What must I do to be saved

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
5,427
846
113
Before you can be delivered your sin must be atoned for by the blood of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
John 6:37-39, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me, and this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day. This was Jesus's act of atonement for us and everyone that he died for will not be lost, but live with him in heaven. If he died for all mankind, then all mankind will live with him in heaven,which we know that the scriptures will not support that. Romans 5:11, And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
9,169
5,554
113
So I don't misunderstand what you're saying, where did Jesus say they didn't have Him?

Jesus Christ has dozens of names and titles. The "Root of Jesse" is one of them.

Isaiah 11:10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.
Romans 15:
12 And again Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope.”

Just like "son of man", "Kingdom of Heaven" and many other names and titles, "Root" is one Jesus uses.

Next question.....
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
14,878
2,451
113
John 6:37-39, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me, and this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day. This was Jesus's act of atonement for us and everyone that he died for will not be lost, but live with him in heaven. If he died for all mankind, then all mankind will live with him in heaven,which we know that the scriptures will not support that. Romans 5:11, And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement.
Well that is far from an accurate understanding of salvation. John 3:18-21 Jesus says that there are some who will reject Gods offer of salvation by grace through faith and choose to spend eternity in the darkness of condemnation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
We (all mankind) are totally depraved because of the sin of Adam, and none of us are worthy of eternal life. I believe these people Paul is talking about, in Rom 1, not glorifying God, are children of God (that which is known of God ls manifest in them). 1 Cor 2:16 states that the natural man (not born again) can not know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. These children of God were disobedient and were believing in themselves, and their own works, as do most of Gods children in this day and time.(Rom 1:25) Romans chapter 1 reflects God chastening his disobedient children. (Heb 12:6-8). God does not chasten those that are not his children (Psalms 73:5, Neither are they PLAGUED, Greek interpretation DIVINELY PUNISHED, like other men).
The children of God are shown in Rom 1:16-17.

Romans 1:18 – 32 relates to those who are unbelievers, those who restrain the truth in unrighteousness.

These are not "disobedient children" who are being chastened by God. These are unbelievers who continuously reject God. As they walk further and further away from Him, God lets them go on to worse and worse behavior. They go from unthankful (Rom 1:21) to fools (Rom 1:22) to idolatrous (Rom 1:23) to uncleanness (Rom 1:24) to vile affections (Rom 1:26) to reprobate (Rom 1:28).
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
Like I said before you completely messed this one up.
Ralph … let it go. I did nothing that "completely messed this one up".



Ralph said:
The argument was suggested that the second type of soil did not represent a planting of the Father as evidenced by what was planted there being uprooted. I showed from the passage that it was not the evil one doing the sowing in the Parable. That's when you came in with your baseless, meaningless contention that Jesus did not say who planted the seed.
Since when is it "baseless" or "meaningless" to strenuously implore that you not add to Scripture? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself interpreted the parable. The Lord Jesus Christ did not identify the sower. You have agreed the sower was not identified.

Go back and read post #448.

I gave warning that to conflate the "faith without works is dead" passage with the "parable of the sower" passages is not proper rightly dividing of Scripture.

You agreed with my conclusion.
mailmandan indicated he found the information useful.

I do not believe it is beneficial to meld Matt 15:13 with the parable of the sower. Matt 15:13 relates to the traditions of men taught by scribes and pharisees.



Ralph said:
Do you think it was the evil one sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower? That's was the point you completely missed.
I did not completely miss the point.

I ignored the point as a foolish and unlearned question (2 Tim 2:23).
 

plaintalk

Senior Member
Jul 20, 2015
445
15
18
What must one do to be saved.

I believe God decides who will be saved and who won't.

There are many scriptures which support the view that we don't decide to believe in Christ, but faith in Christ is a gift that God gives only to His elect.

Most folks don't agree with the doctrine of predestination/election, because many other scriptures say things like you must obey and remain faithful to the end etc...

These two opposing views have been debated for centuries, so today we have the benefit of many good good books on the subject but have we arrived at a consensus in the Church.

