Here in part 5 we are going to discuss 1 Peter 3:18-22 and the link between baptism and salvation. Let me preface this by pointing out that this is one of the most debated texts in scripture, and exegetical scholars have written extensive essays explaining the text. This is going to be a very brief synopsis, but that inevitably means there will be a lot of holes that will need to be filled in. I encourage you to do the studying yourself, read the text and pray to God that His Holy Spirit will reveal its meaning to you.

First the text itself:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…. In [Noah's ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (1 Peter 3:18, 20b-22)

Yes I know I skipped verse 19 and part of verse 20, and yes they are important verses, but not so much for interpreting the teaching on baptism in this text. I omitted them only because of length, I could write an entire post on verses 19-20 which would involve explaining the Nephilim in Genesis 6, what happened to them, and how demonic spirits can be sentenced to imprisonment / bound in chains prior to Christ’s final return. I’ll save that for another day. For now let’s stay on track: baptism and its link to salvation in this text.

Verse 18 begins with the word “for.” One of my teachers told me that any time I see the words “for” or “therefore,” I need to find out what they’re there for! In this case it is referring to the immediate context of vv. 13-17, which deals with suffering for doing good, specifically for professing Christ as Lord. It is thus saying that Christ’s suffering and death in v. 18 is the ultimate suffering for good, since he “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.” He had no need to suffer, since He was perfect, but He chose to suffer in order to redeem us, and that is our example for suffering even when innocent of wrongdoing. Verse 18 also makes it clear that “Christ died… to bring [us] to God.” We must keep this in mind as we read this entire text: what brings us to God? Christ’s defeat of sin, death and the devil on the cross.

Enter the controversy. Vv. 20b-21 in the ESV read: “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and his family’s salvation from the flood through the ark], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The water itself did not save Noah, but it sustained the ark built in faith, resting on God’s word: thus it was to him the sign and means of the regeneration of the earth. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Bible puts it this way:

“The flood was for Noah a baptism, as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptism in the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world to the new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from the companionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severing of all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privileges of the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism…. The antitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, nor the mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peter proceeds to explain.”

Let me cut through some of the wordiness: “Baptism… now saves you… through the resurrection of Christ.” It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Conclusion

To conclude this entire series, we should not look to man-made doctrines to understand the paradox of salvation. It is just that, paradoxical, and human reason often goes beyond scripture in order to “make sense” of justification. Evangelism involves sharing Christ by teaching both His Law and Gospel. This means teaching that we are born spiritually dead and are thus subject to the power of the devil. Apart from Christ, we are morally and spiritually bankrupt. Because of sin, we are destined to death and eternal separation from God in a literal hell. We are completely helpless and hopeless, powerless to change without the divine grace extended in the offer of the Gospel, God’s good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.

This salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation cannot come about by our own works; it is entirely the work of God. The Holy Spirit draws us to Christ through the Word of God and creates faith in our hearts.

All sinners must die, for the wages of sin is death. They can either die eternally, or they can die baptismally. Baptism should be immediately sought out by and administered to new believers for the forgiveness of sins and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism we are buried with Christ and integrated into His new covenant, being raised to life by faith, now being counted dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Thanks for reading this series, I hope you found it worth your time and thought.

Denominational Comparison on Baptism

So where do we go from here? I’ve given what the Bible says, yet many Christians still can’t agree on much of the teachings concerning salvation and baptism. That’s because we apply human logic to the Bible and come up with doctrines. Everyone does it, myself included. My only point here is that we should unify on the essentials we all agree in, like those above. But there will inevitably remain differences. I’ll go through the main spectrum of beliefs on how baptism functions, then close with a personal position. The following is from Understanding Four Views on Baptism, p. 125:

I personally vacillate somewhere between the Lutheran and Reformed views. Here is my own personal statement on baptism:

In baptism, God graciously and miraculously washes away our sins by applying the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to us, gives us a new birth, clothes us in Christ’s righteousness, seals us with the Holy Spirit, buries us with Christ and through faith raises us up with Him as new creatures, making us holy before God and integrating us into the Body of Christ. None of this comes about due to anything magical in the water, but by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word. According to the Bible, all of this happens in baptism and it is entirely the work of God, not our own doing.

Thanks for reading!

