How Are We Made Part Of God's Salvation?

It may be thought that debates about what constitutes 'salvation' are just arguments for theologians in academia. However, as someone has rightly said, 'ideas have legs'.

That is, ideas don't just swan around in some academic ether but become embodied in preachers' hearts and minds, and in words and actions. Hence, members of congregations become affected.

Dispensationalism And Salvation

Dispensationalism has been defined in posts on my One People Of God blog¹ as a view taken of many Bible issues on a radical theological distinction between Israel and the Church. In short, two people of God exist: one earthly, Israel; and one heavenly, the Church.


An implication of the acceptance of this belief in a radical distinction between Israel and the Church is the associated idea of there being at two gospels: one for the Jewish people, and one for the Gentiles (and Jews) prepared to believe that Jesus is God's Son.

Dispensationalists base this claim about these two gospels on the fact that when Jesus Christ preached to the Jews, he spoke in terms of a 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23). Dispensationalists argue that that gospel is the good news that Messiah would come, end the kingdom oppressing the Jews (i.e., Rome in the first century after Christ), free the Jews from their enemies, and set up a Kingdom to rule over all the earth.

However, as we know that didn't happen! Israel rejected the Messiah and consorted with the Romans to put him to death by crucifixion.

According to dispensationalism, God then put his plans for liberation of Israel on hold -he postponed the preaching of the Kingdom- and ushered in the church age.

This new 'church' age has a different gospel associated with it: the 'gospel of grace' (e.g., Acts 20.24). Hence, the Christian church (according to dispensationalism) does not come under the banner of the 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23) or the 'gospel of God'. (The latter, it is said, was preached only to Israel (Jewry)). The Church comes under the gospel of 'free grace' and theology associated with this viewpoint is dubbed 'free grace theology'(FGT). This FGT then, is strongly linked with dispensationalism². 

How Is One Saved According To FGT?

To simplify the situation: the central principle all the FGT groups hold in common is that belief alone in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Now you may be saying, 'Well that's what I believe too and, furthermore, Acts 16.31, teaches that explicitly so what's the problem?'.

The issue that arises in response to the above question for those outside the FTG group is the one of obedience. The FGT group does not accept that obedience to the commandments of Christ is necessary for salvation. 

In other words, not only does FTG draw a sharp distinction between justification by faith alone and the work of sanctification in believers' hearts, it maintains that justification by faith is all that is required for ultimate salvation.

So, once a person has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved and do not have to do anything else to be saved. That includes anything in the future either; for to be saved means to be eternally saved.

Next time, we will examine the opposition to FGT which comes in the doctrine known as Lordship Salvation.


1. These posts are now also to be found exported to this blog too. See earlier months in this year for relevant titles. The posts are roughly in sequence.
2. However, not all dispensationalists are adherents of FGT. John MacArthur, a dispensationalist, is one of the strongest opponents of FGT.

The Emphasis in John's Account on the Disciples' Faith

I've been intrigued by Jn 2.11 where it is said that after seeing the sign of water into wine and the manifestation of Christ's glory, 'his disciples believed [put their faith, NIV] in him'.

What's intriguing about that you might ask?
Well, the text doesn't comment for example on the belief or otherwise of anyone else. Not the servants who filled the stone jars or the 'master of the banquet' (NIV)--all of these knew about the miraculous sign--but the active faith of the disciples.

The gospel writer is sophisticated and chooses his words and themes carefully and as responsible readers we must do that same. That this observation above is not just happenstance is seen in the fact that in the same chapter after Jesus has driven out the money changers out of the temple precincts, a similar statement is made (Jn 2.22). And in this statement, the author projects us into the post-resurrection period when the disciples 'recalled what he had said [about his body being raised in three days]. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken' (NIV).

Even before John 2.11 we've heard about the faith of the disciple by either implication as in Andrew's, Simon Peter's and Philip's cases or directly as in Nathaniel's case. The latter scorns the idea that anything good can come out of Nazareth but is confronted by the Son of Man who knows him and confesses that he is the Son of God, the King of Israel (Jn 1.49).

