Exegetically, is the concept of 'receiving' salvation found in the NT?

John 1:12 However, to all who received
him, those believing in his name,
he gave authority to become
God’s children,

The idea of receiving Jesus is in the Bible, but here it does not refer to 'receiving salvation'. It just refers to those who accepted Jesus's claims, like "Jesus is for real, I believe what he says. He's got my attention." It doesn't say anything about receiving salvation, other than because of this, they were then given the right to become children of God.

Elsewhere talks about receiving Jesus as Lord,
Colossians 2:6-7 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, [7] rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

Many add to the phrase saying I accept Jesus as Lord and savior. The verse says only 'Lord'.

There is no example after Jesus's resurrection of someone let's say 'receiving' the gracious gift of salvation.

I am not questioning Jesus being savior, but the method people use to get saved, namely Receiving/Accepting salvation.

Some (not all) equate believing with receiving the gift of salvation. I don't see the two as the same.

My question to everyone is, do you see the method "Father, I accept your free gift of salvation" or "Jesus, I receive you as my savior.", after Jesus's resurrection, in the scriptures? If so, where?

I hear these repeated as canon, very often, but I have never seen the concept in the Bible.

My tone is sincere, not aggressive or smug.
I seek an earnest conversation about this.

Thank you.

e.r.m. said:

The idea of receiving Jesus is in the Bible, but here it does not refer to 'receiving salvation'.

Click to expand...

The concepts for receiving salvation by all who believe can be inferred from Paul's various models for salvation seen in, among other places, Romans 3-6.

e.r.m. said:

My question to everyone is, do you see the method "Father, I accept your free gift of salvation" or "Jesus, I receive you as my savior.", after Jesus's resurrection, in the scriptures?

Click to expand...

By those specific expressions or direct reference, no. But, again, one should carefully analyze Paul's implications.

M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh,

Thank you for responding.
You mentioned the words inferred and implications. This school of thought is thus far based on what people say about the scriptures instead of the scriptures themselves.
I'm not looking for those statements per say, but the method: any example of someone leading another person in prayer asking God for salvation, of someone praising God that x amount of people accepted Jesus as their Savior, etc.
If this was the established teaching, I don't believe it would be possible to hide between the lines of Scripture, there would be explicit examples. A whole religious structure is based on something that didn't even exist.

e.r.m., I probably would agree with you. Keep in mind that I'm not actively going to church anywhere. I'm very unhappy with many things about church and that includes COC. I believe in your good intentions though, and that is enough for communication. Here is an opposing scenario and argument. Have at thee.

Suppose you visit a church in the SBC, and there is an altar call inviting people to accept Jesus as their personal lord and saviour. The air is full of sounds of music and the air swishes through your hair from powerful but silent fans overhead. The speaker alludes to Rev 3:20 and Gen 4:7 to imply that the 'Heart' has a 'Door'. As COC you of course think "What a clever observation!" but you entirely disagree with the minister's use of it. As you observe your hands grow sweaty perhaps, and you may worry about the strange invocation of Jesus power to enter the door of the heart. The minister continues speaking, now cavalierly interchanging 'Jesus' and 'God' in prayers then makes the ultimate claim that simply accepting Jesus into the heart will cause an instantaneous change creating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a ticket for one to heaven. The music continues to plod along and you see one or two wary but intrepid persons approach the cushions at the front of the church to kneel and 'Receive salvation'. No one moves and everyone prays along with the minister the prayer for these who have come to receive Jesus.

What's not to like? How does this differ from your own experiences in your own churches? Surely if Jesus has the power to enter the heart he will take up residence and begin fixing things up. If a person prays to God for the Holy Spirit will God give him a scorpion instead? The minister concludes by quoting Philippines 1:6 "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Why do you not believe that this is the case? "You of little faith why did you doubt?" (Mat 14:31)

Brickjectivity,
Thank you for your reply.
Going to the gym. Get back to you afterward.