I would love to see the Church unite and resolve this dividing issue. But I fear that it will continue to be an enigma for the Church. Why can't we let the Bible be the final authority and accept what it really says and unite in the truth.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world, not just the elect, of sin, righteousness and judgement. (john 16: 7- 11)
Those who are so convicted are drawn to Jesus, not irresistibly and invincibly, but by the loving kindness, hope, truth and invitation revealed in the gospel, to come to Him. (Jer. 31: 3)
What must one do to be saved.

I believe God decides who will be saved and who won't.

There are many scriptures which support the view that we don't decide to believe in Christ, but faith in Christ is a gift that God gives only to His elect.

Most folks don't agree with the doctrine of predestination/election, because many other scriptures say things like you must obey and remain faithful to the end etc...

These two opposing views have been debated for centuries, so today we have the benefit of many good good books on the subject but have we arrived at a consensus in the Church.

I would love to see the Church unite and resolve this dividing issue. But I fear that it will continue to be an enigma for the Church. Why can't we let the Bible be the final authority and accept what it really says and unite in the truth.
To: Mark Williams, #1
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world, not just the elect, of sin, righteousness and judgment, through the gospel, the word of truth. (John 16: 7- 11)
Those who are so convicted, are drawn to Jesus, not irresistibly and invincibly, but by the loving kindness of God, the hope, the truth and the invitation of our Lord to come to Him. (Jer. 31: 3)
“IF ANYONE WISHES TO COME AFTER ME, LET HIM DENY HIMSELF, AND TAKE UP HIS CROSS AND FOLLOW ME. (Matt 16: 24)
Please note this is to “anyone.”
Second, the coming is a choice on the part of man.
Third, the first requirement in coming after Jesus is to deny self, to surrender his life to the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Those who deny themselves are begotten by God, as His creation, to faith, hope, love, obedience, holiness, overcoming the world and not sinning. (1 John 2: 29; 3: 9; 4: 7; 5: 1, 4, 18; 1Peter 1: 3; John 1: 12, 13) Faith is a work of God (John 6: 29), and is received as a gift by grace, by our heart upon hearing the word of God. (Rom 10: 10, 17)
When we are called, God opens our hearts to respond accordingly. (Acts 16: 14)
At Pentecost those who believed were told to call upon the name of the Lord for forgiveness of sin by repentance and being baptized in the name of Christ. (Acts 2: 21, 37-39, 41; 22: 16)
These people and all that God calls to Himself were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate, renew, give a new heart and spirit and to seal them as children of God.
When Cornelius and his household received the gift of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized with the Spirit. (Acts 10: 44- 48; 11: 16; 1 Cor. 12: 13)
As they come forth from the one baptism, they are born of water and the Spirit; they are children of God. (John 3: 3, 5)
God bless.
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
Ralph … let it go. I did nothing that "completely messed this one up".




Since when is it "baseless" or "meaningless" to strenuously implore that you not add to Scripture? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself interpreted the parable. The Lord Jesus Christ did not identify the sower. You have agreed the sower was not identified.

Go back and read post #448.

I gave warning that to conflate the "faith without works is dead" passage with the "parable of the sower" passages is not proper rightly dividing of Scripture.

You agreed with my conclusion.
mailmandan indicated he found the information useful.


I do not believe it is beneficial to meld Matt 15:13 with the parable of the sower. Matt 15:13 relates to the traditions of men taught by scribes and pharisees.




I did not completely miss the point.

I ignored the point as a foolish and unlearned question (2 Tim 2:23).
Why didn't you answer my question?
Do you think it was the evil one sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower?
All you have to do is answer the question to not be confused about what me and mailman were talking about. So, come on. Just answer the question so you won't be off topic of what me and mailman were talking about.
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
Jesus Christ has dozens of names and titles. The "Root of Jesse" is one of them.

Isaiah 11:10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.
Romans 15:
12 And again Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope.”

Just like "son of man", "Kingdom of Heaven" and many other names and titles, "Root" is one Jesus uses.

Next question.....
Of all the metaphors in the Parable of the Sower, the seed metaphor is seed, the soil metaphor is soil, the sower metaphor is the sower, the sun metaphor is the sun, the plant metaphor are plants, the crop metaphor is the crop, the thorn metaphor are thorns, but when you get to the root you suddenly decide the root metaphor is not the root of a plant.

