Salvation

[DocCas]

bart, I perceive you are here for an argument and not for instruction (as you originally stated). It is now obvious to me you are not a Baptist but probably a member of the cultic "Church of Christ" or one of the "Oneness Pentecostal" groups.

If you will stop talking for a moment and just let the Lord speak to your heart you will hear "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."

[ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Gina B]

Boy, you really are confused.
I am not Mr. Cassidy, but if the real Mr. Cassidy would like to take my place I won't put up too much of a protest.

 

[Gina B]

My dear Bart,
Did I not forewarn you that I was bad at those little made-up stories? You are familiar with scripture. Look up the person who died next to Jesus on the cross. He was saved at the last minute. He was hanging on the cross that was next to our Lord's. Was he told that if he wanted to be saved he had to go repent and be baptized first? People get saved on their deathbeds today.
Are you afraid that Jesus dying on the cross just wasn't good enough to save you? Are you looking for something else you can do that would improve on this? It isn't going to happen. NOTHING but the blood. Faith is believing. Have some faith! Pray for some faith!
Have you prayed to God for these answers? Have you prayed for faith? If you haven't, why not? He's the one you will have to contend with. Imagine yourself standing in front of Him now, explaining why you didn't accept the gift of salvation. Do you think that he'll accept that answer?
The one and only Gina D.
By the way, I was honored to be confused with Cassidy. He's a pretty smart guy. Hopefully he's not TOO very much embarrased on his side of the board!

 

[Don]

Um, Bart, you're making me feel schizophrenic.

Which e-mail are you sending stuff too? If you notice the dates and times on my posts, I've been sporadically posting; this is because my primary computer is hosed, and I have minimal access to the internet at the moment. The computer I'm using doesn't access Hotmail, so if you're sending stuff there, I haven't been able to check it yet.

John 3:16? Where did I jump to John 3:16? I don't recall saying ANYTHING about John 3:16. That's where you've got me thinking I'm schizophrenic.

Bart, Dr. Cassidy already answered your question about belief, confession, and repentence. If you'd prefer to beat the horse to death, why don't you start a new topic devoted to just that?

And finally, Mark 16. Dr. Cassidy actually gave you a beautiful explanation of the emphasis of belief (the thing about riding a bus); if you choose not to accept it, that's up to you.

You seem to appear fixated on "one verse theology"; you understand this is a problem, right? It's usually pretty clear to most people that if you start reading Mark 16:16, and read the next verse, and then the next verse, that you'd eventually stop at the first verse of Luke (since it's not Mark any more, and the context has changed). Same principle applies. Read Mark 16, and decide where the passage actually starts; who it's addressed to; who it applies to; and how to apply it.

But if you'd prefer to focus on "one verse theology," then with your permission, I'd like to start hating people, since Romans 12:9 tells us to abhor that which is evil, and somewhere in Proverbs and Psalms it tells us that as a man thinks in his heart, so he is. Is that okay with you? Can I base an entire doctrine off of this one verse and start telling people it's okay to hate?

 

[try hard]

Bart, I believe I have the answer you are looking for. However,I must go to my class
now.
Galation 2:20

I will reply again today!!!

 

[SPAM]

Bart, All I want to add, as if you need anything else, is this. What you are searching for is the best thing there is: Jesus. This you know, but one thing you will never be able to do the side of Calvary you are fixed, is understand all these things you are concerned with. People who've been saved for years still struggle to put into words just what Jesus is to them.

You are concerned about ways and steps and methods, when it takes the simple child like faith to believe. Everyone on this forum, that is a christian, has been there. Maybe some did not search as extensively as you have, it may have been more of a knock on the head of realization. But at one time, we had to accept the gift of salvation by faith. The confession, the repentance and the belief are all tied in together, but what's necessary first is to believe.

What you are doing is trying to understand salvation without being saved: simply impossible to do. Salvation can not be scientifically disected. It is not possible to put into words the feelings everyone of us that are chritian have concerning salvation. I have done a poor job of trying to explain many times over, but the fact remains, without simple faith to believe, you can't.

We all are praying you see the truth.
God bless you Bart and please don't become frustrated short of salvation, you'll be glad you trusted Him once you have.