For more good reading on baptism, check out the following posts:

• Baptism: Children Running Through God’s Sprinkler of Grace or Just a Symbolic Confession?
• Baptism in the New Testament: The Holy Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts
• Luther… on Baptism
• What We Believe

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 3
2. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 4
3. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 2

This is part 4 of a series on the paradox of salvation. In part 1, I presented two humorous video clips (one minute each) dealing with Calvinist and Arminian witnessing. In part 2, I broke down Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how he used the Bible to proclaim Christ to those gathered in Jerusalem that day, using both Law and Gospel. Then in part 3 I further discussed Peter’s answer to the question, “what must we do to be saved?”, focusing on the importance of baptism and what the Bible says about it.

As promised, here in part 4 we are going to discuss the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19. But before we begin, I need to make a short disclaimer. People have written books explaining these passages (and I’ve read a few of them). This is going to be a rather terse overview, mostly in order to expose you to the passages and to get you thinking. I’m not going to fill in all the blanks, I would have to write another manifesto in order to do that. So bear with me as I go through the text at this brisk pace, it will be helpful for you to have the text handy as you read this.

I’m going to begin with Acts 19, but in order to fully understand it we need to go back to Acts 18:24-28. Here we are introduced to Apollos, who is “a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John” (18:24-25). So let’s get this straight, he taught about Jesus accurately, but his understanding of baptism was wrong. Was this such a big deal? I mean, all we need is to hear about Jesus right? Yeah, it was a big deal. It was big enough that Priscilla and Aquila pulled him aside and set him straight (v. 26). Now we’re at chapter 19. Paul is in Ephesus (where Apollos had been preaching), and he asks the believers if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Their answer: no, we don’t know anything about the Spirit. So what does Paul do? Does he immediately begin instructing them properly about the doctrine of the Trinity? Does he begin quoting Christ’s teachings on the Holy Spirit? No. Instead he asks them one question: “Then what baptism did you receive?” (v. 3).

Hmm, apparently there must be a pretty strong link between baptism and the Holy Spirit if this is the first question Paul asks. They reply that they received John’s baptism.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:4-7)

Baptism is apparently such a big deal that they do it again – the right way. Note the close connection between the Spirit and water baptism in this account. The Ephesian disciples said that they had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul does not question their belief or their previous instruction. His diagnostic question on matters of the Holy Spirit focuses on water baptism: “Into what then were you baptized?” (19:3, literally).

Andrew Das, in an article he wrote concerning baptism, says:

What about the order of events in these narratives? Shouldn’t baptism come first and then the Spirit? Luke clearly establishes a connection between water baptism and the Spirit. In Acts 2:38 the Spirit is promised to those who are baptized. But in Acts 10 Cornelius’ household receives the Spirit first and then is baptized. Acts 19 records the “disciples” first being baptized and then receiving the Spirit. Luke does not then seem to be establishing a clear sequence between the events. BUT: note how they are always in the immediate context of the other. The Spirit is simply a promise in connection with baptism in Acts 2:38. It’s a lot like John 3:8: you hear the sound of the wind but don’t know where it’s coming from or where it’s going. The two are simply connected.

But what about Acts 8:1-25. This passage presents a problem. In Acts 8 a group of baptized believers remain without the promised Spirit for a significant period of time (the time it took the apostles to arrive after the evangelization was well on its way). Only after the apostles arrive and pray for the people do they receive the Spirit. Does this passage disrupt the connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Not really. One must not overlook certain grammatical features qualifying Acts 8. In v. 16: For [the Spirit] had NOT YET fallen on any of them, but they had ONLY been baptized. The words “not yet” and then “only” are placed first in their respective clauses for emphasis. First, the Spirit had NOT YET fallen on them. An event that was supposed to happen had not yet happened…. The distinction between “not yet” and a simple “not” is one of an EXPECTED event that had not In other words, the Spirit SHOULD HAVE fallen upon them in baptism. The Spirit, then, SHOULD HAVE come with the Baptism. Now we can understand the emphatic word “ONLY.” They were ONLY baptized. The baptism was “ALONE,” that is, it was UNACCOMPANIED.

Luke is serving the reader notice that the separation of the Spirit from water baptism was UNUSUAL. The Spirit was therefore NORMALLY RECEIVED IN WATER BAPTISM. Something strange had happened in Samaria. This was not how the Spirit was normally received. So why did the Spirit delay His coming to the Samaritans if they had been baptized? To understand why we must take a look at the role that Samaritans play in Luke and Acts.

