Last Saturday, we talked about searching for truth in order to test
our claims about the validity of the Bible. When we make claims as grand as the
divine inspiration of scriptures and Christ’s resurrection, we should be able
to back up those claims. In order to see this type of thinking in action, we
looked specifically at Christ’s example – when the apostles demanded proof, he
gave them proof – and then we looked at the difference between skepticism and
cynicism. To see this study, click here. Today, we will cover one of the
biggest influences on what each of us believe: our opinions/interpretations.
We believe that the
Bible is the truth. We discussed how we must search for the truth in our last
study, so we will assume that we have studied and have all drawn the same
conclusion – the Bible is infallible and is undeniably true. Following our
claim that the Bible is absolute truth, logic dictates that we must also,
therefore, believe that we have absolutely no other choice than to follow it as it is written. We see this type of
attitude in Mt. 4, when Jesus is fighting temptation. He responds to every attempt
by Satan to draw him away with “it is written.”
What does this mean for us?
Usually, when I’m
studying the Bible, I feel a conclusion about a group of scriptures or about a
specific topic forming in my head. Sometimes, it seems to fit perfectly with
the preexisting point of view I have regarding the subject. Other times, I’ll
come to a conclusion that’s totally different from what I believed prior to
arriving at that conclusion. The progression usually works like this: I Google
the topic or consult some other study resource, I find 3 or 4 verses that all
seem to line up with the conclusion I’ve drawn, and then it all becomes clear
to me: I’m right! I finally figured this out.
Sometimes, that’s great, but sometimes, I’m completely wrong.
Often, if I draw a conclusion that seems wild, new, unexpected, and
“the answer to all of my problems,” there are still 1 or 2 things in the Bible
that don’t quite line up with the conclusion I’ve drawn. Maybe it’s as little
as one verse that doesn’t line up with my conclusion. For example: at one point
in my life, I drew the conclusion that baptism wasn’t necessary for salvation;
it was necessary but it was just a sign of salvation.
That made me so happy inside – all of the people in the world who
aren’t baptized, yet believe in God are saved. That's awesome!
The thing is, when I read 1 Pet. 3:21 and the surrounding verses I
found that Peter explicitly states, after discussing Noah and the flood, that
“…baptism,
which corresponds to this, now saves you (emphasis added), 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…” Talk about confusing! Immediately,
to clarify things for myself, I read Mark 16:16, which I thought made it pretty
clear that baptism wasn’t necessary for salvation. However, after reading 1
Pet. 3:21, I saw that “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” means
exactly that. In order to be saved, one must be baptized. If someone doesn’t
believe, they won’t be baptized.
But wait, what about Rom. 10:10, 1 John 1:9, and Mt. 10:32? They all
clearly state that confession is needed for salvation. I thought I had found a
contradiction – if one part of the Bible says confession is all you need, and
another part says baptism is all you need, I had no idea which one I needed to
do to be saved.
Then, I realized…
I had been putting
my own opinions and interpretations into both sections of scripture. Nowhere
does the Bible say “Baptism is all you need” nor does it say “all you need to
do is confess.” Both of them are written as being necessary for salvation;
therefore, they are both necessary for salvation. The Bible was clear about
answering my inquiry, but my own opinions
confused me.
It is written that confession leads to salvation, and that baptism
leads to salvation.
It is written that they are both essential in order to be saved.
Obviously there is more to being saved than just confessing and
being baptized; as we can see by reading the New Testament, we are not saved by
works alone or by faith alone, as we can see in James 2 and in Eph. 2. It takes
much more than just confession and baptism, but the point I'm trying to make
still stands.
All of the reading “between the lines” that I
did was wrong in that situation. It’s not that reading “between the lines” is
necessarily a bad thing, but reading “between the lines” can get us in trouble
pretty quickly if our reading “between the lines” contradicts the “it is
written” of the Scriptures. When Jesus was tempted, he responded with “it is
written.” When we are tempted to interpret the Scriptures in a certain way, we
need to first and foremost respond to
our inner voice, if you want to call it that, with “it is written.”
If the Bible is clear on a certain subject, we
do not have the liberty to change what is written, disobey what is written, or
alter what is written. What is written in the Bible is written that way for a
reason; if the topic is a matter of interpretation, we will know because we
won’t be able to find an all-inclusive answer in the scriptures.
If we believe
(which we do) that the Bible is the absolute truth, then we must follow it
absolutely. No opinions or interpretations are intended to be the primary basis
for what we believe if the Bible is clear on a particular subject. Next week,
we’ll talk a little bit about the divine inspiration of the scriptures, and
what it means for us as we study and attempt to emulate Christ as brothers and
sisters within Christ's church.
Thank you for reading! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
- Ethan
No comments:
Post a Comment