*DISCLAIMER: This could be a 95,000-word PhD dissertation, but for your sake, I’m being brief.
This blog is not an all-in, encompassing look at Protestant Soteriology. I am hoping to lay the groundwork of understanding that many in the Church have made salvation much more difficult than Scripture outlines. To begin with, God’s approach to salvation must be applied equally across situations and persons, salvific continuity. In other words, there are no expectations on one’s salvation that do not apply to others. There is not a more difficult path for one than another.
This is an absolute necessity because if salvation is a moving target, how does anyone know if they are saved? That is more in line with Islamic beliefs, never knowing if you are good enough. The foundational truth for Christians is an understanding that we are not good enough; no one is. We never will be. That is why we needed a savior. So, we understand that, as Romans 3:23 says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” NIV
I am taking for granted in this blog that we agree that Jesus paid the price for our sin and is the only way of salvation. This could be its own lengthy blog, but it is not the topic at hand. Rather, I want to discuss how the Bible approaches the application of salvation to humanity.
Many denominations or theologies place extras on salvation. Meaning, it is the acceptance of Jesus plus other things. For instance, the Catholic Church believes salvation is given and maintained through communion (Eucharist). Further, salvation is granted by and through the Church, as well as water baptism. There are some that say you must speak in tongues to go to heaven. But can these stand the test of continuity in Scripture? The answer is no.
The disciples likely received salvation when Jesus breathed on them in John 20:22. We cannot prove the chronology, but this moment most likely occurred before the Last Supper. In addition, it is important to note that John’s Gospel records no communion (Eucharist). If salvation comes through communion, would John, who so beautifully defines our Christology, leave out such a pivotal moment in our salvation?
Scripture’s continuity affirms that salvation is an act by faith in Jesus Christ. As Luther declared, having read the book of Romans, “the just shall live by faith.”
What about water baptism? Many denominations believe that water baptism is a requirement for salvation. Again, not picking on my high church friends, but infant baptism is given as a rite of the church based on the belief that salvation comes through it. Does this stand up against the test of salvific continuity? Again, the answer is no.
The thief on the cross is a great example from Scripture. He believed in Jesus while hanging on the cross. There was no time for water baptism, nor communion for that matter. Jesus says, “Today,” the thief will be with Me in paradise. If it is not true for one, can it be applied to everyone else? Certainly not. Moving back to the disciples, could water baptism be a requirement for salvation and yet there is no Biblical record of the disciples being baptized? Sometimes we have to identify the importance of what is left out as well as what is included in the biblical record. I will deal with Acts 2:38 in a future blog.
Please understand, I fully believe in Water Baptism and Communion both as public professions of our faith and acts of obedience. I do not believe anything is needed for salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. I believe Hebrews 13 helps prove this point, “by faith.”
Before I leave this topic, I want to address one aspect that can arise in my own faith tradition. That is the belief some Pentecostals hold that you must speak in tongues to go to heaven. This is rooted in the belief that the initial physical evidence (IPE) is a sign of salvation. It is most common among the Oneness (Jesus Only) tradition. For clarity here, I am a Trinitarian. While I believe in the initial physical evidence, I do so as a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, not of salvation. There is no scripture we can point to that would lead to this belief. Rather, it is an example of an experience driving theology rather than theology driving experience. Speaking in tongues as a requirement for salvation is as wrong as the other examples above.
There is a fourth aspect I want to touch on, but it will likely be the subject of my next blog. That is the idea of salvation through the Church. This connects within the Catholic faith as a child grows from infant baptism to confirmation.
These, and several other reasons, are why I am solidly Protestant in my theology and practice.
If you want to dive deeper, I encourage you to read the following books on our Protestant approach to theology (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy).
What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for and Always-Reforming Church by Gavin Ortlund (This book addresses in more detail the examples I give here.)
The Deeper Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything by Fred Sanders (This is a Protestant approach to the doctrine of the Trinity.)
Through Time 