For the sake of length I’m not going to post Das’ entire response, but you can read the full-length article here. In a nutshell, Das explains how Jews and Samaritans have had a longstanding rivalry, going back into Old Testament times. He shows how Luke establishes this theme throughout his Gospel and in the book of Acts. I really recommend you read the original article to fully grasp the magnitude of this, but I will jump ahead to his conclusion for the sake of length.

When the Spirit does not come in the water baptism as expected, the whole episode forces the Samaritans to submit to the laying on of the Jerusalem Apostles’ hands. The Jerusalem Apostles had to personally preside over the Samaritan reception of the Spirit. The Spirit WAS THEREFORE FORCING TWO SEPARATE BODIES OF ISRAELITES TO BE REUNITED. Heterodox Samaria is once again restored to orthodoxy, an orthodoxy represented in the Jerusalem Apostles. The Samaritans will not receive the Holy Spirit apart from the Jerusalem Apostles. There will be no separate Samaritan, Christian church autonomous of the Jerusalem church. The old walls of division are torn down by the activity of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s motif of ethnic hostility between Jews and Samaritans up to this point is surely the key to the proper interpretation of Acts 8 and the separation of the Spirit from water baptism. We know that we have been on the right track in our interpretation when we get to Acts 10-11. Consider Acts 10-11 from the perspective of ethnic tensions. The Jews with Peter are all surprised that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and particularly, “in the same way” as the Jews had at Pentecost. Acts 10:45 speaks of the astonishment of those with Peter that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. Since the Gentiles were given “THE SAME GIFT” (11:17) as the Jews at Pentecost, Peter could not hinder them. The gift of the Spirit came to them “as also to us.” The reception of tongues forced the Jewish apostles to recognize the Gentiles as fellow recipients of the Spirit. God had already gone out of His way with a vision to Peter that the Gentiles are to be considered clean. Then he sent the Holy Spirit upon them in an undeniable way. Thus the Holy Spirit was overcoming human prejudice against the Gentiles in Acts 10-11 by these extraordinary manifestations. Salvation was therefore clearly for all. Acts 15 portrays a Jerusalem council mindful of what God was doing among the Gentiles. Like the gap between Jew and Samaritan, the Spirit was now forcing the bridging of the gap between Jew and Gentile. Acts is a story of the Spirit intervening in the midst of the human condition of weakness and sin. Where the Jerusalem church had been initially slow to take the Gospel to new groups, the Spirit was taking the initiative. People found themselves having to “catch up” with the Spirit’s activity. Nothing, not even ethnic conflict, could stand in the way of the Spirit’s work.

Acts is a story of the Spirit at work in human affairs, the Spirit of Jesus Christ (1:1). We should not be surprised, then, at the unusual delay of the Spirit in Acts 8, since it provided a unique opportunity to bring two groups of Christians once divided together. And once again, as Luke carefully qualifies the events: Acts 8 confirms that the Spirit and water baptism do indeed go together even as Acts 2:38 indicated.

So in conclusion, it is clear from scriptures that there is a close connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Stay tuned for part 5 where we will discuss a passage in 1 Peter 3 which demonstrates a strong link between baptism and salvation.

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 3
2. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 2
3. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 5

As I said in part 2, Peter continually pointed them to Christ, and he told them to do two things: repent and be baptized. It might be easy to turn this into some kind of “salvation ritual,” until we discover that both repentance and baptism are gifts from God, received by grace, not works of our own. I cited two verses in part 2 demonstrating that repentance is a gift received by grace, here they are again:

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…. (2 Timothy 2:25).

Why would they pray that God GRANT repentance to people if it was something they could choose to do on their own? Too often churches make repentance out to be a work of our own. Here’s the problem: If I could simply choose to give up my sinful behaviors and thought patterns, then why would I need Christ? If turning away from sin (literally, metanoia = “changing the mind”) is something I need to accomplish on my own BEFORE receiving the Holy Spirit, I’m screwed! We need His Holy Spirit in order to change, we can’t do it by our own vain self-effort.

It is important to understand that the Holy Spirit creates faith in our hearts, faith is not just some cognitive decision we make in our heads. It is the Holy Spirit who “convict[s] the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). The Holy Spirit seals our salvation and acts as a sort of “down payment” on our future redemption: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).