 

[bart]

i am not near through, but i have a short reply to make to gina, and i'll be back tonight............gina, about the thief on the cross, when Jesus died on the cross and several days later he gave the great commission (mark 16:16), HOW WAS THE THIEF TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMMAND TO BE BAPTIZED??????HE WAS DEAD BEFORE JESUS EVER GAVE IT!! POINT #2)HEBREWS 9:17 SAYS THE OLD LAW (TESTAMENT) ENDED AT THE DEATH OF CHRIST, SO THE THIEF WAS TOLD BY JESUS THAT HE WOULD BE WITH HIM IN PARADISE, ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE UNDER THE OLD LAW............................SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT ABRAHAM DID NOT HAVE TO BE BAPTIZED!!!!!!!!!

mr cassidy,

now why did you not deal with anything i said???????????????just say i'm a cultic member and throw me to the side.......mr cassidy, i'll ask a very basic question.............about mark 16:16....is the word baptism even mentioned in that scripture????????????what about acts 22:16, acts 2:38, I peter 3:21, gal 3:26-27?????????????????

mr cassidy,
how about this "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not and confesses not shall be damned"............NOW CAN I THROW OUT CONFESSION OUT OF ROMANS 10:9.........


about my replys that have not been answered, a person would think that if he/she had the truth, that people should be able to stand up and defend it!

I ONLY HAD 5 MINUTES...........I'LL POST OTHER REPLYS

 

[try hard]

Dear Bart,

Let me elaborate my view on Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

Jesus is saying here that if you believe and you are baptized you will go to heaven, however,the bible also says that all you have to do is believe. Which is true?

I believe both. Why? Because God's Word says so. If you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. Do you know why? Because you believed on Him and put your trust in Jesus.

When you come to Jesus, repenting of your sin , confessing with your mouth, while at the same time believing, you will be surely be saved from hell and lake of fire.

 

[Gina B]

You are absolutely right! Jesus did not tell him to be baptised! However, he still got saved at the last moment, right? Salvation has always been through faith. Jesus death provided the eternal blood sacrifice, so that we would not have to continue sacrificing animals, and gave us an eternal high priest, so we ourselves could go to God, through Jesus, which made the need for us to go to God through the high priests no longer necessary.
It sounds like you're thinking that everything changed when Jesus died. It didn't. It became perfect.
Baptism is not for salvation. It is an outward show of an inner belief. Does it even matter? God told us to do it, so we do.
And about the bus thing. God is not like the bus driver you had in school. Once you board, he will not kick you off. Jesus already paid your fare, so it's free. And as far as buckling up, it's for your own safety. Both ways.

 

[TJAcorn]

I don't want to be lengthy - This discussion already is filled with way too many unthoughtful replies. But I have a couple of points I would like to get accross. First of all in all this discussion no one has defined what they meen when they say "belive" or "confess" or "repent". If we don't define our terms there will be way to much confusion. Now to my main point.

bart has brought up the good point about what we must DO to be saved, and his logic is superb. I believe he has errored in his basic premise. It is that we must DO something to be saved. I believe that the Bible teaches that there is nothing we can DO to be saved at all. To say that there is God's part and Man's part to salvation is to say that God is dependent on man to save him. Therefore, if "there is none righteouss, no not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." then how could man(if he did have a part in his salvation) ever fulfill his responsibility in salvation?

Now let me define my terms. When I say "salvation" or "saved" I meen the moment in time when God says that Christ is guilty of the sins of a certain individual in the discussion.

when I say "there is nothing we can DO" I mean exactly that. There is absolutly nothing WE do. It is not our act of believing or confessing or repenting or being baptized that saves us.

when I say "repent" I mean a time when one mentally has no more of a desire to live in sin but to live for God. It is a time when one turns from sin to God. It is the mental result of God's saving grace made effectual in one's life.

as for bart, I appreciate your honest questions and logical mind. I also believe that we should systematically prove our doctrine. Truth is what we must find out and sometimes that means questioning those things that have been taught us by our Pastors or mentors.

I have much more to say but I'll leave off here for now.

