When were the disciples/apostles saved?

Sometimes, my mind gets stuck on certain things scripturally that I can't seem to wrap my head around.  I usually have the toughest time reconciling these things with what I've been taught through years of church life and my current theological journey.  This post is about one of those things...

All my life I've been taught, and believed, that a person cannot 'lose' their salvation.  I believe the bible spells that out scripturally in places like John 5:24, 6:37-40, 10:29-30 and many others.  The concept of being able to lose your salvation would lend to the opposite concept of being able to gain or win your salvation by similar human effort.  Though I agree that human choice is involved in believing, we are prompted to that choice by the Spirit of God and our salvation is achieved supernaturally by the work of Christ on the cross, not by anything we do.  So I still stand on the belief that you cannot lose your salvation...but there is something lately I can't push aside.

In Matthew 10:32,33 we have the words of Jesus which state; "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.  but whoever disowns (some translations read denies) me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (NIV)  When Jesus speaks of disowning/denying in Matthew 10, the Greek word means denying Him as Master of one's life.  This is also the same word Peter uses in his denial of Christ in Matthew 26:69-75.  Similarly in Luke's Gospel, chapter 12, verses 8,9 Luke records a similar statement from Jesus.  In both Matthew and Luke, when Jesus speaks of denying a person in heaven (before God and the angels of God) a strengthened form of the Greek word for deny is used, emphasizing and affirming no connection between the two persons (Jesus and the person).  This strengthened version of the word is used at the end of the Matthew 26 passage in verse 75, to emphasize Peter denying any connection to Christ, which would lead to Christ's denying a connection to Peter in heaven.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not record any reinstatement of a connection between Peter and Jesus.  In John's Gospel however, we have an account of a conversation between the risen Christ and Peter.  Chapter 21:15-19 tell us that 3 times Jesus asks Simon Peter if he loves Him and 3 times Peter responds he does.  Each time Peter responds yes, Jesus commands him to tend/feed my sheep, a reference to taking care of Christ's followers.  In addition the 3 questions to Peter correspond to the 3 times Peter denied Him.  This segment is commonly referred to as Christ's reinstatement of Peter.

So let's recap for a moment...Jesus states if a person denies Him before men that person will be denied in heaven.  Most commentators believe that heavenly denial to be a denial on judgment day, similar to the scenario described in Matthew 7:21-23.  Peter not only denies Christ before men, but Jesus predicts it in Matthew 26:31-35 (which incidentally includes a phrase in verse 35, "And all the other disciples said the same" in response to Peter's statement he would never disown Jesus...yet all the disciples did at His death).  Only John records a private reinstatement of Peter by Jesus.  Now let me throw one more thing into the pot...

Scripture spells out when a person receives Christ as Savior, that person is the recipient of a new Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God.  Jesus predicts the Spirit's arrival in places like John 14:15-31, 16:5-16, and as the risen Christ, Acts 1:4-8.  Prior to the Holy Spirit's arrival, the righteousness of God is spoken in scripture as being "credited" to followers of God who lived prior to Christ's life on earth.  Paul records in places like Romans 4, and Galatians 3:6 that those who believed in God prior to Christ (and therefore w/out the infusion of the Holy Spirit) had righteousness credited to them. James records in his letter, chapter 2:23 that Abraham was called God's friend by his belief and that belief was credited as righteousness.  So for people prior to the Holy Spirit's arrival, their belief in God that resulted in their following God is credited as righteousness to them at Judgment.  After the Holy Spirit's arrival, the infusion of the Spirit is evidenced of a changed life by Christ, and at judgment the righteousness of God is seen in a person through the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and our acceptance of His work to cover our sins.  So....

When was Peter (and the other disciples) saved?  Since the denial and reinstatement occurred pre-Holy Spirit, had righteousness already been credited to the 12 disciples?  Or was Peter's denial and consequential reinstatement mere formality?  Was he truly not saved until the arrival of the Holy Spirit on him and the others as recorded in Acts 2:1-4?  IF God's righteousness was already credited to the disciples pre-Holy Spirit, then what of Judas the betrayer?  IF Peter was considered "saved" by a credit of God's righteousness pre-Holy Spirit (and this seems plausible since Jesus had to "reinstate" him) can we state by this exchange between Jesus and Peter it is possible to love your salvation?  Or was this simply a reinstatement of Peter to an earthly position of leadership and his fellowship with Christ, not an eternal destiny as some think?

Ultimately, I still believe the sum of scripture points to those who are brought into a saving relationship with Christ, by Christ's work on the cross, cannot "lose" their salvation...this may be one of those mysteries we'll not have answers to on earth.  I'm interested in your thoughts...

