Doubting Salvation? What's Your Belief?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
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.
GWH said:
I submit that you ignore what GW says on the matter that I quoted,
so please state your reason for disagreeing with each verse one at a time.
@Mreal402: That is a rather arrogant position on your part - we don't even know each other.
GWH - Sorry, but I merely mirrored your language.
Mr: It seems we have a large gulf between us as relates to salvation being permanent or conditional - and while it is a very important doctrine... I believe I have tons to learn and in no way believe I know it all or have a full knowledge and wisdom as a believer. That being said, I will never surrender my position that I am saved and KEPT by God's grace alone - as regards to my salvation. If that stance causes you to believe I ignore God's word I'm ok with that.
GWH - Quote me saying that you are not saved.
Now quote GW refuting the commands for perseverance that I cited.
Until you do so, it must be assumed that you ignore those parts of GW,
which is NOT okay, is it?
[Note: As a Baptist I ignored those until I didn't after reading them myself when I was motivated to read the entire Bible--
several times.]
I submit that you ignore what GW says on the matter that I quoted,
so please state your reason for disagreeing with each verse one at a time.
@Mreal402: That is a rather arrogant position on your part - we don't even know each other.
GWH - Sorry, but I merely mirrored your language.
Mr: It seems we have a large gulf between us as relates to salvation being permanent or conditional - and while it is a very important doctrine... I believe I have tons to learn and in no way believe I know it all or have a full knowledge and wisdom as a believer. That being said, I will never surrender my position that I am saved and KEPT by God's grace alone - as regards to my salvation. If that stance causes you to believe I ignore God's word I'm ok with that.
GWH - Quote me saying that you are not saved.
Now quote GW refuting the commands for perseverance that I cited.
Until you do so, it must be assumed that you ignore those parts of GW,
which is NOT okay, is it?
[Note: As a Baptist I ignored those until I didn't after reading them myself when I was motivated to read the entire Bible--
several times.]
To be more consistent with scriptures, we have this concerning security in salvation:
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
The accursed out there who believe and teach they are saved and/or retain their salvation by their works, they fail miserably to consider the "earnest" of our salvation given in our hearts. That Paul was inspired to use an economic term such as that, he was instrumental in the Lord's expression of the fact that withdrawing salvation from a saved individual would be akin to Him forfeiting His own Spirit, and the belief they have in that direction clearly demonstrates their accursedness and distance from the Lord and His truth.
The accursed, however, will try to cut your legs out from under you with the claim that salvation at the level of that permanence leads loose living Christians who then indulge in all manner of pleasurable sins, and yet they fail to admit that even they are still sinning on a daily basis. When asked where that imaginary line for loss of salvation rests, I have yet to hear from any one of them a definition for that line...what sins are on one side and what sins on the other that allegedly trigger the loss of salvation they believe exists.
John 10:27-29
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
The English translators added the "man" (indicated by italicization) as to who or what cannot pluck even one from His Hands. That's misleading. No man could ever take another from the Hands of the Lord for none of us has that power, so that verse must be referring to the fact that there is noTHING (no power) that can take any one of us from His Hands. That also calls into question the idea that the seal of Holy Spirit upon us could be broken. No verse anywhere throughout scripture even hints at that as a possibility, but the accursed who think they're saved by their works and/or that they retain their salvation by their works, they're in for a very rude awakening if they don't place their faith in what Paul defined as our gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Amen.
Not even water baptism was commanded by Paul. If water baptism were an element of our lives in Christ, even at the level of obedience, then Paul would not have said this:
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
If baptism were a matter of obedience, then Paul was in error, and I have no reason to believe he was in error, as some out there seem to have adopted into their belief system. Someone close to me, years ago, claimed Paul was a "woman hater." She has since distanced herself from that belief even though she's still a card-carrying man-hater and femenist to boot.
MM
Paul's epistles tended to deal with issues in whatever church he was writing to. He does mention baptism is passing one time, with the observation that with the exception of a few specific individuals he did not baptize anyone. But if water baptism was not an issue, he would not say much about it.
So, are you saying he didn't say much of a more expansive broadness in scope? For example, when he stated that we are saved by faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection on the third day, is it your contention that such has no real application universally apart from some local situation? I realize you stated "tended to deal," but of what value is that to this discussion when we take in the panorama of what he taught, such as Paul being THE apostle to the Gentiles and the body of Christ in general while the twelve remained the apostles to Israel?
Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
This clearly denotes that Paul's gospel is not one and the same as that of the twelve, otherwise this would read "...the gospel of the circumcision and the uncircumcision..." See the difference? That they are broken apart in the grammar as they are, that would be like saying that circumcision and uncircumcision are one and the same, like being pregnant and NOT being pregnant.
That so many out there are so willing to buck the clarity of the language is a staggering denial of the Bible for what it says, and thus adopting their subjective beliefs in direct contrast.
Just seeking some clarity for what you're saying.
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
It's safe to say that had water baptism been a foundational element for salvation, Paul was sent for an inferior and contradictory ministry, which I do not believe to be the case. What are your thoughts?
MM
Folks, it's important to note what Paul said:
Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Thinking about this, Paul was persecuting the believing Jews, before his conversion, on the basis of what he had received from man...in that he knew what the twelve were preaching to Israel, and was thus persecuting the believing Jews, not Gentiles, on that basis. Keep that in mind: Paul persecuted the believing Jews because of what the twelve were preaching, which was the Kingdom Gospel. To Paul at that time, it was heretical.
Now, read the verses quoted above, and read them carefully for what he said. The gospel Paul preached to Gentiles was NOT the gospel preached by the twelve, which is what was taught to them by Christ. Paul, however, was taught something with enough difference that he said it was something he had NOT received from any man, but only from Christ.
What was that main distinction? This gives us a great clue:
Acts 21:21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
The twelve were not doing this, but Paul did teach this because of what Christ Jesus Himself had revealed to him. The twelve were still teaching adherence to the Law of Moses and circumcision. If that were not the case, then the believing Jews in Jerusalem, by that time, would not have still been zealous of the Law, and Paul would have defended himself against that accusation, but he did not offer one word of rebuttal.
MM
Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Thinking about this, Paul was persecuting the believing Jews, before his conversion, on the basis of what he had received from man...in that he knew what the twelve were preaching to Israel, and was thus persecuting the believing Jews, not Gentiles, on that basis. Keep that in mind: Paul persecuted the believing Jews because of what the twelve were preaching, which was the Kingdom Gospel. To Paul at that time, it was heretical.
Now, read the verses quoted above, and read them carefully for what he said. The gospel Paul preached to Gentiles was NOT the gospel preached by the twelve, which is what was taught to them by Christ. Paul, however, was taught something with enough difference that he said it was something he had NOT received from any man, but only from Christ.
What was that main distinction? This gives us a great clue:
Acts 21:21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
The twelve were not doing this, but Paul did teach this because of what Christ Jesus Himself had revealed to him. The twelve were still teaching adherence to the Law of Moses and circumcision. If that were not the case, then the believing Jews in Jerusalem, by that time, would not have still been zealous of the Law, and Paul would have defended himself against that accusation, but he did not offer one word of rebuttal.
MM
You are picking relatively few verses to argue from. This would go along with these not being main points which make up the majority of Paul's letters, main points being the tendency. Paul does say that he was not sent to baptize, but he also claims to have baptized. A salesman's job is not to load up a customer's purchase, but he might well do that on occasion. The specific task that one is given to do does not say much about the overall services that are being provided by the employer, merely what that specific employee is to do. That Paul did not have a baptism ministry says nothing about the importance of baptism in the early church, merely where Paul's ministry lay.
I agree with you that Paul did indeed address some issues within the various churches under his ministry. Now, when you speak to an alleged picking of a few verses, are you saying that Paul made contradictory statements on some basis? Please clarify, because proportions stacked against clear and concise statements made, I'm no seeing how that bolsters what you appear to be saying.
When Paul stated, with emphatic finality, that they/we are saved by grace through faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection on the third day, with no mention for a REQUIREMENT (CAPS for emphasis only) to be water baptized as any kind of supplement to salvation or its retention, nor it being a matter of obedience to any command not spoken by Paul in any verse, is it your thinking, then, what what Paul DID, only in the beginning stages of his missionary journeys, is some sort of silent command the should be understood as a command not spoken?
Can we agree that had water baptism actually been a central item for salvation for us today or toward some sort of command to which obedience was expected for water baptism, it would have been stated as such without anyone having to point to what Paul and others did by way of actions, the basis of which we are not told? Actions don't necessarily stand in the place of command.