So we just learned that faith comes from hearing, we are included in Christ upon hearing the Gospel, and we are marked with the Holy Spirit as a seal of the new covenant in Christ. Just as Peter demonstrated that Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, allow me to show you some more fulfillment. Under the old covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision, a covenant made specifically with men (although it included the women in their households):

“… every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised….” (Genesis 17:12)

But under the new covenant this seal is baptism. In the sermon Peter delivered on the day of Pentecost (which we examined in part 2 of this series), he pointed out that men and women would now receive the Holy Spirit:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy…. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

The apostle Paul clearly saw the connection between circumcision and baptism when he wrote:

In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

Clearly baptism is “the circumcision done by Christ,” a gift of grace from God to us through which we are buried with Christ. This seal of the new covenant has been expanded to include both men and women, unlike the first covenant. Paul talks about being buried with Christ again in Romans:

Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4)

When the brethren were “cut to the heart” following Peter’s message on the day of Pentecost, “Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . . [And] those who received his word were baptized’” (Acts 2:38, 41). Baptism is clearly linked with the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Here’s some more passages of scripture:

Jesus answered, “… I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:5-6)

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16, Paul’s baptism)

When they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

As they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” . . . And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:36, 38)

Obviously baptism was part of the instruction that Philip gave to the eunuch when he explained salvation to him, or else he would not have immediately recognized his need for it. Baptism is so important, Jesus includes it as a necessary part of discipleship in His Great Commission:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…. (Matthew 28:19-20)

The primary command in this sentence is “make disciples.” The way Jesus instructs us to do that is twofold: baptizing and teaching. Baptism was immediately administered to new believers in the New Testament. Baptism is literally half of the discipleship equation in this passage. Is its importance being taught (and practiced) in your local church gathering?

In conclusion, all believers should seek to be baptized as soon as possible because of the promises attached to it in the word of God, namely the forgiveness of sins and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Look for part 4 soon, where we will begin to further discuss the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19, as well as a passage linking baptism with salvation in 1 Peter 3. I hope you’re enjoying the series thus far.

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 2
2. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 5
3. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 4

Let me point something out about both of the evangelists in the videos: neither of them presented God’s Law. Both began with Jesus’ love. The problem with this approach is that we need both Law and Gospel. The Law shows us our sin, and the Gospel then shows us our Savior. Without the Law we will never recognize our need of Jesus’ love and forgiveness.

On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit falls on the believers and they begin supernaturally declaring the wonders of God in languages they have never learned. Everyone is greatly perplexed about this (although some mocked them). Peter addresses the crowd and in a nutshell this is what he says:

• What’s happening here today is in fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy (notice the Bible is the basis of Peter’s message, vv. 16-21)
• Jesus was the Messiah, and you killed Him (LAW, vv. 22-23)
• “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (GOSPEL, v. 24)
• The resurrection of the dead was foretold in the Old Testament (more Bible, vv. 25-29)
• Jesus is the Messiah, and He gave us His Holy Spirit (more GOSPEL and scripture, vv. 30-35)
• “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (LAW and GOSPEL, v. 36)

And what was the response? “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (v. 37). The Law had its intended effect, it cut them to pieces and they recognized their sin. They were left hoping in the Messiah, but clueless how to be saved from God’s wrath. How did Peter reply?

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (vv. 38-41).

Peter continually pointed them to Christ, and he told them to do two things: repent and be baptized. Sounds a lot like a formula, right? It’s not. I would argue that neither of these are works of our own, both are gifts from God. How can I say this? Once again I turn to the Bible:

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…. (2 Timothy 2:25).

We will discuss baptism is more detail in part 3. The point I want you to take from this post is that we need to proclaim both Law and Gospel as we share Christ with others, and we must base all of our teaching on the Bible, not on man-made arguments or doctrines such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Peter demonstrated that Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy using scripture, he didn’t use clever philosophical evangelism “techniques” to proclaim the Gospel. Stay posted for part 3 where we will discuss baptism as a gift from God.

If you would like to read a little more about the Gospel, click here. For a great post dealing with realistic approaches to evangelism, click here.

