
What One Must Know to be Saved: Conclusions
May 7, 2011In an effort to revive my blogging activities, I am going to re-post some “greatest hits” beginning with this series titled “What One Must Know to be Saved.” This is the tenth article in that series, and was first published in August 2008.
From the preceding discussion, the things a person must know to be saved are obvious. In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit has recorded for us numerous examples of the gospel being preached to a variety of people. Some of these people were Jews and well versed in the Old Testament scriptures. Others were Gentiles with no understanding of God. The inspired preachers taught an appropriate message in each situation, always pointing toward the same thing.
To receive the promises of the gospel of Christ, a person had to know that God created the world and everything in it, including all mankind; that man had fallen into sin and rebellion against God; that God commanded them to repent; that He had sent his Son, Jesus, the Messiah, into the world to save us from our sin; that Jesus died for our sins; that Jesus was raised from the dead; and that God appointed Jesus to preside over a final judgment of every person.
The evangelists in the book of Acts started at the level of understanding of their audience, and taught what was missing in order to bring them to a basic understanding of those facts. For many, that happened in a single teaching session. For others, it took days of examining the scriptures. And for some, the message was presented repeatedly over a period of months or years. As Paul told Agrippa, conversion might take a short time or a long time.
Once a person had been taught enough to understand and believe those basic facts, they were baptized into Jesus for forgiveness of sins and were added to the church. Subsequently, the teaching continued as they learned more and more about their new lives in Christ.
It is interesting to note what is not recorded in any of the examples of conversion found in scripture.
First, there was no catechism class, and no comprehensive study of doctrine before conversion. Of course, during the timeframe of Acts there was no ambiguity about which Christian church one should join. But there were doctrinal controversies (see Acts 15). Those were important topics which certainly had to be taught to the church. But they were not part of what was taught during the conversion process. People were converted to Jesus, not to a certain form of worship, nor to a form of church government, nor to a particular hermeneutic, etc.
Second, there was no comprehensive study of all the sin in a person’s life before conversion. There always seems to have been some specific sin from which they were challenged to repent. But they were always called to make Jesus Lord of their lives. That covers all the other bases. As the new convert progressively learned about sin and righteousness, they continued to repent, because Jesus was their Lord.
Third, there was no trial period to prove repentance prior to conversion. Once a person came to faith in Jesus, and made Jesus Lord, they could be baptized. Of course, the example of John the Baptist (Luke 3:7-8) shows us that we should call for repentance and that we should not overlook clear evidence of a lack of repentance. But conversions in Acts typically occurred in a single encounter, and the convert’s commitment to make Jesus Lord was taken at face value.
There is much more that should be taught after conversion. As Thomas Campbell stated in his sixth proposition, there are many things that “belong to the after and progressive edification of the church” which are not meant to be part of the profession of faith given at conversion.
The basic facts taught to potential converts are sufficient to bring them into a saved relationship with God, and to place them in the church. Therefore, the only things required in order for a person to remain in that saved relationship with God, and in the fellowship of the church, is for them to continue in what they began: faith in Jesus, and submission to Jesus as Lord.
The study has it right. The gospel was preached. Seekers after salvation were told what was needed on their part. After they repented and were baptized, more teaching was done. Everyone was added to the one body (the church) of Christ. Unity was encouraged. The only call for separation was for separation from known sin.
So, has this study changed how your congregation studies the Bible with folks?
Not dramatically. Our traditional study series is built on the assumption of a person with a typical Bible-belt understanding (and misunderstanding) of Christianity. But we have a substantial Hindu population in our county, for whom that approach doesn’t meet the need. And we occasionally encounter a few other religions as well (Muslim, Buddhist, etc…). We don’t have a standardized approach to those folks, and haven’t had much success there. I think this blog series has some keys for improving in those areas.