Can a person reject the following and still be saved?

There's a major problem with your poll...

You asked what a person must believe to be saved, but the questions ask what Christians *should* believe to be (I assume) "good" Christians.

Personally, I will answer according to what I think "good" Christians should believe because none of these views are essential for salvation.

 

I answered according to what a person "must" believe to be saved. None of those things, although conscious rejection of truth is far more serious than ignorance. When I became a Christian at age 11, I truly became a Christian, but I did not really understand any of those things. We GROW in grace.

Still growing,
Karen

 

As far as "virgin birth" goes, I think Christians overemphasize the virginity of Mary to the point of obscuring the greater truth -- the divine paternity of Jesus.

It is certainly remarkable that Jesus was born of a woman who was a virgin, but it is essential to realize that He was the Son of God!

I'm convinced the over-emphasis on the virgin birth comes from Roman Catholic views of original sin and exalted (idolatrous) views of Mary.

As for my views of the doctrine's importance, look at the Bible. I don't think the apostle Paul ever mentions it and two Gospels don't either. Of course it is mentioned in two Gospels and is certainly a Biblical doctrine, but it is of lesser importance than recognizing the divinity of Christ.

NOTE: I do believe in the virgin birth of Christ and believe it is a belief that "good" Christians should hold.

As far as the CBF goes, I do not know of any CBF member or have heard any CBF leader deny the virgin birth, although I heard lots of people accuse a former coordinator, Cecil Sherman, of the charge. It is my understanding that the charge is without merit.

 

I'm surprise at some of the answers. Very interesting poll.

 

If there are only Baptists on this section, what kind of Baptist is it that believes there is another way of salvation besides thru Christ?

 

How can this be not just a denominational poll when this is the Baptist only forum? And part of the Baptist doctrine is the deity of Christ. So how can there be 4 people that say no?

The deity of Christ and the virgin birth go together. Inerrancy, a Christian can learn after he is saved. The resurrection has to be part of the belief of salvation.

I have to admit, what is Open Theism? I have never heard this terminology before.

Salvation is thru Christ only, so how can a Baptist be on this board and not believe this?

 

You are quite right, Baptist Believer. The poll asked about necessary belief for initial salvation, not what I think is orthodox belief for a mature Christian. I, for example, believe absolutely in the deity of Christ and in the virgin birth, but I became a Christian at age 11 without understanding much more than that Jesus died for me.

Karen

 

There are several threads concerning this heresy on BB. If I understand correctly, it is basically the view that God either cannot know the future or chooses not to know it. It emphasizes man's role in determining what history will be. In fact, my biggest problem with it is that it seems to view man and his salvation as the center of history as opposed to God and His glory. Another huge problem is that it makes man's cooperation and effort the key to everything including salvation.

Everyone I have seen espousing this view has been liberal. For instance, I have yet to see anyone embrace open theism and inerrancy.

[ July 31, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

There's no reason to assume that anyone believes that there is salvation that is not through Christ. The poll was so poorly worded, it meaning can be taken at least three ways:

1) Are the things asked by the questions requirements for salvation?
2) Are the things asked by the questions things that Christians should believe?
3) Are the things asked by the questions necessary to retain one's salvation?

I think we've had people interpret them in very different ways. You seem to see it as #2. (FWIW, I answered according to #2 and said Christians should believe that there is only salvation in Christ.) If I interpreted according to #1 or #3, I would answer no to all of them, which is what I suspect many people have done.

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, but Jesus is teaching that we need to believe what He has said about Himself, that He is the Son of God.

You used the adjective "absolute" to describe Jesus as the "absolute Son of God". I don't know precisely know what you mean by the word "absolute" except perhaps that Jesus is the *only* Son of God (in the divine sense).

While it is a close call, I don't think that believing that Jesus is the *only* Son of God is *necessary* for salvation. The knowledge should come very shortly after we are born again though.

 

The answers to the poll are meaningless since the questions are so unclear.

 

The poll is not poorly written in my opinion though "still be" should have been left out of the question. Can one profess to be a Christian (or reject the following and be saved?) and deny the Virgin birth, Deity of Christ, Resurrection? NO! The virgin birth is not a creation of Roman Catholics but the great emphasis comes from the New Testament (Luke, John, Galatians)and the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon in the 4th afnd 5th century (The Roman Catholic Church, worship of Mary did not exist at that time). If Jesus was not born of a virgin he was not God and was nothing more than a martyred philosopher.

If one believes one can be saved in any other way than Jesus Christ then this shows a major flaw in their understanding of salvation and the idea one can have a McDonald's view (Pick and choose) of salvation and be a believer is inconceivable.

[ August 01, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he , ye shall die in your sins.

The word "he" is in italics in the KJV meaning that the word is not there in the manuscript(s) that represent the original text.

The pharisees eventualy rejected the full impact of who Jesus is and according to Him, they would die in their sins.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him...

One could then say that an individual with a convicted rejection of the deity of Christ (or the essential elements thereof, such as the Virgin Birth) means that the individual was never saved in the first place.

Apart from Jesus saying "with God all things are possible" it is (IMO) not possible for an individual to be saved without a proper faith knowledge of who He is (God come in the flesh) which reflects directly upon His ability to atone for sin.

HankD

[ August 01, 2002, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Ah, thank you. That is very clear.

Probably not if they persist in that belief.

Here you are probably talking about “Open Theism”. I hold views which are probably compatible with what is now called Open Theism, but I would not call God a cosmic gambler. (Although it *is* hard to get around the idea that God is making a bet with the adversary in Job 1 and 2.)

In answer to your question, yes. Of course if Open Theism is true, then we are not redefining God at all.

Yes, but let’s get something clear… All translations have errors and yet God uses them. According to popular theories of inerrancy, the original manuscripts are without error. But since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we have copies that vary.

In my opinion, we need to toss the whole “inerrancy” catchphrase/shibboleth and talk about reliability and the trustworthiness of meaning. I believe the Bible (the one we have now, not just the original manuscripts) is fully reliable for faith and practice, but I don’t affirm the whole inerrancy dogma since (in my opinion) (1) it completely misses the point of scripture – that is, to point us to Jesus, (2) it says something about the Bible that the Bible doesn’t say about itself. The doctrine is also used as a weapon against people who have different (and often stronger) views of Biblical authority.

No. Not for an extended time. True believers can fall into doubt and have an immature faith undermined, but the Spirit will guide them back into truth eventually.

The virgin birth? Yes. The deity of Christ? No. (As specified much earlier in the thread, I do affirm the virgin birth and believe that Christians should affirm it, but I consider the divine *paternity* of Christ to be the proper emphasis. In my opinion, it is possible for someone to believe differently about the issue and still have saving faith, but I would strongly disagree with them.)

As far as adding works goes, I believe the answer is yes – although I would disagree with them very much. I think people can come to faith in God with an incomplete gospel message, but they will eventually accept further revelation when it comes. My mother is a perfect example of this. She was raised nominally Catholic in Europe, but her indoctrination into Catholicism was not completed due to the chaos of World War II. During the war in a Nazi-controlled camp, a Catholic priest ministered to the people. He did not have Bibles for the people and still taught and offered the sacraments, but he also taught the important of faith and God’s grace. My mother believes she was converted during that time. Years later when she met my father, she became a Baptist because the doctrine she intuitively understand (without even having knowledge that the Bible existed until the 1950s(!)) was very similar to what was taught in the local Baptist church. She followed in believer’s baptism when it was explained to her and she has been heavily involved in Christian service ever since.

God’s ways are much greater, broader, more loving and attentive than we can comprehend!