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 3
2. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 4
3. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 5

Kevin DeYoung posted two comical videos on Monday dealing with evangelism, one from a Calvinist and one from an Arminian perspective. They are only about a minute each. While presented in jest, these videos really do touch on some major problems that both of these doctrinal positions fail to address in practice. Let’s begin with “Calvinist Witnessing:”

Right off the bat the evangelist asks, “Do you know that Jesus might love you?” This pokes fun at the Calvinist belief in limited atonement. This doctrine says that Jesus ONLY died for the elect, those God already chose to be saved. Contrast that belief to John 2:2, which says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Jesus died for EVERYONE according to the Bible. The evangelist then points out how there is nothing the man can do, and uses the term “monergism,” (meaning salvation is entirely God’s work, we contribute nothing to it). The man is left with no answer to the question, “what must I do to be saved?” Then the crux of the video’s point is made evident: “If I can’t do anything to be saved, then why are you telling me any of this?” The fictitious Calvinist is stumped.

Next is the “Arminian Witnessing” video:

The very first statement from the Arminian evangelist is “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” But as the man to whom he is witnessing aptly displays, one can intellectually believe in every proposition of the Arminian Gospel without ever encountering Christ or having a change of heart. Then our fictitious character introduces himself as a Calvinist, obviously touting it as the solution. But as we can see from the first video, it’s not the solution.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are man-made doctrines, and neither are entirely scriptural. So what is the correct answer? We must turn to the Bible, not to Calvin’s Institutes or to the writings of Arminius or Wesley or whomever.

In part 2 we will discuss Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, and how he answered when asked the question, “what must we do to be saved?”

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 2
2. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 5
3. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 3

“The Trinity is not a doctrine I believe, it’s a relationship I embrace.”

Someone then (anonymously) left a comment which I thought was profound. I thought a lot of them were great, but this one jumped out at me:

Reformed theology is simply biblical theology without the rationalization. It takes all of Scripture and holds them together with all it’s tension. For example: “Jesus is 100% man & 100% God”. “God is absolutely sovereign and man is a 100% responsible free agent.” “Salvation if 100% free, but it will also cost you everything”, “There is only one God, but three persons”. etc…. Both truths in each statement seem to be contradictory doctrines but are biblical truths at the same time. Mystery is certainly involved and there is tension in these doctrines that we cannot explain. It’s when you leave historic Reformed theology that you begin to rationalize things in Scripture. Arminian theology down-plays the sovereignty of God and has a host of verses it must explain away. Hyper-Calvinism down-plays human responsibility and it also has a host of Scriptures to explain away….

Very interesting, and very true. Let’s look at the tension between Law and Gospel for instance. The Law demands absolute perfection as the standard of holiness. Any failure causes one to be responsible for breaking the entire law. The just sentence for breaking the law is death and eternal punishment. There is no way out of this — not in the Old or New Covenant. The Gospel is the “good news” that Jesus has taken our sin upon Himself that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). While this is offered free to us, it is not free — it came at a great price and carries a great cost (another tension). Many Christians fail to maintain this tension, leaning towards one end or the other — both lead to death. They are both fully true. God’s standard has not changed, nor has he become more lax in dealing with mankind. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). A failure to take sin or grace seriously results in a falsehood. Both cost us a lot, yet both are freely available to us.

The relationship between faith and works is another one that tripped me up for a few years. On one hand, good works cannot contribute anything to your salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9); on the other hand, if you don’t do them you are not saved (James 2:17). It took me awhile to figure out that the main idea here is that good works cannot earn nor secure our eternal salvation; however, a true and living faith will bear the fruit of good works. The difference can be seen in our motivation. A living faith will bear good deeds out of gratitude for the love of God found only in Christ Jesus. A person trying to secure his or her salvation under the Law will be driven by guilt and a necessity to do good things in order to be in a right standing before God. This includes daily prayer and meditation. If these acts are driven by a sense of obligation, they are mere ritual observances bound by the Law. But if Christ’s love compels us to do these things, then we will experience the true joy of our relationship with God.

The anonymous quote mentions Arminianism vs. Hyper-Calvinism. I won’t bore you with too many details, I’ll just give you a simple breakdown of the two sides, which actually represents another great tension of the Bible. I use the term “stereotypical” for both because each side argues that their opponent skews their beliefs into “Hyper-Calvinism” or into “Hyper-Arminianism / Pelagianism.”