It's not right to do that just so the Parable supports your predetermined beliefs about 'once saved always saved'. Of course, you have to do that because if you let the root be the root of a plant, just as the soil is the soil, and the seed is a seed, the passage doesn't support 'once saved always saved'. You unreasonably make the root not a root in order to make it mean what you want it to mean. That's not right. That's not reasonable. The obvious and reasonable and consistent reading is that the root is the root of a plant.


And it's not right to let a less concise, more vague passage of scripture take precedence over more compelling and plain scripture that comes right out says that 'once saved always saved' is not true. We have more compelling and straightforward scriptures that talk plainly about forfeiting salvation, i.e. the letter to the Galatians. Yet you're letting the vague and less concise Parable of the Sower, interpreted to your liking, override the plain words about forfeiting salvation found in other passages.

If you got arrested for a crime and the jury chose more vague, less compelling evidence to convict you over more plain and straightforward evidence that exonerated you, you'd think that was wrong. But that is exactly what you are doing here. You're choosing to interpret a far less concise passage of scripture to condemn the argument against 'once saved always saved' and choosing to ignore the plain passages of scripture that prove the argument against 'once saved always saved'.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
9,169
5,554
113
Of all the metaphors in the Parable of the Sower, the seed metaphor is seed, the soil metaphor is soil, the sower metaphor is the sower, the sun metaphor is the sun, the plant metaphor are plants, the crop metaphor is the crop, the thorn metaphor are thorns, but when you get to the root you suddenly decide the root metaphor is not the root of a plant.

It's not right to do that just so the Parable supports your predetermined beliefs about 'once saved always saved'. Of course, you have to do that because if you let the root be the root of a plant, just as the soil is the soil, the passage doesn't support 'once saved always saved'. You unreasonably make the root not a root in order to make it mean what you want it to mean. That's not right. That's not reasonable.


And it's not right to let a less concise, more vague passage of scripture take precedence over more compelling and plain scripture that comes right out says that 'once saved always saved' is not true. We have more compelling and straightforward scriptures that talk plainly about forfeiting salvation, i.e. the letter to the Galatians. Yet you're letting the vague and less concise Parable of the Sower override the plain words about forfeiting salvation found in other passages.

If you got arrested for a crime and the jury chose more vague, less compelling evidence to convict you over more plain and straightforward evidence that exonerated you, you'd think that was wrong. But that is exactly what you are doing here. You're choosing to interpret a far less concise passage of scripture to condemn the argument against 'once saved always saved' and choosing to ignore the plain passages of scripture that prove the argument against 'once saved always saved'.

No matter how YOU slice and dice JESUS said he had NO Root. YOU changed the Word of God to say Jesus said He had no DEEP root. That was a lie Ralph, How do you justify lying about the Word of God?
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
No matter how YOU slice and dice JESUS said he had NO Root. YOU changed the Word of God to say Jesus said He had no DEEP root. That was a lie Ralph, How do you justify lying about the Word of God?
Jesus said they have no root in themselves. They are shallow, worldly people who are not well-rooted in themselves. Thus were trials come they are offended and ensnared by the world and fall away.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
Why didn't you answer my question?
Go check out 2 Timothy 2:23.



Ralph said:
All you have to do is answer the question to not be confused about what me and mailman were talking about.
I am not confused about what you and mailmandan were talking about.



Ralph said:
So, come on. Just answer the question so you won't be off topic of what me and mailman were talking about.
You are the one who initially brought up this foolishness in your post #447 submitted last Friday.

In post #451, mailmandan indicated he never said it was the devil's seed being sown in the parable of the soils.

In your post #472, you told me that if I "want to go on record that it could have been the devil who sowed the seed in the 4th type of soil, so be it".

In my post #488, I told you I never stated that, nor did I infer that.

You introduced the issue; no one is biting in your failed attempt to phish this non-issue; yet you won't let it go. What's up with that?
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
No matter how YOU slice and dice JESUS said he had NO Root. YOU changed the Word of God to say Jesus said He had no DEEP root. That was a lie Ralph, How do you justify lying about the Word of God?
Plants don't grow without roots. Jesus said the seed 'sprang up' in the 2nd type of soil. How does that happen with ZERO root? The root is there. It is not a deep root. How do we know? Because the plant withered easily when the heat of the sun shone on it. You're being very unreasonable to insist the plant that sprang up in the soil has ZERO root. It's there. It has to be, or the plant would not spring up.
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
Go check out 2 Timothy 2:23.




