a saving faith?

Mitchell

In your opinion and or in your understating of the Biblical text:
(1) How much does one need to believe, accept, and or know to be saved?

(2) Are there any beliefs that discredit one from being saved? For example, if one believes in the quote-unquote wrong eschatology or holds to the wrong soteriology does that disqualify them as a Christian?

(3)Will God send someone to hell for not believing the Calvinistic soteriology or for believing in the Calvinistic soteriology? Does it matter? and if so why?

Dave_L

Salvation is by grace. You must be saved before you can believe. The reason is, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which you must have before faith comes into existence.

Truth finds a way. We often begin in darkness but eventually find and embrace the truth along the way.

I think there might be more Calvinists in hell than not. Because it is all logic that happens to find closeness to scripture in some points. But it also promotes serious errors for the most part.

reformed

@Dave_L said:
Salvation is by grace. You must be saved before you can believe. The reason is, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which you must have before faith comes into existence.

Truth finds a way. We often begin in darkness but eventually find and embrace the truth along the way.

I think there might be more Calvinists in hell than not. Because it is all logic that happens to find closeness to scripture in some points. But it also promotes serious errors for the most part.

Why do you say there might be more Calvinists in Hell than not when in the same post you put forth the Calvinist position? I'm confused.

Dave_L

@reformed said:

Why do you say there might be more Calvinists in Hell than not when in the same post you put forth the Calvinist position? I'm confused.

I think the biblical position and the ice cold logic of Calvinism come together at points. But I think Calvinism makes knowing some truth apart from knowing Christ possible. This would speak for the thousands whom the Calvinists murdered in the 16th century.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
You must be saved before you can believe. The reason is, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which you must have before faith comes into existence.

Hmn ... perhaps this idea is based on the following rendition of Rom 10:9-10?

Rom 10,9-10
That if thou are saved thou can confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and can believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.
For righteousness is given to man so he can believe in his heart, and salvation is given to man so he can confess with the mouth

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
You must be saved before you can believe. The reason is, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which you must have before faith comes into existence.

Hmn ... perhaps this idea is based on the following rendition of Rom 10:9-10?

Rom 10,9-10
That if thou are saved thou can confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and can believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.
For righteousness is given to man so he can believe in his heart, and salvation is given to man so he can confess with the mouth

We can view this passage two ways. Legalistically, if you do this or that, God will save you. This is salvation by self-righteousness. Or, if you do this or that, it means God saved you, or you would not be doing it. This is salvation by grace for those who cannot save themselves.

GaoLu

Dave your part too is as ungrammatically correct as Wolfgang's anti-trinitarian arguments. The first is equally incorrect. Maybe just read it for what it says and stop adding your theological trash pile on top of it. (My trash pile is unwieldy enough but at least I know I have one)

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

Rom 10,9-10
That if thou are saved thou can confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and can believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.
For righteousness is given to man so he can believe in his heart, and salvation is given to man so he can confess with the mouth

We can view this passage two ways. Legalistically, if you do this or that, God will save you. This is salvation by self-righteousness. Or, if you do this or that, it means God saved you, or you would not be doing it. This is salvation by grace for those who cannot save themselves.

So which version of Rom 10:9-10 is correct? the one I gave above, or perhaps other versions found in many English Bibles?

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

Rom 10,9-10
That if thou are saved thou can confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and can believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.
For righteousness is given to man so he can believe in his heart, and salvation is given to man so he can confess with the mouth

We can view this passage two ways. Legalistically, if you do this or that, God will save you. This is salvation by self-righteousness. Or, if you do this or that, it means God saved you, or you would not be doing it. This is salvation by grace for those who cannot save themselves.

So which version of Rom 10:9-10 is correct? the one I gave above, or perhaps other versions found in many English Bibles?

Your translation says the same.

Rom 10,9-10 That if thou are saved thou can confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and can believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.
For righteousness is given to man so he can believe in his heart, and salvation is given to man so he can confess with the mouth

People do these things because they are saved, not in order to get saved.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:
So which version of Rom 10:9-10 is correct? the one I gave above, or perhaps other versions found in many English Bibles?

Your translation says the same.

??? Did you not realize that my "translation" was a false translation made on purpose to reflect how the passage should read IF YOUR IDEA was correct ???

The simple and plain truth is this: Rom 10:9-10 clearly shows that your idea of "salvation first and then believing is possible" is false.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:
So which version of Rom 10:9-10 is correct? the one I gave above, or perhaps other versions found in many English Bibles?

Your translation says the same.

??? Did you not realize that my "translation" was a false translation made on purpose to reflect how the passage should read IF YOUR IDEA was correct ???

