What do you believe is required for Salvation?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So how narrow or how wide is the road. I've met drug addicts who believe in each point presented. We notice Hard Core Rappers when given an award for ingenious lyrics like "kill the police" point to the sky giving Jesus all the credit. If we were to calculate all the people on the planet claiming to believe these vital points I find the Narrow path isn't so narrow.

So do you really think they believe? Who goes to hell TS?

 

[annsni]

Yes, but we have those pesky passages that include baptism in the plan of salvation. See, e.g., Post 25 above.

I once had this discussion with my pastor, who doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration. He said that if an unbaptized person made a profession of faith to him and appeared to be dying (could not be taken to a traditional baptistry), that he would baptize him by sprinkling.

And if there really is something to the idea of baptismal regeneration, it might save the man from the fires of Hell. What is the down side here?

The downside is that the Bible does not say that baptism saves. "What shall I do to be saved?" "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." That's good enough for us.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You seem to miss my final point. Galatians 1:8-9 explicitly states that those who preach another gospel than what Paul preached are to be regarded as "accursed." He repeats it for emphasis. If you openly proclaim a different gospel you fit that Biblical classification.

Not really since what gospel Paul was talking about is often up to debate. There are a plethera of ideas of what he meant. Look, marcion a meer 300 years after christ built his whole faith just on the writings of Paul. Certainly he would disagree with you what the gospel Paul preached was. Unless you think he was an early baptist.

There is sufficient, over sufficient scriptures to precisely determine that Paul is speaking about the essential distinction between justificaiton by works versus by faith and Romans 3:24-5:2 precisely defines what he means by justification by faith without works in contrast to justification by works.

Really, You and I could go round and round just on this topic. You say that Abraham was justified by faith alone right? You would quote Romans 4

What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness

My question to you is which time? Well, Paul says in the same passage

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! ...13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Paul clearly indicates here that Abraham believed God by which he was justified when he believed God that God would make of him a nation in Gen 15 where Paul is quoting from. But then we see in Hebrews by "faith"

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.

And we see in James 2

Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

Which time was abraham Justified. The NT seems to indicate he was justified 3 different times in his life. See so which time is Abraham justified if its a one time thing?

There is no "plethora of views" presented in the scripturs but the same simple consistent contrast made throughout the scriptures:

1. narrow versus broad, many versus few - Mt. 7:13-14
2. grace versus works - Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 11:6
3. works versus faith - Rom. 3:24-5:2; Gal. 1:6-4:28
4. Same gospel before and after cross - Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43;26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; etc.

Oh certainly there is. And none of these verse indicate How narrow nor how wide the Narrow road is. And Like I said to Matt based on your statements the Narrow road may be wider than you think.

Only in the mind of heretics and those confused by heretics are there a plethora of options. The scriptures are plentifully clear and painstakenly precise on this point.

Nice try. Your falling into the trap set for you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So do you really think they believe? Who goes to hell TS?

That's implicit in my question.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not really since what gospel Paul was talking about is often up to debate. There are a plethera of ideas of what he meant. Look, marcion a meer 300 years after christ built his whole faith just on the writings of Paul. Certainly he would disagree with you what the gospel Paul preached was. Unless you think he was an early baptist.

Really, You and I could go round and round just on this topic. You say that Abraham was justified by faith alone right? You would quote Romans 4 My question to you is which time? Well, Paul says in the same passage Paul clearly indicates here that Abraham believed God by which he was justified when he believed God that God would make of him a nation in Gen 15 where Paul is quoting from. But then we see in Hebrews by "faith" And we see in James 2 Which time was abraham Justified. The NT seems to indicate he was justified 3 different times in his life. See so which time is Abraham justified if its a one time thing?

Oh certainly there is. And none of these verse indicate How narrow nor how wide the Narrow road is. And Like I said to Matt based on your statements the Narrow road may be wider than you think.

Nice try. Your falling into the trap set for you.

Your approach to scripture is your downfall. You cannot consistently stick with the context of a single text. Instead, you take different writers talking about different things and pit them against each other and thus confuse the subject. This kind of interpretative method can only result in a plethora of confusion.

Paul is talking about one thing and James is talking about another thing and it is self-evident IF you interpret each in their own context. However, you won't allow each to be interpreted by their own context but insist on pitting one against the other.

