Featured When is a person saved?

Dr J Vernon McGee did a sermon called (I think) Salvation In Three Time Zones. He gave his answer.

 

I was saved, by the grace of God, when He justified me through the merits of Christ when I believed.

I am being saved as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling as God works in me to will and to do of His good pleasure.

I will be saved at the Last Day when I stand before God with my sins all washed away by the blood of Christ my Saviour.

That God set His love upon me in eternity and chose me for salvation is abolutely true (Eph 1:3ff; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Thes 2:13; Titus 1:2 etc.), but election happened in eternity, justification happens in time.

All of Him; none of me. Praise His name! :godisgood:

Steve

 

Hebrews 5:8,9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
When are we conformed to the image of the risen Jesus Christ?

John 3:6,7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 1Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


That was the long answer with scripture the short answer is when we are resurrected/changed with eternal life at the appearing of Jesus. Saved to sin no more.

 

A person is saved when they place their faith in Christ, and they are then placed in Christ.

 

no. Example: The president elect isn't president until the inauguration.

Because sin must be paid for.

of course

Because God is just. The atonement has nothing to do with choices. It was required because the wages of sin sin death. God cannot just forgive sins with the atonement of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 9:22, "...without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

I would say when they hear the Word of Truth and believe:

(Eph 1:13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

There is but one condition that must be met to recieve the promise of God's free gift of grace and the necessity of truth in this matter should not be taken lightly. Some attempt to uphold a doctrine which strives to declare inability and predestination rather than acknolwedge the true volitional nature of God's creatures, which by Divine design and in truth of His influence in all the world, gives the genuine ability for a response of faith to come from one's own heart. The "true" judgment of God (Deut 32:4) is His way, and in righteousness and truth this loving promise has been genuinely offered to all.

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

 

Assuming you're talking about space and time since you used the "when" question, it's when one repentantly believes. As far as God, who is not bound by space and time, is concerned, it happened before the foundation of the world.

 

Okay, I read on another tread you were new to debate. So do you have an answer as to whether God pre-determined who would believe from creation (meaning picked some to believe and others to not...as in:
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, this one stays and that one has to go! ...couldn't resist. :smilewinkgrin
or if in His design He gave true volition to all His creatures? IMO, that would be the question.

 

God obviously gave man volition, beginning in the garden. But his purposes and the elect he knew before time began, because, well, he's the foreknowledgeable God. He elected those who believe to have eternal life. He knew "his own" trillions of "years" before there were even "years." We cannot think of timelessness, but God created the absence of timelessness. That's doggon' powerful!

 

I'm saying the word says;

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found (Found by whom, when?) naked. And we that are in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

The elect, those set apart by the Holy Spirit unto the above have the following assurance of same.

Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

The selfsame thing is that we like Jesus will be raised from the dead in an incorruptible house for the man (soul) just as the soul of Jesus was raised from the dead.

This passage doesn't begin at 2C5:1 it begins at least as early as verse 6 in chapter 4.

2C4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present with you. But what if the earthly house of the soul be dissolved/destroyed/perish. We (the soul) that is at home in the body (the earthly house) are absent from the Lord. To be present with the Lord you (the soul) must be in your house from heaven.

(For we walk by faith, not by sight. ) YLT for through faith we walk, not through sight --

2C4:13 says we have the same spirit of faith of someone that said.
I believed, and therefore have I spoken; From Psalms 116V10
It is the agony of Jesus going to the cross unto his death for deliverance.
Yet he had faith God would deliver him. You see the same thought in Heb 5:7,8.

 

I agree God knows all. I also believe He has no beginning, so even to say He elected trillions of years before years is to have a "when". Could it be time began with creation, and Christ the Man/also God existed within time? Could it be that Christ is the Mediator for God's creatures within time to allow for volition within time? You seem to be a thinker so I just thought I would throw this out there.

 

Yes, I think the only orthodox position is to say that God (all 3 persons) existed before time, which began at creation, and that God also interacts with his creation in the time that he created, while also being outside of it at the same time. The old commentators used John 3:13 to say that Jesus was on earth and in heaven at the same time, i.e., omnipresent.