 

[Gina B]

Acorn, what in the world is that all about? We're not speaking in big technical words here. Define belief? Define repentance?
Hopefully, I missed something in that post, 'cause it sounds a little nutty to me.

 

[TJAcorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Acorn, what in the world is that all about? We're not speaking in big technical words here. Define belief? Define repentance?
Hopefully, I missed something in that post, 'cause it sounds a little nutty to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! define belief! define repentance! to some repentance means no more then confesing one's sins and that's it. Belief is also thought of as no more than a mental acknowledging that something happened.

I think that when we are dealing with such an important topic it must be clear beyound any shadow of a doubt what we mean by our words. Gotta go

 

[bart]

first of all, let me apologize to don because i honestly thought i was sending emails directly to his personal email address. don, i am sorry, i have been sending it somewhere!!!!!!! oh well!!! i hope you can accept my apology. thanks

i have so much to cover, but i do not have the time right now, although the remark about the unthoughtful replies..........i do not understand why people insist on saying such things when i have said over and over again that i am sincere, not angry or irratated.........now STOP mistaking my being forward and blunt for being "unthoughtful"........but I WILL PUSH YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!

if the comment was not directed towards me, then disregard that statement.


gina says that the thief got saved at the last minute.......AGAIN YOU ARE CORRECT GINA,
I AGREE 100% WITH YOU, THE THIEF WAS SAVED AT THE LAST MINUTE. I AM NOT DISPUTING THIS, BUT WHAT I AM DISPUTING IS THAT THE THIEF WAS UNDER THE OLD LAW WHEN HE WAS SAVED, NOT THE SAME LAW WE ARE UNDER NOW. WILL YOU TAKE THE POSITION HE WAS UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT LAW??????????????????? (I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER, BECAUSE I CAN'T REMEMBER ANTHING THAT HIS BEEN ANSWERED SO FAR)
Jesus is referred to as the "TESTATOR" in the new testament, and the new testament being his last "WILL" and testament now the bible says that the new law started and the old law ended at the death of Christ. now knowing this, and being able to read that the command to be baptized WAS GIVEN AFTER THE THIEF WAS DEAD, SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE THIEF KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE COMMAND TO BE BAPTIZED UNDER THE "GREAT COMMISSION".

Gina,

let me say this: all of the scriptures that you list on faith: John 3:16, Acts 16:31, and there are alot more of them. I AGREE 100% WITH YOU THAT YOU MUST BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED!!!!!!!! THE ONLY THING I AM DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER SCRIPTURES IN THE BIBLE THAT SAY A PERSON IS SAVED ON THOSE THINGS ALSO (ROMANS 10:9...BELIEF AND CONFESSION) (NOT FAITH ONLY, NOW THE KEY WORD IS ONLY.) I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......
I AGREE THAT A MAN IS SAVED BY FAITH.......BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......

(SEE JAMES CHAPTER 2:20 THROUGH THE END OF THE CHAPTER.)

I WANTED TO LIST THAT ENOUGH TIMES SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT SAY "BART SAID THAT WE ARE NOT SAVED BY FAITH"!!!!!!! WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH, BUT NOT FAITH ONLY.......THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.........READ JAMES CHAPTER 2

I WILL REPLY TO ACORNS WHEN I GET BACK, MY WIFE AND I ARE TAKING MY 1 YEAR OLD TO THE ZOO.


BART

 

[Gina B]

I wouldn't know which one he was under. It wouldn't matter anyhow. Read HOW he got saved.
You wanted to know how to get saved. I told you what I believe the Bible says. You emphatically disagreed with the answer I gave. So unless you would like to ask me anything else, I don't see how me staying in this discussion will do any good.
Read the entire chapter in question, noting verse eleven also. I'm making an attempt to go on memory here, so I may be wrong, but it's around there. The works prove his faith, by which he received his salvation. You aren't going to believe, and thank Jesus for his sacrifice, and then not change how you live, or not spread the news. It's like getting baptised. We were told to do it. It is a showing forth of our belief.

