SALVATION IN THE O.T. AND N.T.

March 5, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - On March 4 we posted an electronic article via the Fundamental Baptist News Service entitled "Salvation Is the Same in the Old Testament and the New" by Bruce Lackey. I added some additional comments to the article. The same day this went out we received a letter from a friend of this ministry who challenged us about this matter. The points raised by this friend were good, and we have decided to publish the following additional thoughts which we first sent personally to him. It is not our goal to be quarrelsome; rather we desire to give additional information about exactly what we believe on this subject. I believe it is important that we understand each other. First, some excerpts from the letter containing the challenge. Let me preface this by saying the challenge was issued in a kind and gentlemanly way, and we deeply appreciate this. I have deleted the personal parts of this message, as well as some parts which were not relevant to our position--

"Perhaps I should start by saying that I am one who holds that salvation is settled in this present age by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, plus nothing. On the other hand, I cannot accept the belief that salvation is the 'same' throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I believe that to hold this position is forcing the Bible to say something that it doesn't say.

"I am quite familiar with the arguments that point to various Old and New Testament passages that you alluded to in the article received today.Yes, the grace of God existed and will exist in every dispensation from Adam and Eve into the 'ages of ages.' I also hold that the revelation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ was not known beforehand as we know it in this age. I'm sure you know what passages and examples that I would use to 'prove' my point.

"Let me provide a specific example that illustrates the doctrine which I hold as truth. This example convinced me that salvation is 'different' from what is true for this age. You made the statement that 'We believe the same is true for Tribulation age saints, as well. They will make their robes white in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14), the only basis whereby any sinner can stand before a holy God.' I agree that the Tribulation saints will wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb as stated in Rev. 7:14. Yes, salvation for Tribulation saints comes by the Blood of Christ, but there are passages, in my 'humble' opinion, that state they must 'keep it' to stay saved:

"Rev. 14:11-12 -- 'And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.'

"I believe that if any saint in the Tribulation takes the mark of the Beast that they will lose their salvation.

"Rev. 20:4 -- 'And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.'

"Matt. 24:13 -- 'But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.'

"Matt. 25:31-46 -- These verses show that salvation is conditional upon doing good works in addition to trusting in Christ. I cannot force these verses into our church age salvation unless I jam them into a line of theology that states that salvation is exactly the same in any dispensation.

"Another example is the verses found at the end of the book of Revelation (22:14 and 15). These verses say something to me that is foreign to my salvation. I don't have to do his commandments to have right to the tree of life. I have salvation apart from doing his commandments (see Acts through Philemon). This passage is obviously aimed at another group of individuals not in this dispensation. To believe otherwise is to force the verse to mean something it wasn't meant to mean.

"One last thing, some of the brethren who disagree with this position seem to take an unreasonable stand which is to accuse us of not believing in the GRACE OF GOD IN CHRIST. I find this very unreasonable. I don't hold those who believe otherwise to be unbelievers, heretics, apostates, etc. I just believe they are wrong. That's all. No big deal!

"Whatever the case I hope you still consider me a friend of your ministry of which I am a supporter."

The following is my reply to this brother:

Thanks for writing about your concerns. My position is fairly simple, and I don't necessarily expect you to agree with me. I do want to try to make you understand it, though. Please give it prayerful and careful consideration.

I. In my opinion your position is contrary to everything the New Testament PLAINLY says about salvation. Scripture must be interpreted in light of context--not only immediate context but the context of the entire Bible and all that the Bible teaches on that particular doctrine. To fail to do this is the same error that allows the SDA to say that certain verses teach soul sleep, or for the Assemblies of God to say that certain verses teach a born again child of God can lose his salvation, or for the Catholic church to find apostolic succession and the real presence in the Bible.

One teaching of the Bible which would not allow me to accept that Tribulation saints are saved by a combination of faith and works or blood and faithfulness is the doctrine that grace and works are mutually exclusive. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:6). That verse is not referring merely to salvation in this age. It points back to the Old Testament and points to the future to the salvation of Israel. That is the context. This is also the context of Romans 4, which plainly teaches that salvation is by grace WITHOUT WORKS. That passage points back to the Old Testament, both before the law (vv. 1-5) and during the law (vv. 6-8). Paul teaches us that Old Testament saint Abraham is the example of salvation for all ages (Romans 4:9-25). "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure TO ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16). I don't see how you can say this applies only to church-age saints.

You said, "I cannot force these verses into our church age salvation unless I jam them into a line of theology that states that salvation is exactly the same in any dispensation." That is precisely what I believe the Apostle does in Romans.

II. The verses you cited do not necessarily say that eternal salvation in the Tribulation is gained by some sort of works or holding out faithful. In my estimation, only two of the verses you cited even APPEAR to teach that salvation during the tribulation is by works. You say, "I believe that if any saint in the Tribulation takes the mark of the Beast that they will lose their salvation." I don't understand this because I don't see any verse which plainly says that. You cited three in Revelation, but none of them teach that.

All of these verses could just as easily teach what I believe they teach: that perseverance and works are the evidence of salvation. Many verses used by Arminians to teach salvation can be lost are actually teaching that perseverance is the evidence of salvation (Heb. 3:14; 6:9; 10:38,39, etc.). These verses are very similar in their teaching to the ones you cited. The only reason I can be certain that these verses DO NOT teach that a born again child of God can lose his salvation is the fact that multitudes of plain verses ELSEWHERE teach otherwise. This is interpreting individual passages of the Bible in the context of the whole Bible. This is precisely how I approach the verses you cited.

What about Revelation 14:11,12. I find no salvation by works here. One CAN read such doctrine into the passage, but the words themselves do not require it. The verses could just as easily mean that the keeping of the commandments of God and the patience of the saints is the evidence of true sainthood, of true faith. Many Bible passages teach this.

Revelation 20:4. Again, the verse does not say plainly that these saints gained their salvation in any sense by not worshipping the beast. The fact is stated that they did not worship the beast, but that is not the same as saying that such action aided in their salvation.

Revelation 22:14,15. Again, the passage does not say that the doing of the commandments is how these people gain the right to the tree of life. There is a connection, obviously, between doing commandments and partaking of the tree of life, but it is not necessarily direct. It could be evidential. And that conforms to the Apostolic doctrine of salvation in Romans.

Matthew 24:13. This verse does use the word salvation, but I don't believe it refers to salvation by works or by endurance. Why? That would contradict the Bible's plain teaching on the subject as already noted. In my estimation, it would throw everything into confusion. And it is not necessary to believe that this verse teaches some sort of salvation by endurance. The endurance could just as easily be the evidence of salvation. Many other verses teach this. John 10:27; 1 Cor. 15:2; Col. 1:22,23; Heb. 3:14; 6:9; 10:38,39; 1 John 3:3. Also, salvation in the Bible does not always refer to eternal salvation (1 Tim. 2:15; 4:16; Heb. 5:7; 11:7; Jam. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5; Jude 1:5, etc.). The salvation referred to in Matthew 24:13 could refer to salvation in regard to the physical life during the Tribulation.

Matthew 25:31-46. Again, I believe the nations are judged on the basis of whether or not they had faith as evidenced by their attitude toward God's people.

I believe you are wrong, but I thank you for expressing your concern and also for the attitude in which you did it. I don't know why like-minded Bible believers can't be kind to one another. I would urge you to read my addition to Dr. Lackey's article again. I expressed myself clearly there, and I don't believe you really addressed my personal position in your letter. The Lord bless you, Brother. You are indeed a friend and I praise the Lord for it.