Brickjectivity said:

e.r.m., I probably would agree with you. Keep in mind that I'm not actively going to church anywhere. I'm very unhappy with many things about church and that includes COC. I believe in your good intentions though, and that is enough for communication. Here is an opposing scenario and argument. Have at thee.

Click to expand...

I don't claim CoC is perfect and I don't object you not liking a lot of things about church, including CoC. But church is something that God established. It would not be Biblical or Godly to forsake it altogether. (I'm not saying you did).

Suppose you visit a church in the SBC, and there is an altar call inviting people to accept Jesus as their personal lord and saviour. The air is full of sounds of music and the air swishes through your hair from powerful but silent fans overhead. The speaker alludes to Rev 3:20 and Gen 4:7 to imply that the 'Heart' has a 'Door'. As COC you of course think "What a clever observation!" but you entirely disagree with the minister's use of it.

Click to expand...

Again, thank you for your cintribution. Yeah, clever observation. You described me well on that one.

As you observe your hands grow sweaty perhaps, and you may worry about the strange invocation of Jesus power to enter the door of the heart. The minister continues speaking, now cavalierly interchanging 'Jesus' and 'God' in prayers then makes the ultimate claim that simply accepting Jesus into the heart will cause an instantaneous change creating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a ticket for one to heaven. The music continues to plod along and you see one or two wary but intrepid persons approach the cushions at the front of the church to kneel and 'Receive salvation'. No one moves and everyone prays along with the minister the prayer for these who have come to receive Jesus.
What's not to like?

Click to expand...

First, the foundation.
Primarily, it's not Biblical. I went to a very beautiful christening at a Catholic church. The parents lined up with their precious ones, the priest said some nice words and poured ir sprinkled water on them. Everyone was happy and joyous and felt proud that they had done what God had expected of them. To tell any of them at that time that this practice has no spiritual value, according to the scriptures, would be as offensive as saying anything against the tradition of the altar call. (Of course I didn't)
In the Bible, the preachers told their open hearted audiences things like believe in the Lord Jesus, repent and and turn to God, estimate the cost (Luke 14:28), repent and believe the good news, repent and be baptized.(I'm not saying this to make a case for baptism, listing the different things they said). They never told anyone to receive Jesus as their Savior. So we have two pictures of first century evangelism, one acvording to the scriptures, and then other a whole new way of doing things, involving receiving the savior, salvation prayers, and the like. As with the christening ceremony, It can be very emotional, but of first importance is a scriptural foundation. Teaching a method of getting saved as confidently as it is today without it even showing up in scripture is something not to like.

Second, is the delivery. Making an emotional decision is a good thing, because it is emotional. It's supposed to be from the heart. But it should be a well informed emotional decision.
Acts 2:16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:... 22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.... 36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Act 16:31 They answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be saved.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and everyone in his home.
Luke 14:25, 28-30 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [28] “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? [29] For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, [30] saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

I spent time researching (and attending) altar call services. They most often focus on emotion (which is good), and almost no time on preparing them for a lifelong decision and teaching them a scriptural basis about getting saved. At least they can be given a chance to examine the scriptures. They should be taught to examine about salvation before they're "saved", not on everything Biblical of course, but at least salvation. Instead they're emotioned up and instructed to accept something that's not scriptural. When an audience is just conditioned to accept the words of a preacher, they follow suit. I asked my cousin who was "saved" at one such event if they ever followed up teaching her the scriptures about her salvation, and she said no. Even if a church were to teach scriptural salvation during a quick sermon, this one size fits all delivery is still irresponsible.

How does this differ from your own experiences in your own churches?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying we have it completely down. We do however, at the end of a message invite the new comer to study the Bible with members of the church. Some are saved quickly, others take more time to decide, and as in every church, some reject Christ. But people make a fair decision.

so they Surely if Jesus has the power to enter the heart he will take up residence and begin fixing things up. If a person prays to God for the Holy Spirit will God give him a scorpion instead? The minister concludes by quoting Philippines 1:6 "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Why do you not believe that this is the case?