I will take your challenge IF you will allow the individual writer to interpret himself according to his own context!!! If you will allow Paul to interpret himself according to his own context your charge of a plethora of ideas will simply vanish. If you will allow James to interpret himself according to his own context your charge of confusion will simply vanish.

Since it is Paul that charged any and all who preach another gospel as "accursed" than what he preached, then please allow Paul to contextually define what he preached!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not really since what gospel Paul was talking about is often up to debate. There are a plethera of ideas of what he meant. Look, marcion a meer 300 years after christ built his whole faith just on the writings of Paul. Certainly he would disagree with you what the gospel Paul preached was. Unless you think he was an early baptist. QUOTE]

Think about what you are saying! Marcion was a gnostic, a dualist who revised scriptures to fit his gnosticm providing his own canon of scriptures. He picked and chose what he wanted from Paul and pitted Paul against Paul instead of allowing Paul to self-define himself by his own context.

Don't you believe that Paul defines what he says by the context of his own writings?? If not, then there is no hope for anyone to ever establish what Paul spoke about and the scriptures are not sufficient that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works but we are left in hopeless confusion. This idiotic position is the basis for Roman Catholic use of Tradition as they deny that the scriptures are sufficient to interpret themselves by their own context. Is that the position you are embracing?

 

[DHK]

TS:
Which verse speaks the truth, and how do you know?
Or are they both truthful?

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Psalms 14:1 There is no God.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself does it?

But this is your method of hermeneutics.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No I don't wear wigs, FTR, although I perhaps should as I am now follicly challenged.

I think the critical Person in salvation is Jesus. Not you, not me, not even particularly what we believe or do - up to a point of course*. The soteriological starting point has to be Jesus, the Man-Who-Is-God: His life, death, resurrection, ascension and future return in glory.

* As a bare minimum, it is vital (a) how we regard Him (was He fully human and fully Divine, Son of God and God the Son, did He die on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven), and how we respond to Him and His love for us.

His Sovereignty the word your looking for Matt?

BTW, get yourself a buzz cut then take it all off.....Very Liberating!

 

[billwald]

>Who goes to hell

Anyone who prefers it to Heaven. "The lock on the door to hell is on the inside."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS:
Which verse speaks the truth, and how do you know?
Or are they both truthful?

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Psalms 14:1 There is no God.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself does it?

But this is your method of hermeneutics.

Obviously two entirely different things. All Scripture I quoted are in the context of the book in which it was writen. You've took half of a sentence from one line in Psalms. Entirely two different things.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your approach to scripture is your downfall. You cannot consistently stick with the context of a single text. Instead, you take different writers talking about different things and pit them against each other and thus confuse the subject. This kind of interpretative method can only result in a plethora of confusion.

Paul is talking about one thing and James is talking about another thing and it is self-evident IF you interpret each in their own context. However, you won't allow each to be interpreted by their own context but insist on pitting one against the other.

I will take your challenge IF you will allow the individual writer to interpret himself according to his own context!!! If you will allow Paul to interpret himself according to his own context your charge of a plethora of ideas will simply vanish. If you will allow James to interpret himself according to his own context your charge of confusion will simply vanish.

Since it is Paul that charged any and all who preach another gospel as "accursed" than what he preached, then please allow Paul to contextually define what he preached!

Nope. Each writer is speaking about faith, and Justification. Each mentions Abraham at different times in his life using the "faith, justification" motif to get across their point. The problem is when in comparison of other writers speaking about the same thing. Each writer I've mention is taken in the context of their own book.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not really since what gospel Paul was talking about is often up to debate. There are a plethera of ideas of what he meant. Look, marcion a meer 300 years after christ built his whole faith just on the writings of Paul. Certainly he would disagree with you what the gospel Paul preached was. Unless you think he was an early baptist. QUOTE]

Think about what you are saying! Marcion was a gnostic, a dualist who revised scriptures to fit his gnosticm providing his own canon of scriptures. He picked and chose what he wanted from Paul and pitted Paul against Paul instead of allowing Paul to self-define himself by his own context.

Don't you believe that Paul defines what he says by the context of his own writings?? If not, then there is no hope for anyone to ever establish what Paul spoke about and the scriptures are not sufficient that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works but we are left in hopeless confusion. This idiotic position is the basis for Roman Catholic use of Tradition as they deny that the scriptures are sufficient to interpret themselves by their own context. Is that the position you are embracing?