I am not confused about what you and mailmandan were talking about.




You are the one who initially brought up this foolishness in your post #447 submitted last Friday.

In post #451, mailmandan indicated he never said it was the devil's seed being sown in the parable of the soils.

In your post #472, you told me that if I "want to go on record that it could have been the devil who sowed the seed in the 4th type of soil, so be it".

In my post #488, I told you I never stated that, nor did I infer that.

You introduced the issue; no one is biting in your failed attempt to phish this non-issue; yet you won't let it go. What's up with that?
Just answer the question. Just answer the question.

It's obvious you can't because it will show how out of touch your meaningless contention has been.

The ball's in your court. Whatcha' gonna do? Continue to hammer your meaningless contention or answer the question?
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
9,169
5,554
113
Plants don't grow without roots. Jesus said the seed 'sprang up' in the 2nd type of soil. How does that happen with ZERO root? The root is there. It is not a deep root. How do we know? Because the plant withered easily when the heat of the sun shone on it. You're being very unreasonable to insist the plant that sprang up in the soil has ZERO root. It's there. It has to be, or the plant would not spring up.
Jesus said He had NO root. I choose to believe Jesus. I think you should too.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
Plants don't grow without roots. Jesus said the seed 'sprang up' in the 2nd type of soil. How does that happen with ZERO root? The root is there. It is not a deep root. How do we know? Because the plant withered easily when the heat of the sun shone on it. You're being very unreasonable to insist the plant that sprang up in the soil has ZERO root. It's there. It has to be, or the plant would not spring up.
I don't think they understand the concept of being rooted in one's self.
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
Jesus said He had NO root. I choose to believe Jesus. I think you should too.
Jesus is not a moron. He knew plants that are growing have to have roots.
I don't think you're a moron either. You know plants that are springing up HAVE to have roots and can not have no root at all.

We know he meant the plant had no firm/deep root because he said it withered away under the sun. Every weekend gardener knows a plant that is growing has to have roots, and that they have to be deep in the soil to keep from withering away easily.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
Just answer the question. Just answer the question.

It's obvious you can't because it will show how out of touch your meaningless contention has been.

The ball's in your court. Whatcha' gonna do? Continue to hammer your meaningless contention or answer the question?
You add to Scripture and when called out for your mishandling of the Word of God, you sweep your error under the carpet as "meaningless".

Very revealing, Ralph.

Maybe that's why you just can't let go of your failed phishing expedition. Your bait is old and moldy ... no one's biting
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
9,169
5,554
113
Jesus is not a moron. He knew plants that are growing have to have roots.
I don't think you're a moron either. You know plants that are springing up HAVE to have roots and can not have no root at all.

We know he meant the plant had no firm/deep root because he said it withered away under the sun. Every weekend gardener knows a plant that is growing has to have roots, and that they have to be deep in the soil to keep from withering away easily.
I believe Jesus says what He means ans means what He says. He said they had NO root. THAT was their problem. NOWHERE does it say no DEEP root. Please don't add to the Word of God. Thanks!
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
687
113
Jesus is not a moron. He knew plants that are growing have to have roots.
I don't think you're a moron either. You know plants that are springing up HAVE to have roots and can not have no root at all.

We know he meant the plant had no firm/deep root because he said it withered away under the sun. Every weekend gardener knows a plant that is growing has to have roots, and that they have to be deep in the soil to keep from withering away easily.
The plant can't get deeply rooted in #2 soils' heart because they're not rooted in themselves, ie, in their own hearts. Some people are just like that. They're not self-honest and don't deal with deep issues of the heart so that they can really know who they are. They live on the periphery of their lives; avoiding the hard work of knowing one's self; not deeply rooted in themselves.
 
R

Ralph-

Guest
I believe Jesus says what He means ans means what He says. He said they had NO root. THAT was their problem. NOWHERE does it say no DEEP root. Please don't add to the Word of God. Thanks!
Sorry, but the context doesn't allow you to interpret it that way.

You're taking away from the word of God by ignoring the context and what he said about the plant that is growing withering away.