Comments

[Drew Causey]

Ok. Interesting questions...I'll give you my take on them the best I can w the short amount of time I have.

>>>When was Peter (and the other disciples) saved?

In his three-volume work, Thomas Oden marks the "order of salvation" as such: the restraint of sin, the conviction of sin, repentance, faith, regeneration, the indwelling of the Spirit, baptism of the Spirit, the sealing of the Spirit, assurance, the filling of the Spirit, and the process of sanctification.

All of these phases happened to Peter, but they happened while Christ was alive, died, rose, and the Spirit came. Its a very unique place in the narrative. If you look at the pre-cross faith of the disciples...were they putting faith in the salvific work of Jesus on the cross when they followed him? all signs indicate no. they didn't understand his talk of death when he was alive. But he obviously believed when he announces that Jesus was the Christ. Was he saved then? Who knows? Maybe he was as saved as a person could be w/o the atoning work of Christ or the indwelling Spirit could be. I think this question ultimately leads no where, though; it misses the point of the narrative, and especially the reinstatement of peter in the book of John.

>>>Since the denial and reinstatement occurred pre-Holy Spirit, had righteousness already been credited to the 12 disciples?

No. Simply put, this equating was to those who'd died waiting for the Messiah. The disciples hadn't. The passage in question deals with the dead, not the living; while we are credited with the righteousness of Christ as people of faith, you have to admit this passage describes something different when you talk about the dead before Christ, like Abraham. They waited for an inheritance of what was promised that they received in death. We have the inheritance of life in Christ that we receive both in this life and the life to come. Different situations. Different applications of righteousness.

>>>Or was Peter's denial and consequential reinstatement mere formality?

Well, to Peter it wasn't. And certainly not to John, who chose to write about it. More importantly, this passage shows the faith of Jesus in Peter and his calling. He'd invested his life and his death in Peter. Now he was preparing him for a new phase of ministry. I think looking to this passage as a re-instatement of salvation just isn't warranted by the text.

>>>Was he truly not saved until the arrival of the Holy Spirit on him and the others as recorded in Acts 2:1-4?

Maybe. Then again, maybe he wasn't truly saved until his martyrdom and entrance into the Kingdom of heaven. It depends on how you view it all. This gets into a much larger debate on soteriology...One important thing to keep in mind is that this historical example isn't to be taken as prescriptive for the whole. Only those living through the passion of Christ are those who this unique circumstances apply to. We who believe now all follow the same pattern of salvation. Or to put it another way: I don't have to know when Peter was officially "saved" to know when I am.

>>>IF God's righteousness was already credited to the disciples pre-Holy Spirit, then what of Judas the betrayer?

Well, I don't believe it was, and Jesus said it'd been better if he'd never been born, so we can honestly say that this case may prove they'd not been accredited righteousness ; otherwise, Judas, who believed to the point of betrayal, wouldn't have been spoken of in that way.

>>>IF Peter was considered "saved" by a credit of God's righteousness pre-Holy Spirit (and this seems plausible since Jesus had to "reinstate" him) can we state by this exchange between Jesus and Peter it is possible to love your salvation?

well, grounds for losing one's salvation are debatable, but I don't think a case either way is possible from this stand point. Peter is living in a unique window of salvation history, and the only thing we can speak for sure from it (in a prescriptive way) is that Jesus is able to save, restore, sanctify and empower sinners. Anything past that is speculation that doesn't line up with Scriptural witness.

>>>Or was this simply a reinstatement of Peter to an earthly position of leadership and his fellowship with Christ, not an eternal destiny as some think?

I think it was a reinstatement of relationship. And relationship with Christ always included eternal destiny...but not primarily. This seems to be a restoration for the sake of Peter, then the world...to think this was the salvific moment may undermine the reading of the text though.

Another thing to think about: when Peter denied knowing Christ, did he deny/disown the Father? Trinitarian theology aside, did Peter see it that way? And more importantly...did the Father see it that way?

Looks to me that the Father did not deny Peter. He would have if Peter'd denied him and never responded to Jesus' reconciling call. Stirs up lots of questions for me...

Hope this helps, and know I'm riffing and probably need more thought on this.

Love ya bro.

[Steve]

Great responses Drew! You and I are on same track when dealing with this it seems...its just weird looking at all of this in light of all my "church" history personally. I'm operating under the assumption that to most people, even questioning what the apostles' relationship to Christ actually was would be considered heresy at best. For sure, Peter's journey across the Gospels into the book of Acts is a complex one.

I completely agree with the analysis of Abraham and the crediting of righteousness of those who 'died in faith' btw...and that I too don't have to "know" the answer to this to suffice my relationship to Christ. Just doing a whole lot of chewing on it...love you too man!