Its funny when you want to accuse a gnostic of being false you agree with the Roman Record when you want to prove baptistic associations with gnostics you disagree with the Roman Record. Kind of telling. However in this Case. Using soley Paul Marcion shows a divergence from Christianity. Paul must be understood in the greater Context of the Faith apart from just his writings. Marcion would agree with you Let Paul speak for himself. Yet he comes to an entirely different conclusion than you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is a summary provided by the Fellowship Network that sums it up for me

Salvation

Although God could have left all human beings in their sin and guilt, in love, he freely and graciously chose to deliver us from our ruined condition. He provided his eternal Son to become human in order to save us. Christ’s saving work focused on his death, in which he bore the penalty which is justly ours, thus satisfying the demands of God’s moral law and turning away the wrath of God which is poured out on unrepentant sinners. God signified his approval of Christ’s work by raising him from the dead and exalting him as Lord in heaven. On the basis of this work of Christ on our behalf, God accepts as perfectly righteous all those who trust in Christ who died and rose again. We come to believe in Christ because God does a special work of grace to overcome our sinful disposition and draw us to himself. Then God continues this work of grace, so that all who have been drawn to faith in Christ will be preserved in faith and salvation and will enter into the perfect conditions of eternal life in the age to come. (John 6:35-40; Romans 3:19-26; 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:18-23)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is a summary provided by the Fellowship Network that sums it up for me

Salvation

Although God could have left all human beings in their sin and guilt, in love, he freely and graciously chose to deliver us from our ruined condition. He provided his eternal Son to become human in order to save us. Christ’s saving work focused on his death, in which he bore the penalty which is justly ours, thus satisfying the demands of God’s moral law and turning away the wrath of God which is poured out on unrepentant sinners. God signified his approval of Christ’s work by raising him from the dead and exalting him as Lord in heaven. On the basis of this work of Christ on our behalf, God accepts as perfectly righteous all those who trust in Christ who died and rose again. We come to believe in Christ because God does a special work of grace to overcome our sinful disposition and draw us to himself. Then God continues this work of grace, so that all who have been drawn to faith in Christ will be preserved in faith and salvation and will enter into the perfect conditions of eternal life in the age to come. (John 6:35-40; Romans 3:19-26; 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:18-23)

Just to throw in some more views. Follow the logic of the mode of salvation that you've espoused here. Would not somebody have a valid point saying:

God makes the rules of the Universe. Adam and Eve sinned: We suffer for it. This is God's rule. He then creates a Son, lets it be murdered in a brutal way, so that we no longer suffer the Original Sin. It would have been much more logical if God simply never allowed us to inherit the sins of Adam and Eve. God makes the rules... then creates more suffering (of Jesus) in order to repeal one of his own rules? It is a contradiction, and a moral absurdity, and therefore can't be true of a perfect, moral or just God.You have slipped, and are hanging from a mountain ledge. A man sees your predicament and pulls you to safety, away from the certain death that awaits you below.

The next version introduces the idea that you have to 'accept' Jesus as your saviour before God will save you:

You have slipped, and are hanging from a mountain ledge. A man sees your predicament and tells you he can save you, if you admit Him as your savior. When you do, He pulls you to safety, away from the certain death that awaits you below.

The next version introduces the idea that God created the system of original sin ('the fall') in the first place, and makes us subject to it:

You're on a mountain ledge, when the man pushes you off. You have no chance except to grab onto the ledge. He tells you he can save you, if you admit Him as your savior. When you do, He pulls you to safety, away from the certain death that awaits you below.

And the final story of Christian salvation introduces the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus to atone for our sins:

You're on a mountain ledge, when the man pushes you off. You have no chance except to grab onto the ledge. The man is holding baby Jesus in his arms. He tells you he can save you, if you admit Him as your savior. When you do, the man throws the child over the edge so he can then pull you to safety, away from the certain death that awaits you below.
There is no reason to throw the child over the cliff in order to save mankind. None at all... God can just save us, even if its son never existed. Some argue that it was necessary because of the laws of the Universe, that a sacrifice had to be made.- By vexen crabtree

Just to get some thinking going.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Shall the clay tell the potter how to mold the pottery? TS, who is sovereign here....the Creator of the Universe or you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Shall the clay tell the potter how to mold the pottery? TS, who is sovereign here....the Creator of the Universe or you?