Stereotypical Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

• Atonement is for all people: Jesus died for everyone, not just for the elect.
• Grace is resistable: The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.
• God’s election is conditional on faith in Jesus
• Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

Stereotypical Calvinism adopts what many call the TULIP model, which stands for:

• Total Depravity: We are completely dead in our trespasses and sins, we can do absolutely nothing to bring ourselves even one inch closer to salvation in Christ.
• Unconditional Election: Since, a dead person is unable do anything on their own, they are unable to choose God. So God out of love chooses those who are dead in their trespasses and sins.
• Limited Redemption: When Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, His Blood was sufficient for all, but is only efficient for those who believe in Him.
• Irresistible Grace: Since we are completely dead in our sins, we do not have the ability to choose God nor reject Him. He chooses us and completely saves us with no cooperation or effort of our own.
• Perseverance of the Saints: Another term used for Perseverance of the Saints is Eternal Security. This is best summed up by saying once you are saved, you are always saved and can never fall away. Since nothing you can do gets you saved, nothing you can do can cause you to lose your salvation.

Now I could spend hours unpacking both of these doctrinal extremes, but they are just that, extremes. There is a great tension in the Bible about whether or not we can lose our salvation — and the tension must remain. We get into doctrinal trouble when we try to put God into a logical box and turn revealed truth into bulleted lists and acronyms. Arminianism and Calvinism are both doctrinal extremes which are to be avoided, the truth lies in the middle. Both are man-made doctrines, and neither are entirely scriptural. The way I answer this question these days is simple: whether you lost your salvation or whether you never had it in the first place, the bottom line is that you need it now. Rather than skirting around the real issue, why not get to the heart of it. When the Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up using doctrinal conundrums, He always spoke to their hearts — not to their minds. He refused to be defined or cornered.

One thing that Christians like to do is put labels on people and put them into neat little boxes. Consequently we try to do the same thing with God. We do this with denominational labels, theological terms, political designators, etc. I think a big part of being a Christ follower is refusing to be labeled by worldly standards. David Kinnaman, in his book unChristian writes:

[Jesus] was not willing to be defined by His enemies. When His detractors wanted Him to make a clear statement against something, He always seemed to redefine the boundaries of the debate. He kept opponents off-balance, leaving them flustered. If His inquisitors tried to corner Jesus about religious laws, customs, and restrictions, His response was often to raise another question or tell a story that changed the parameters of the argument. Should the Sabbath be kept holy? Of course, but for what reason? Should He associate with sinners? Who needs real help, anyway? Should the woman “waste” money perfuming Jesus’ feet? If she is baring her soul and honoring God, what’s your problem exactly?

The only labeled allegiance we should really have as believers is allegiance to the kingdom of God. In other areas, we should be constantly encouraging people to look at the world relationally. Issues are important, but only because they affect people. People are the real focus, and people are best affected through relationships. If we lose sight of the real focus, we may be tempted to argue issues from an ideological or philosophical standpoint, completely removed from the actual focal point. This is what happens when Christians spend more time trying to impose moral standards on society through legislation (the recent California gay marriage ruling, pro-life legislation), rather than showing people Jesus and His love by befriending them.

Christianity 2.0 could care less about setting up “doctrinal camps” or labeling every scriptural ideology under the sun. It is far more concerned with relationships, getting back to what the faith is all about — people. The Church is the Body of Christ, His Bride, His chosen people, a royal priesthood. It is not an organization, but an organism. Attempting to resolve the tensions of the Bible in our finite minds results in heresy. Returning to what Pastor Nar said about the Trinity, “It is not is not a doctrine I believe, it’s a relationship I embrace.” That says it pretty well. We must embrace doctrine as it relates to how we live, not just to how we think. It’s easy to keep God at shoulder’s length by treating His word as a philosophy text, rather than as a love letter and life manual. My advice: don’t resolve the tensions. They are there for a reason. . . .

• What other “tensions” of our faith can you think of?
• Do the tensions you came up with come from the Bible or from man’s finite logic?
• Have you ever been confused about an issue in the Bible, only to have it make sense when the situation was later reframed? Do you suppose Jesus “reframed” a lot of conversations for this reason?
• Do you think it’s possible that it is impossible to grasp many truths about the nature of God due to the limitations of our dimension, i.e. time and space?

Related posts:

1. Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 1
2. The Mystery of Theology
3. Your religion is nothing more than man’s failed attempt to turn faith into a science