 

[bart]

alright gina,

i want to check something. READ THE PASSAGE ABOUT THE THIEF AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE THIEF WAS SAVED. Luke 23:39-43, and be careful because i will be checking.

now keep in mind that you still have alot of unanswered questions that i have asked you!

 

[TJAcorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I wouldn't know which one he was under. It wouldn't matter anyhow. Read HOW he got saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this will sound like a little kid but...it does too matter! bart is not questioning the idea that you must be saved by faith. bart agrees with you concerning HOW the theif got saved (correct me if I'm wrong, bart). The theif was saved in the same way Abraham was saved. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" - Gal 3:6. But Abraham lived under the old covenant (i.e. old testament doctrines for the time before Christ died) as did the Theif. The question therfore is not how the theif was saved but is man's part in salvation different under the new covenant?
Your argument concerning the theif would be very powerful if he died under the new covenant but he didn't.

Trevor

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; The theif was saved in the same way Abraham was saved. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" - Gal 3:6. But Abraham lived under the old covenant (i.e. old testament doctrines for the time before Christ died) as did the Theif. The question therfore is not how the theif was saved but is man's part in salvation different under the new covenant? &gt;

So then, the conclusion is thus: Under the "old covenant" a person could be saved by faith alone, but Jesus came to make it IMPOSSIBLE to be saved by faith alone. Is that your contention?

 

[bart]

(DON SAYS)And finally, Mark 16. Dr. Cassidy actually gave you a beautiful explanation of the emphasis of belief (the thing about riding a bus); if you choose not to accept it, that's up to you.

DON, I ANSWERED THAT.......I SAID I COULD COME UP WITH ANY EXAMPLE I WANTED TO AND MAKE IT SOUND EITHER WAY...........BUT SINCE YOU INSIST, OK, HERE WE GO.......DON......WHAT IF I SAID THIS: HE THAT EATETH AND DIGESTETH SHALL LIVE, BUT HE THAT EATETH NOT SHALL DIE........NOW YOU SEE MY WHOLE POINT WAS THIS, MR CASSIDY CAME UP WITH AN EXAMPLE TO WHERE HE GAVE 2 ITEMS CONNECTED WITH THE COPULATED CONJUNCTION "AND" AND ONE OF THE ITEMS HE LISTED HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ARRIVING AT YOUR DESTINATION, SO I CAN COME UP WITH AN EXAMPLE TO WHERE I HAVE 2 ITEMS CONNECTED WITH THE COPULATED CONJUNCTION "AND" BOTH OF MY ITEMS ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO LIVING (COMPARABLE TO ARRIVING AT YOUR DESTINATION)...........SO, DEPENDING ON MY EXAMPLE, I CAN COME UP WITH LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF EXAMPLES LIKE THAT AND MAKE THEM SOUND EITHER WAY......SO ARGUEMENTS LIKE THE ONE ABOUT THE BUS AND SITTING DOWN AND ARRIVING AT YOUR DESTINATION HAS BEEN MADE UP TO FIT YOUR DOCTRINE. HOW ABOUT THIS ONE DON. HE THAT BOARDETH THE BUS AND BRUSHES HIS TEETH, SHALL GO TO TOWN.......NOW THERE IS A BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLE, AND IF I WERE TRYING TO TEACH THAT BAPTISM (IN MARK 16:16) WAS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION, I WOULD USE THAT ONE BECAUSE THE ITEM ABOUT BRUSHING YOUR TEETH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
ARRIVING AT YOUR DESTINATION.

SN THE FLIP SIDE: I CAN MAKE UP AN EXAMPLE TO WHERE BOTH ITEMS ARE REVELANT. "HE THAT EATS AND BREATHES SHALL LIVE, BUT HE THAT DOES NOT EAT SHALL DIE."........NOW HERE BOTH ITEMS ARE NECESSARY!!!!............AND BY THE WAY, WHILE WE ARE HERE, I WILL MAKE THIS POINT, ABOUT THE LAST HALF OF MY EXAMPLE "HE THAT DOES NOT EAT SHALL LIVE"......NOW BECAUSE I DID NOT SAY "HE THAT EATS AND BREATHES SHALL LIVE, BUT HE THAT DOES NOT EAT AND DOES NOT BREATHE SHALL DIE".............MUST I SAY ALL OF THAT??????????BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO IS NOT EATING (A DEAD PERSON) CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE BREATHING.

