understanding meant being set apart from the corrupt generation (the unbelievers)…i.e. don’t be like them. Maybe we are just talking past each other. Clearly baptism is closely associated with belief but obviously, a person can’t just be baptized physically and expect to have “saved themselves”. The Holy Spirit (God) is the agent of spiritual rebirth.
I think you are probably saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
I’ll admit, like others on this board (and Paul too), my radar is very sensitive to any idea that seems like a man centered sotoriology. Like Paul and Barnabus later in Acts, I’ll sharply oppose that idea.
p.s. My study today is from Acts 15. That passage is relevant to this discussion I think.
Nancy,
If they couldn’t really save themselves, the inspired apostle wouldn’t have told them to “save yourselves”. But he did and so they really could.
Again, I point to the above post and illustration of Jay (originally Campbell’s). Make no mistake, God and his Son are the ONLY authors of our salvation. But sinners “save themselves” when they believe, obey, and take hold of God’s “lifeline”. We do that when we by genuiine faith, repent and are baptized.
There can be no doubt that when Peter exhoted them to save themselves, he was exhorting them to become Christians and receive forgiveness of sins. They were to do that by repenting and being baptized. When Peter said “save yourselves” he meant “become Christians and be forgiven”.
And I am curious to see ANY reputable scholar to suggest otherwise. Do you know of any?
Hank, you are taking the word “save” and insisting that it can have but one meaning in all applications. This is incorrect. If it were correct, women would gain eternal life by bearing children (I Timothy 2:15) Or we would have to stay with the ship, per Paul’s instructions in Acts 27:31, in order to be saved. Or we would have to be in Noah’s Ark, per I Peter 3:20. “Saved” does not always mean the same thing in every context.
When we marry ourselves to specific words in the biblical text (what I call “Concordance Disorder”) and use these words on their own to try to prove our established doctrines, we may easily fall victim to a lack of discernment. We may read for language before reading for meaning. This often results in our making the scriptures say things which they really do not say. Sometimes, this is fairly harmless, resulting in overstating that which is said elsewhere. Other times it is doctrinally deadly.
It appears to me that here in Acts 2, Peter was contrasting those who were believing his message with those who were not, and urging those who believed in the Messiah to separate themselves from those who would try to convince them otherwise. There had to be a lot of conflict and argument over this at this time among the Jews gathered there. This interpretation makes good sense in the overall context of the gathering ,and the recent history, and Peter’s specific message.
Getting away from other sinners does not a believer make, nor did Jesus say that he who avoids the members of this current corrupt generation have eternal life. And anyone who understands the central message of the gospel should be instantly wary of any interpretation which would have us finding eternal life by “saving ourselves”.
“Charels,
Obviously, I disagree with your interpretation. Frankly, it makes no sense to me to understand Peter to be in essence saying, “repent and be baptized for forgiveness and then get away from everybody else who does not”. And I can’t find ANY known scholar/commentator to interpret the passage anything like that.
And, why do you claim that I am “…taking the word “save” and insisting that it can have but one meaning in all applications. I don’t do that and that is not a true statement there.
Plus, to exhort then brand new believer to “get away from” those who did not believe, would be contrary to the Great Commision. Disciples ARE to go to the lost and try to convince them to believe, not get away and stay away from non believers so as to not risk being unconverted.
Christ expects us to be faithful enough to not be talked out of believing…
Well, in Moody’s Handbook of Theology by Paul Ennis, he writes “”…Peter was calling for members of that generation which was guilty of having crucified Christ to separate themselves from a generation under the judgment of God.” That separation was to be publically signified through baptism. Moreover, the baptism signified that the people had received the forgiveness of sins”.
So there’s one scholar that doesn’t read the text the same way you do.
Nancy,
I think you are reading him wrong. When he says that they were “…to separate themselves from a generation under the judgment of God”, he means that they were to “get themselves saved”.
Think about it… the ONLY way to separate themselves from those who are under the judgement of God would be to NOT BE ANYMORE under said judgment of God. He was exhorting them to be forgiven. He was wanting them to become Christians! In doing so, they would be “saving themselves.”
If he DID NOT mean that they were TO BECOME Christians, then what was he saying? Not like Peter would say “hey non believers, get away from the other non believers by leaving town and start hanging out with other non believers”.
No, the “separation” Peter had in mind was clearly of a spiritual nature. They would “separate” themselves from the crooked generation by becoming Christians. And by believeing and obeying Gods word, they would be “saving themselves.”
So, while we disagree on the meaning and purpose of baptism, even Paul Ennis is knows that when Peter exhorted them to “save yourselves”, he meant nothing other than “become Christians and receive forgiveness”.
Again, the separation was spiritual and had everything to do with forgiveness of sins. And technically, the Bible does not even say “separate yourselves from”…what it actually says is to “save yourselves from.”
Nancy and Charles,
Did you read the illustration of Jay (from Campbell) on Nov. 6th 1:14? It is a perfect illustration and will help one understand how one may actually have to “save themselves” by doing certain things and yet TOTALLY AND TRULY be saved because of the mercy and kindness of another.
The fact that a person must actually do a thing do be saved does not make his salvation be any less a free gift out of the kindness and mercy of another. If you haven’t, please read it..
One more thing. The fact that he added the following further proves that the “separation” he had in mind, had to do with forgiveness:
“That separation was to be publically signified through baptism. Moreover, the baptism signified that the people had received the forgiveness of sins”
So, and again, he clealry believes that the passage under discussion does refer to forgivness and becoming a Christian.
Hank & Charles,
Reading your comments reminds me of a dog gnawing on a bone and growling.
Did you ever wonder just what Paul meant in 2 Tim 2:14?
Respectfully,
Jerry
Jerry,
If you think our words will “ruin the hearers”, perhaps you shouldn’t be reading them! Lol
Seriously though, what do you think Peter had in mind when he exhorted those sinners to “save themselves”? Do you believe he had in mind the forgiveness of sins? Or, to something else?
I agree Hank, peter wanted them to become believers. My understanding is that believers are saved and forgiven.
“Save yourselves” is just part of the verse. It is highly important to read the rest of it, because this leads us to a forgotten aspect of salvation:
Just to mention first: The Greek is 2nd person plural aorist passive tense. “Let yourselves be saved” would be correct.
To be saved from this crooked generation is an important part of salvation:
“to deliver us” is too weak: The Greek exaireo means “to tear out” or to “pluck out” – such as in Mat 5:29. That’s a very “dynamic” language paul uses, stressing the urgency of the matter of our salvation out of and from this world. So radical this is that he concludes the same letter with the following text:
Being crucified to the workl is the result of being buried and raised with Christ in baptism.
So this is part of God’s redemptive work.
But – BUT – we are involved in this when we read the same Paul in 2nd Corinthians:
That’s am imperative, a command to us. Unless we separate ourselves (from the world) we cannot become children of God. Christians who think or at least act as if they belong to “both worlds” might be mistaken about their salvation.
Alexander