Click to expand...

If it were the case, it would have been thus in scripture.

"You of little faith why did you doubt?" (Mat 14:31)

Click to expand...

I have faith in what Jesus and the apostles instructed, above what the altar call preacher instructs.

Back to my original question though, does anyone see the method of 'receiving salvation' as it is taught today written in the Scriptures?

Confused...is it not?

disciple said:

Confused...is it not?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean.

e.r.m. said:

I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean.

Click to expand...

O.k. nevermind, I think I must have misunderstood the OP

disciple said:

O.k. nevermind, I think I must have misunderstood the OP

Click to expand...

Clarify for me and I'll clarify for you.

e.r.m. said:

Clarify for me and I'll clarify for you.

Click to expand...

I'll figure it out. I'm not familiar with much of the bible in context so usually I have to look up verses.

disciple said:

I'll figure it out. I'm not familiar with much of the bible in context so usually I have to look up verses.

Click to expand...

Alright.

erm said:

Back to my original question though, does anyone see the method of 'receiving salvation' as it is taught today written in the Scriptures?

Click to expand...

Nice reply there. As for me I am not going to play the opposition any further, but I think you left room for someone to reply. I would argue further but I don't think that I would represent your opposition very well. A better conversation could be had over all the various scripture verses that are used to support points of contention, but it would be like people with two languages trying to communicate. Your point of view of the scriptures can be thought of as a language. Really every point of view from the major denominations probably is like a language or system in which the meanings of various doctrines has an impact upon all of the others. It makes conversation between very different denominations very tricky.

Brickjectivity said:

Nice reply there. As for me I am not going to play the opposition any further, but I think you left room for someone to reply. I would argue further but I don't think that I would represent your opposition very well.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I think if I tried I could play the opposite point of view pretty well. In fact, it gives me an idea. Maybe I could do a role-reversal thread on another forum I belong to.

A better conversation could be had over all the various scripture verses that are used to support points of contention, but it would be like people with two languages trying to communicate. Your point of view of the scriptures can be thought of as a language. Really every point of view from the major denominations probably is like a language or system in which the meanings of various doctrines has an impact upon all of the others. It makes conversation between very different denominations very tricky.

Click to expand...

I agree, I even saw a video that was about things that Church of Christ people say. It was funny. But there is one common language that cuts through it all, the text of the Bible. Most of the differences between denominations come about because of what people say about the scriptures. People can't disagree on what's written though, generally.

erm said:

Thank you. I think if I tried I could play the opposite point of view pretty well. In fact, it gives me an idea. Maybe I could do a role-reversal thread on another forum I belong to.

Click to expand...

Careful. That sounds like Mormon technology to me! Just kiddin', Katzpur.

I agree, I even saw a video that was about things that Church of Christ people say. It was funny. But there is one common language that cuts through it all, the text of the Bible. Most of the differences between denominations come about because of what people say about the scriptures. People can't disagree on what's written though, generally.

Click to expand...

Mmm. Not so sure about that. Also you can have the reverse problem in which a figure of speech is taken literally, so then you can have a complete system that seems consistent with itself and with what's written. All it takes is a different point of view about what is a figure of speech, what is literal, what is parable.

Brickjectivity said:

Careful. That sounds like Mormon technology to me! Just kiddin', Katzpur.
Mmm. Not so sure about that. Also you can have the reverse problem in which a figure of speech is taken literally, so then you can have a complete system that seems consistent with itself and with what's written. All it takes is a different point of view about what is a figure of speech, what is literal, what is parable.

Click to expand...

Good point. But there aren't many parables that aren't identified as parables.

I believe that AI will be used to analyse the NT and come up with every consistent system for interpreting it, but that won't happen very soon. Until then we are stuck with artful intelligence.

Brickjectivity said:

I believe that AI will be used to analyse the NT and come up with every consistent system for interpreting it, but that won't happen very soon. Until then we are stuck with artful intelligence.

Click to expand...

Ahaha.