How to get saved
Revisiting soteriology
Occasionally updated and edited.
Copyright © 2009
Summary
Biblical literalists are nearly unanimous in believing that Jesus is the only way to heaven. They consider multiple paths to heaven to be anathema.
Various groups offer unique salvation plans that conflict with those of other groups.
The result is a diverse, conflicting and ambiguous pool of multiple methods of salvation.
Let's consider
Salvation is so vitally important to humanity that nothing else even begins to compare. Without salvation we are doomed to separation from God for all eternity and, according to most literalist traditions, consigned to hell.
Two problems arise.
First, God fails to be concise in his salvation formula.
Second, "Satan" confuses the matter through a wide array of literalist groups who assemble their unique salvation strategies, each based on their various interpretations of Scripture, each excluding some or all competing methods, and each assuring us that their recipe is God's concise salvation formula.
The net result: Even though literalists believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, they offer dozens of competing salvation plans. Rather than admit the ambiguity of the Bible, they concoct the ludicrous notion that Satan is to blame for the confusion.
Let's explore.
Many believe that baptism is essential to escape hell and access heaven. Among these are those who believe baptism must be by immersion in water, while others are convinced sprinkling a bit of water on the baptismal subject to be sufficient.
Among the immersion sects, some believe one dip is adequate while others insist three dips are required. Considering the small number of humans who comply with the three-dip method, hell, indeed, must be heavily populated with very surprised Christians. While most prefer backward immersion, a few are convinced that face-forward immersion is necessary. Some groups insist that precise words must be uttered by the baptizer as the subject is placed into the water.
Some believe you must be baptized in their church.2
A large number of Christian sects divorce baptism from salvation, contending that baptism is mere symbolism. These groups generally postulate spoken words which, if said correctly and with sincerity, will get you to heaven. It's akin to a wedding vow or an oath to office.
The words typically include one admitting to Jesus that he/she is a sinner, requesting forgiveness, and inviting Jesus to come into the heart.
Generally, the salvation prayer will take a form similar to this: "Dear Jesus, I know I am a sinner. I confess my sins and ask you to come into my heart. In Jesus name, Amen."
The problem with the salvation prayer, important as it is to humanity, is that it doesn't actually exist in the Bible. One would think that the script, at least, would be in the Scripture — but it isn't. The reason, we are told, is that precise wording would lend itself to bogus salvations as the lost are content to utter syllables with little attention given to their meaning and offered without sincerity. The alternative — abject confusion — seems the greater of two evils, however.
To determine the required content of the salvation prayer (like the model previously suggested) we are forced to seek out various passages from the New Testament and stitch them together. We should be mindful that, during the early centuries of Christianity, the New Testament didn't exist in the final form as we know it today. How, then, did early church people know how to get saved if all the components of the prayer were not available?
From Romans 9:10 we learn that the spoken prayer requires confession "with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ." There are differing views on what confessing Jesus involves. Is one to confess that Jesus is the Christ? Lord? Both? Or merely confess to a belief in his existence?
For those who are mute, confession "with thy mouth" is literally impossible. They will find their physical handicap to pose a predicament of dire and permanent consequences. An irresolvable dilemma rises: If the directive is literal, then mute folks are unfairly doomed to eternity in hell. If the directive is not literal, but figurative, then why doesn't it say so? Why is it even there?
In addition to confession the verse adds belief "in thine heart," (as opposed to intellectual belief, some say) as a requirement.
Another component, some sects believe, is true repentance. It is generally described as turning away from sin to follow Jesus, something that is ultimately impossible, considering the conclusion of Romans 3:10 that none can turn themselves to holiness. Add the abstract concepts that distinguish one's sin nature from actual acts of sin, and the understanding of repentance becomes even more convoluted: Are we turning from the sin nature, sins or both? Are we gaining a new, sinless nature that resides along side the old sinful nature? If so, is the new destined for heaven while the old dying with physical death? If we must repent, how, then do we reconcile Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2:8 that we're saved by grace and not by our own works? Isn't the act of turning a work of sorts?
Repentance takes a lot of explaining that didn't seem to be at issue when the Philippian jailer asked the Apostle Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"
That account, recorded in Acts chapter sixteen, finds the apostle telling the inquiring jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." That phrase seems to suggest that belief is the sole requirement for salvation. It also suggests that one's salvation is superimposed onto the immediate family.
We also wonder about those who believe salvation can be understood simply by observing nature. If their understanding of Romans 1:20 is accurate — that spiritual matters can be understood by observing things "that are made" — can one fully comprehend the concept of repentance (or baptism) by noting trees and the like? Or does God cut these observing folks, who have no other access to the gospel message, some slack?
Another component, as some groups insist, is that Jesus must actually be made Lord of one's life as opposed to merely believing in Jesus. This is called "Lordship salvation" and is touted by those opposed to "easy believism."
There is also a component: Receiving Jesus. It is noted in John 1:12. It's another ambiguous phrase that cries for explanation. Various groups, of course, are eager to explain.
There are those who are convinced that speaking in tongues is required for salvation; or at least is a mark of evidence that salvation actually took hold. Again, mute folks find themselves at a disadvantage.
There are those who believe salvation, like physical birth, can happen only once and cannot be undone. Others believe that retaining salvation is contingent upon good behavior. Some groups are convinced that salvation is available only to those preselected by God. Others are equally convinced that anyone can get saved, if they can just figure out the right formula.
And let's conclude
Doctrinal systems are devised and tagged with the noble-sounding label, "Soteriology." It means, "the study of salvation."
In spite of this field of study with the dignified name, the immense research conducted by the brightest minds in Christology, and the volumes of books, research papers and eventual tracts dedicated to its understanding, there remains irreconcilable disagreement across multiple theistic disciplines, each consigning Satanic tampering to the other.
In the end, the essential of salvation is not clearly stated in the Bible. And that is a witness against the book's veracity.
March 4, 2009
Postscript
While visiting China with a Christian team in 2006, I was assigned the task of reading the tract "Four Spiritual Laws" to a Chinese student. To aid his understanding, the tract was bi-lingual allowing the student to read along.
The four laws constitute a plan of salvation. If one applies the four laws, that person will be saved.
After reading the second spiritual law, "Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life," I abruptly stopped my presentation and referred the young man to my companion.
There were two reasons.
First, I was acutely aware that I did not believe what I was reading. There is no God. We cannot be separated from that which does not exist; nor can his love be experienced.
Second, the statement, "Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life," didn't jive with the proof texts.
The first proof text, Romans 3:23, says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It says nothing of man and God being separated.
The tract continues it's explanation: "Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his stubborn self-will, he chose to go his own independent way, and fellowship with God was broken. This self-will,characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference, is evidence of what the Bible calls sin."
The second proof text, Romans 6:23, says, "The wages of sin is death."
Neither text addresses separation from God. That notion is interpolated. It says nothing of a "great gulf" that exists between God and man.
The tract continues to add conjecture to a series of texts that, when taken in context, are mostly unrelated.
The tract concludes with a prayer that reads, "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."
Upon uttering this prayer with sincerity, one becomes born again spiritually, gains access to heaven for eternity and avoids eternal punishment in hell.
I find it peculiar that this prayer, nor anything like it, is found in the New Testament. I also find it odd that the four spiritual laws are not presented in a single, comprehensible passage.
2009