DON SAYS.....You seem to appear fixated on "one verse theology"; you understand this is a problem, right? It's usually pretty clear to most people that if you start reading Mark 16:16, and read the next verse, and then the next verse, that you'd eventually stop at the first verse of Luke (since it's not Mark any more, and the context has changed). Same principle applies. Read Mark 16, and decide where the passage actually starts; who it's addressed to; who it applies to; and how to apply it.

ACTS 16:31 SAYS "BELIEVE"
JOHN 3:16 SAYS "BELIEVE"
ACTS 22:16 SAYS "BAPTISM"
ROMANS 10:9 SAYS "CONFESS AND BELIEVE"
ACTS 2:38 SAYS "REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM"
MARK 16:16 SAYS "BELIEVE AND BAPTISM"
ROMANS 10:17 SAYS "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING"

TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, I TEACH THAT A PERSON MUST DO ALL OF THESE, TO BE SAVED: 1. HEAR--ROM 10:17
2. BELIEVE--ACTS 16:31
3. REPENT---LUKE 13:3
4. CONFESS--ROMANS 10:9
5. BAPTISM--MARK 16:16

NOW, HONESTLY I AM HOOKED ON "5 VERSE THEOLOGY" INSTEAD OF THE "1 VERSE THEOLOGY" AS YOU SAY, BUT DON COMES ALONG AND SAYS...............OH, IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BELIEVE AND RUNS TO JOHN 3:16 (ONLY) AND SAYS THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO...........SO DON, WHO IS THE PERSON ON "ONE VERSE THEOLOGY"?????? AGAIN, I SAY THE BIBLE TEACHES THE ABOVE ITEMS I HAVE LISTED AND DON SAYS YOU ARE SAVED BY FAITH ONLY.................WHO RELIES ON ONLY ONE SCRIPTURE DON, ME OR YOU!!!! BE HONEST NOW!!

I HAVE LISTED 5 DIFFERENT SCRIPTURES, AND YOU CAN ONLY LIST ONE (1).

 

[Gina B]

He believed in Jesus. He knew he was a sinner, and believed Jesus was not. He even rebuked the other thief for not fearing God, realized that he deserved what he was getting punished for, and asked God to remember him.
I don't know if we're supposed to be counting days or what from the time the new laws took place. As I said before, I don't believe the plan of salvation ever did. It became whole, where before it hadn't been. Which, by the way, is part of the explanation on why souls went to paradise before He died. I don't know a lot about the subject, but the actual atonement had already taken place, sooo........we both may learn something if someone with more knowledge on that subject cares to jump in here.
I thought the question was how do you get saved?
I thought I answered all of your questions. Please list the ones you feel I haven't addressed, and I'll be glad to do so.
Gina

 

[TJAcorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
So then, the conclusion is thus: Under the "old covenant" a person could be saved by faith alone, but Jesus came to make it IMPOSSIBLE to be saved by faith alone. Is that your contention?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not my conclusion - I personally believe that the manner in which someone is saved is the same in the old testament as the new - I was just saying that the Theif example is not a valid argument for saying that man is saved only by believing (i.e. putting his faith in Christ) since things have changed under the new covenant. I'm assuming that bart thinks one of those things that have changed is that we must also be baptized in order to be saved.

sorry about the confusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't know if we're supposed to be counting days or what from the time the new laws took place. As I said before, I don't believe the plan of salvation ever did. It became whole, where before it hadn't been. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose what you mean (Gina) from the above is that the plan of salvation has never changed. I would agree with you but neither of us have proved that point and I think that if we did then a result of that would be proving that bart is in error. So...can you prove it?

Gina wrote: I thought I answered all of your questions. Please list the ones you feel I haven't addressed, and I'll be glad to do so.

I don't know if this part is to me or bart but I have one for you. What is God's part in salvation?

Trevor

careful, it's loaded question!

[ April 28, 2001: Message edited by: TJAcorn ]