The simple and plain truth is this: Rom 10:9-10 clearly shows that your idea of "salvation first and then believing is possible" is false.

That's OK. It tells me you can understand the truth when you hear it. But think of it this way, if you save yourself by thinking or doing certain things, then salvation is for the self-righteousness (Pelaginaism).

If, on the other hand you believe the gospel when you hear it, no decision is necessary. If you must decide to believe, it is because you don't believe.

GaoLu

https://babylonbee.com/news/arminian-contractor-builds-bridge-halfway-across-river/

C Mc

Mitch,

When one looks at the Rom 10:9-10, great truth and balance for all to understand salvation. In John 12:42-43 (RSV), raise the concern, is it possible to be a secret disciple? It is a contradiction in terms. Yet, Nicodemus came to Jesus by night (JN 3:2) and then after Christ's death, Nicodemus openly confessed his faith in Christ. Other Pharisees did the same. Genuine Christianity combines both an inward religious experience and its outward expressions.

Rom. 10:11 is also cited in Rom. 10:33 with a small addition. That is "no one" in reference to not being put to shame. All who have faith will see God's salvation. This is through faith. Similiar to the fact that there's no difference in sin between the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 2:22). Paul re-enforced the major theme of Romans chapters 9-11, simply God has chosen to have mercy on all.

Salvation comes to everyone through faith, "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16 RSV). Both groups would receive tribulation and distress for doing evil (Rom. 2:9). In verse 10, both groups will share in glory and honor and peace if they did good, "for God shows no partiality" (Verse 11 RSV). In Romans -- all men are under the power of sin (Rom. 3:9 RSV). What says ye? CM

GaoLu

So...universalism?

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
So...universalism?

Do you think so? Why? CM

GaoLu

What you described to Brian seems to be universalism. I wasn't aware you believed that.

reformed

@GaoLu said:
What you described to Brian seems to be universalism. I wasn't aware you believed that.

I think others here are universalists too...

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
What you described to Brian seems to be universalism. I wasn't aware you believed that.

What are the basic tenets or characteristics of a universalist? CM

GaoLu

You just listed them above. That was a really odd question.

C Mc

@GaoLu said: What you described to Brian seems to be universalism. I wasn't aware you believed that.
@GaoLu said: You just listed them above. That was a really odd question.

GaoLu,

I wanted to be sure I understood you before responding. Also, to see if you had a more concise explanation of what I presented initially. Below, I want to clarify what I said above for the benefit of all, on what you perceived as a believer in "Universalism".

Universalism is the belief that all men and women will eventually be saved whether they believe in Christ now or not. It is contrary to the free will given to beings created in the image of God (Gen 1:27) because forced freedom to love God is not true love. So, Universalism— the theory that all things work together for good and thus everyone will ultimately be saved is not meant above.

In the study of soteriology, we can distinguish three theories regarding man's response to God's redemptive activity:

1. Universalism — the theory that all things work together for good and thus everyone will ultimately be saved.
2. Predestination — the theory that God decrees who will ultimately be saved through the free exercise of His sovereignty via irresistible grace.
3. Free will — the theory that God, in His sovereignty, has limited Himself by allowing a man to a have free moral choice, i.e., the ability to refuse the grace of God. I cannot conceive how could ONE holds all three theories and still be doctrinally and Biblically consistent.

A number of biblical texts have been used to support the claim of Universalists (e.g., Ps 110:1; Matt 22:44; Acts 3:21; Rom 5:18-19; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 1:10; Phil 2:10-11; 1 Cor 15:25-28). Also, John 12:32; 1 Cor 15:22; 1 John 2:2. Let's not read twenty-first century philosophic into first century Christian Writings. we must not make Paul's words fit into a modern definition.

I believe in the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ. I believe that all who are not ‘in Christ’ are lost. This is what the Scriptures say”. I repeat universalism or apokatastasis, which imply in one way or another that persons would be saved without their own desire and willing cooperation is not what the Bible teaches.

Besides, Universalism is also contrary to God’s perfection and justice because God’s holiness cannot tolerate sin; universalism denies the biblical truth that God will punish sinners.

I hope this sets the record straight going forward. CM

SOURCES:

• --B. Kato, Kato, B.H. (1975). Theological Pitfalls in Africa. Kisumu, Kenya: Evangel Publishing House: 14-16.
• -- Ioannis Kalogirou, The Orthodox Teaching Concerning "Synergy" in Man's Justification and Its Treatment by the Heterodox (Thessalonike: n.p., 1953).
• -- Norman L. Geisler, “Universalism,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1999), 748-751.

GaoLu

That is helpful in going forward. Thanks. You have been clear and well-articulated your position and I agree.

C Mc

.