We must rightly divide the word of truth. If we don't do that, then we create serious problems when handling scripture.
MM
I would argue that we do not know much of what Paul taught. Paul had to get his version of the gospel approved, yet according to Acts, that gentiles were to be accepted as full equals was established well before Paul sought to get his gospel message approved. So, what was so special that Paul needed approval? We simply do not know. What other parts of Paul's message do we not know? Well, we simply do not know. That Paul does not clearly spell out something in a way that we can understand today does not mean he did not address it, it merely means that we do not know if or how he did. To assert that he did not address it or that it was not important is an argument from silence and thus the claim that he did address it, and it was important is just as valid an argument. But those who hold that it was not important do not like to admit that flaw in their argument.
That wasn't the issue. It was whether Gentiles should keep the Law, specifically circumcision.
Acts 15:1-2
1Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Paul asserted what the Gospel was very clearly so that is not in doubt and as the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
1 Corinthians 15:2-4
2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Actually, the issue of the gentiles keeping the law is addressed in the Cairo Document from the DSS, dated to the mid 1st century BCE. Or are you claiming that the early Christian church had to decide to agree with the Jews on that, already established under Jewish law, point?
Please quote where that was stated as such. Where does it say Paul HAD to get the approval of the twelve? This is fascinating.
Then what's the basis for making such a bold claim if there's no stated basis nor even the command to do so. Are you arguing from silence?
Please clarify this. It makes no sense that I can glean. Maybe I'm just too dense.
Or, the belief that Paul was on the side of some requirement for water baptism, all without substantive, explicit command. Allusions from our imaginations or assumptions don't serve as an absolute basis for any doctrine.
So, if I may, given that Paul wrote the vast majority of the NT, how are his writings, all of which were inspired by God Himself and therefore complete and scripture, how is any of it lacking, partial or anything else that I recall that you stated about his epistles? If I misunderstood your meaning, please clarify. Thanks.
MM
Have you ever read Galatians 2:2-7 where Paul states that he wished to make certain that the gospel he preached to the gentiles was acceptable? He does not reference the 12, nor did I, you merely chose to add that in on your own.
As for the requirements for water baptism, scripture does not make a clear statement one way or the other, so any argument from just scripture is an argument from silence. But when one adds in support from other ancient practices that have been recorded, there is support. Thus, my argument for water baptism does have support, while any argument against it is purely from silence.
You really should put forth the effort to learn what the ancient records have to tell us about how things were cone in the 1sst century and what was common knowledge at that time. Much of that knowledge has been lost by the vast majority oof modern day Christians and thus seems incorrect, when in fact it is modern day Christianity that is in error.
I'm glad you said that.
Not entirely. Peter commanded water baptism in Acts 2 for the remission of sins, although he was speaking only to Israel, not to the Gentile world of men.
Not at all:
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The work of water baptism, then, was set aside by the gospel preached by Paul that he received of no man, but only from Christ Jesus, just as he said. Argument from silence? Not at all.
I have quoted to you the antithesis to your failure to rightly divide the word of truth, so your charge is meaningless.
MM
Although there are those that teach that there's an implication of a possibility of the loss of salvation in the call to persevere, the direction is implicitly geared toward the possibility of perseverance being inherent in the call for it. Scripture is not telling us, "be careful you don't lose it' but rather, "(always) be rest assured whenever you so much as even think you've lost it."
I agree that genuine faith produces a changed life and a desire to follow Christ — that’s the biblical evidence of true salvation (James 2, 1 John 2-3).
On John 10:27-29: Jesus is emphasizing the security of His sheep. The text says they “hear My voice… follow Me… I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one is able to snatch them out of My hand” (or the Father’s hand). The promise is strong: true sheep don’t ultimately walk away because the Good Shepherd keeps them. Warnings in Scripture are real and serve as means God uses to preserve His people.
Salvation is by grace through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9, 1 Cor 15:1-4), not works — but true saving faith always perseveres. Those who fall away were never truly “of us” (1 John 2:19).
No idea what you are on about. I showed you the verse that stated the reason Paul and co. went to Jerusalem. They went to clarify the issue of circumcision not whether they were allowed to "be accepted as equals" as you stated.
Acts 15:1-2
1Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
ie. did the Gentiles need to be circumcised.