The question possed by the quote was not whether God was soveriegn but if God were good or even sane in his plan for salvation.

Interesting subject for another thread. Is there a moral responsibility of the creator for his creation?

 

[DHK]

Obviously two entirely different things. All Scripture I quoted are in the context of the book in which it was writen. You've took half of a sentence from one line in Psalms. Entirely two different things.

It is not entirely two different things. This is exactly what you do and what Dr. Walters has pointed out to you. But typically you ignore him.

My first statement about God was true, correct?

Here is the truth about justification:
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

There is no other way to be justified, but by faith.
But my second statement was pulled out of context and was false, correct?
You do the same thing.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
--You ignore the context of the chapter; you ignore the context of the book. You take these verses out of their context. You might as well be agreeing with "there is no God," for the Bible does says that, as you well know. You can make the Bible say anything you want it to. And that is what you do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not entirely two different things. This is exactly what you do and what Dr. Walters has pointed out to you. But typically you ignore him.

My first statement about God was true, correct?

Here is the truth about justification:
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

There is no other way to be justified, but by faith.
But my second statement was pulled out of context and was false, correct?
You do the same thing.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
--You ignore the context of the chapter; you ignore the context of the book. You take these verses out of their context. You might as well be agreeing with "there is no God," for the Bible does says that, as you well know. You can make the Bible say anything you want it to. And that is what you do.

Its not exactly what I do. I've quoted each text in the context of the book in which they were writen. Each author uses Abraham in the discussion of Faith, Justification, Rightiousness, and salvation. Each Author point to a different time in the Patriarchs life in which to make the explanation. The question is rather a simple one. Which time or is it all three times and if all three times then how does that affect justification. In otherwords in the context of each book I've quoted the author appropriately. you have not.

What you did was take half a sentence from one verse in Psalms (out of context of the work applied) to make it disagree with another section. If you can't see the difference from what you have done and what I did then you're going to have some serious issues.

 

[DHK]

Its not exactly what I do. I've quoted each text in the context of the book in which they were writen. Each author uses Abraham in the discussion of Faith, Justification, Rightiousness, and salvation. Each Author point to a different time in the Patriarchs life in which to make the explanation. The question is rather a simple one. Which time or is it all three times and if all three times then how does that affect justification. In otherwords in the context of each book I've quoted the author appropriately. you have not.

If you are confused about time, that is your problem. Abraham believed God. He believed God when God called him out of Ur of Chaldees. He continued to believe in each other place where God led him. That is the nature of the Christian life. When he first believed it was imputed unto him for righteousness sake. There is nothing difficult about that concept.

What you did was take half a sentence from one verse in Psalms (out of context of the work applied) to make it disagree with another section. If you can't see the difference from what you have done and what I did then you're going to have some serious issues.

Whether it is one verse or one chapter, taking it out of context is the same. You take James 1:21,24 out of context--both of the context of the chapter and of the book. You have done the same thing that I did. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You are blind to what you are doing. If you don't know the context how can you rightly divide the word of truth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you are confused about time, that is your problem. Abraham believed God. He believed God when God called him out of Ur of Chaldees. He continued to believe in each other place where God led him. That is the nature of the Christian life. When he first believed it was imputed unto him for righteousness sake. There is nothing difficult about that concept.

Its rather a simple consept DHK. 3 Different Authors (or at least 2 because we don't know the Authorship of Hebrews) Discuss Faith in relationship to Justification, Righteousness, and salvation. Each Author applies a differing date to which Justification/Righteousness is applied to Abraham. One say it was when He believed God regarding making a nation, another claims it is when he chose to leave to a "land that I will show you". and thirdly one states its when he trusted God to sacrifice his son. If Justification is a one time event then why are there three differing dates affecting it?

Whether it is one verse or one chapter, taking it out of context is the same. You take James 1:21,24 out of context--both of the context of the chapter and of the book. You have done the same thing that I did. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You are blind to what you are doing. If you don't know the context how can you rightly divide the word of truth?

Note I didn't refer to that verse I refered to James 2:21-24

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend.

And in this verse it adds another aspect to faith - works which you reject. However, the author obviously makes the same claim that Abraham was justified or righteous when his faith resonded in works by sacrificing Isaac. So you see I didn't take it out of context. Do you want me to quote the whole chapter you will find James discourse is that faith is not complete without works. As in this passage earlier on.

18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.