Why is the writer so focussed on the disciples' faith?

At least one of the answers to that question is found in Jn 2.23-25. This little passage is slightly discordant in terms of the above because Jesus, we notice, doesn't take the faith of those who see his signs at face value. He calls a certain disciple group to trust in Him and in turn he is entrusting himself to them.

But apparently not to everyone because 'he knew all men'; he knew their instability and fickleness it would appear and his time 'had not yet come' to be handed over to be executed (which has been alluded to in verse 4 and verses 19-21).

The faith of the disciples is going to grow throughout the gospel account and even after the Resurrection; so we should take heart. The faith that we have today by God's grace is going to grow as we mature in union with our Lord Jesus Christ.

What Does Believing in Jesus mean according to John?

It is generally agreed by commentators that believing in Jesus as the Son of God plays a large role in the message of the gospel according to St John (Jn 1.12; 1.50; etc; Jn 20.31).

Interestingly however, on at least three occasions, believing in Jesus is held up to question in the gospel account. The first one I'd wager is not often preached on although its jarring note is consonant with some of what has already happened.

It's the passage found in Jn 2.23-25 : a number believed 'in His name' when they saw the signs that Jesus did. Nothing wrong with that; after all, the whole point of the gospel account is said to be a record of the signs, 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).

And yet, Jesus does not commit himself to these disciples in John 2 'because he knew all men and had no need that anyone testify of man, for he knew what was in man' (Jn 2.24f). What is going on here?

Other observers also have found that Jesus' non-committal behaviour grabs their attention and have proposed various interpretations. We don't like to think of Jesus being non-committal do we?

These believers (Jn 2) have trusted in Jesus but He does not entrust himself to them. I think I can only say that Jesus saw something lacking in their faith.

We see this lack again in the feeding of the five thousand story (Jn 6.1-14). The people who ate the bread and fish also testified that Jesus was 'truly the Prophet who is to come into the world' (Jn 6.14). But they wanted to make him king so he eludes them. Later he questions their faith and they can ask for a sign even though these are the same people who had been fed by Jesus (Jn 6.26)!

In John chapter 8, which opens with the woman taken in adultery (in the KJV) and leads to a sharp disagreement with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-18). Than at v. 30 the text says, 'As He spoke these words [with the offended Jews], many believed in Him'. Jesus addresses some important words to them (Jn 8.31-32) about the attribute of true disciples (abiding or continuing in Jesus' Word).

However, now a question arises as to the identification of the 'They' at the beginning of verse 33; are these Jesus' new believers or are they the Pharisees?

I think the rest of the chapter is a disagreement Jesus had with those 'who believed' as set out in v. 30f. (I appreciate this interpretation is contrary to all of the classic commentator's views on the passage which causes me to concede that I may be wrong.) I would argue this position on two grounds:

Verse 31 says, Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him etc; verse 33, they answered him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage'. It seems at least to me that the 'they' is more naturally understood grammatically as the same group. Second, it's not as if such disagreement or ambivalence between 'believers' and Jesus had not happened before or after this. (Even after Jesus' resurrection with the resurrected Christ standing before the apostolic band, St Matthew records, 'some doubted' (Matt 28.16f). Admittedly, this doesn't occur in John's account.)

The fact that these hearers in John 8 are not abiding in Christ's Word is evidence that their belief is apparently on the surface. They had believed but that alone is not sufficient to argue that these 'believers' would not have disputed with Jesus as to their ancestry.

It seems that they resented the fact that called that they could be themselves in bondage. 'We like all the things you've been saying Jesus but we don't like to be said to have been in bondage. This implies that we are not Abraham's children.' Interesting that this chapter finishes with a climactic discussion on the topic of Abraham (Jn 8.52-59) and concludes with Jesus saying, 'before Abraham was, I AM' (v. 58).

However, should I be wrong about Jesus' interlocutors from verse 33 and onwards, the point remains that believing in Jesus means, at least in part, acceptance and obedience to His Word and continuance in His teaching. These are absolutely essential to true belief in Jesus as the Son of God.