 

Good, I agree, now I wonder what would you say the purpose is for Him to interact with His creatures within time, which I agree He does, and for His creatures to have volition within time? The reason I ask is because if God pre-determined before creation and time who would believe (be the elect) then wouldn't the conclusion to that reasoning be that He created (pre-determined) some to have no hope from before even time (no real volition within time), before they were created? (A doctrine to which I am adamantly opposed to) I do not believe both, the creature having a free will choice within time and having been determined what he will choose before time can both be true.

IOWs, In agreeing God interacts within time and is outside of time I would not agree that His creatures' will has been determined from before time (and creation) because that excludes real volition within time that began in the garden and thereby (without true volition) this logically excludes real (true) Divine judgment. (Deut 32:4).

Concerning free will within time VS determinism before time what do you think about the necessity of free will? I will put forth my argument for it:

Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

 

Don't know why this saying from Abe Lincoln in your signature has caught my imagination, but evidently he's making a serious point, and one to which you ascribe enough to include with every single comment you make. However, I think upon careful reflection it reveals itself as a flawed point, i.e. that things have an immutable eternal state that is somehow directly tied to the terminology we use to identify them.

I'm thinking actually that even a dog's tail could rightfully be considered as say, one tenth of a leg, so that a dog could be described as having 4.1 legs. A dog's tail is not some inconsequential wagging appendage. Even so, its status as an appendage makes it more of a leg than say, a non-appendage. But a mammal's tail is utilized as a stabilizing factor in complex movement, enabling a cheetah for example to maintain its balance in tight high speed maneuvers. And a tail is an appendage with fine gradations of control made possible by complex musculature. So let's see - an appendage used for maintaining stability and with complex musculature. Sounds sort of like a leg to me - not as much a leg as an actual leg, but certainly a leg to some extent. And of course, in New World monkeys the tail has somehow developed to the point where they use it as an actual fifth arm - to hang from trees and also much more involved in actual movement like an actual leg - a capability that for whatever reason no Old World (e.g. African or Asian) monkey possesses. So in the case of New World Monkeys, their tail is probably 4/10's or maybe even greater than half a leg. And something greater than half a leg considered in the context of only whole numbers has to be rounded up and called an actual leg.

And no one say this argument of mine doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

Don't know why this saying from Abe Lincoln in your signature has caught my imagination, but evidently he's making a serious point, and one to which you ascribe enough to include with every single comment you make. However, I think upon careful reflection it reveals itself as a flawed point, i.e. that things have an immutable eternal state that is somehow directly tied to the terminology we use to identify them.

I'm thinking actually that even a dog's tail could rightfully be considered as say, one tenth of a leg, so that a dog could be described as having 4.1 legs. A dog's tail is not some inconsequential wagging appendage. Even so, its status as an appendage makes it more of a leg than say, a non-appendage. But a mammal's tail is utilized as a stabilizing factor in complex movement, enabling a cheetah for example to maintain its balance in tight high speed maneuvers. And a tail is an appendage with fine gradations of control made possible by complex musculature. So let's see - an appendage used for maintaining stability and with complex musculature. Sounds sort of like a leg to me - not as much a leg as an actual leg, but certainly a leg to some extent. And of course, in New World monkeys the tail has somehow developed to the point where they use it as an actual fifth arm - to hang from trees and also much more involved in actual movement like an actual leg - a capability that for whatever reason no Old World (e.g. African or Asian) monkey possesses. So in the case of New World Monkeys, their tail is probably 4/10's or maybe even greater than half a leg. And something greater than half a leg considered in the context of only whole numbers has to be rounded up and called an actual leg.

And no one say this argument of mine doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

:laugh: Sorry 13, but you're not going to convince me that calling a dog's tail a leg makes it a leg by comparing a dog to a monkey. Seems you missed Abe's point. :laugh:

 

Benjamin, good points, and such are some of the reasons I am not a Calvinist!