Salvation - Part 2

[Arsenios]

So I wandered over to the Greek text, and found the two conditionals to be aorist participles,
followed by the future tense main verb...

So the import is this:

You SHALL be saved IF:
You have believed...
And have confessed...

That construction would seem to be addressed to one's end of life prospects...
A looking back on how one had lived one's life...

But even if it only applies to this ongoing life,
it predicates your Salvation by God...
upon your having believed and confessed...

I had expected the two conditionals to be in the present tense...
"If you are believing and confessing..."
It wasn't there...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It's the faithful part that I meant to emphasize. You know, works righteousness.

You want, when saying "And it is an IF...THEN conditional construction" to say that the person has to earn his salvation over a period of time by a life of works pleasing to God. That, however, is not inherent in the words you quoted.

Well, "faithful" means "to believe and confess", doesn't it?

I mean, it is YOU believing, not God, and YOU confessing, not God, yes?

So that believing and confessing are works done by you...

And if you have done them, the passage shows that you WILL be Saved...

There are other ways to be saved, I suppose one could argue - I sure would...

But the Wise Thief crucified for his crimes on Christ's Right Hand
He indeed but believed and confessed and was later saved, yes?

I mean, there was not a lot else he even COULD do, yes?


Arsenios

 

[Lamb]

IOW it takes both inward belief and outward confession of the Faith of Christ in order that one be saved...

I should think that this read is pretty much exegetical...

I would be happy to be shown I am in error...

I simply do not see a way to avoid it...

So infants cannot be saved since they don't speak yet... according to your doctrine that something outwardly must be proven to God before He will save someone?

 

[Albion]

Well, "faithful" means "to believe and confess", doesn't it?

No.

I mean, it is YOU believing, not God, and YOU confessing, not God, yes?

Yes.

So that believing and confessing are works done by you.

Neither is a 'work.'

And if you have done them, the passage shows that you WILL be Saved...

Only if saved means receiving your eternal reward. That, of course, awaits one's physical death.

But if saved means to be assured of or guaranteed one's salvation, as is the usual interpretation....

There are other ways to be saved, I suppose one could argue - I sure would...

But the Wise Thief crucified for his crimes on Christ's Right Hand
He indeed but believed and confessed and was later saved, yes?

He was told of his destiny IMMEDIATELY. But the verse is not about the Good Thief. It speaks to mankind in general. If it were addressing the Thief, we would also have to discount all the verses that speak of the importance of Baptism since, obviously, the Thief was not baptized either.

So the import is this:

You SHALL be saved IF:
You have believed...
And have confessed...

That construction would seem to be addressed to one's end of life prospects...

IMO, it does not mean that at all. I would put it this way--would seem to be addressed to one's end of life. No "prospects"; the outcome is already set. At least according to that verse.





.

 

[Arsenios]

So infants cannot be saved since they don't speak yet...
according to your doctrine that something outwardly must be proven to God
before He will save someone?

Nothing in the passage indicates that this is the only way one can be Saved...

But IF you have believed and confessed, you SHALL be Saved by God...

Adam turned from God and died...

We must turn BACK to God that we should Live...

Those who do so will find Life...

For God is Faithful...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Nothing in the passage indicates that this is the only way one can be Saved...

But IF you have believed and confessed, you SHALL be Saved by God...

Adam turned from God and died...

What is the point there?? Adam is considered to be saint in your church, is he not? And his offense was a sin, not some sort of apostasy.

 

[Arsenios]

No.

Are people who neither believe nor confess faithful?

Yes.

So are there actions which a man takes that are not that man's works?

Neither is a 'work.'

Preaching is confessing the Faith to others... So would you say that confession is sometimes a work?

Only if saved means receiving your eternal reward. That, of course, awaits one's physical death.

Well, this is probably where we see it differently... To be Saved means to be Saved from death by God Giving to us His Life...

But if saved means to be assured of or guaranteed one's salvation, as is the usual interpretation....

That is not historically "usual"... It was not a part of any confession for the first one thousand five hundred years of the History of the Holy Spirit acting in the Body of Christ...

He was told of his destiny IMMEDIATELY. But the verse is not about the Good Thief. It speaks to mankind in general. If it were addressing the Thief, we would also have to discount all the verses that speak of the importance of Baptism since, obviously, the Thief was not baptized either.

He was Baptized by his own blood on the cross believing and confessing Christ, having rebuked his fellow thief...

Many Martyrs were never baptized...

But FIRST he believed and confessed...
THEN he was told his FUTURE...
THEN his legs were broken...
THEN he died on the cross...
THEN He saw Christ in Paradise...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What is the point there?? Adam is considered to be saint in your church, is he not? And his offense was a sin, not some sort of apostasy.

We do not have a day of Commemoration for Adam that I know of - I can check...
And to sin IS INDEED to turn away from God...
Remember that verse?
"Anything not of God is sin."

It was THAT verse that utterly convicted me...

Because I did not think I was doing all that much wrong...

And I was SO wrong!


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

We do not have a day of Commemoration for Adam that I know of - I can check...
And to sin IS INDEED to turn away from God...

It is to defy God, but not to abandon one's faith...which is what might compromise one's salvation. We all sin, you know, so if your point were pressed to its logical conclusion, no one could be saved.

 

[Lamb]

Nothing in the passage indicates that this is the only way one can be Saved...

But IF you have believed and confessed, you SHALL be Saved by God...

Adam turned from God and died...

We must turn BACK to God that we should Live...

Those who do so will find Life...

For God is Faithful...


Arsenios

It's how your wording came across though that you insisted this was THE WAY to salvation. Meaning the only way to those reading it.

 

[Josiah]

Remember that verse?
"Anything not of God is sin."

It was THAT verse that utterly convicted me...

Interesting... and yet your whole premise, your entire concept of justification, is that the fallen, dead, atheistic enemy of God who has not yet received spiritual life, not yet recieved the Holy Spirit - such DOES perfect, sinless, saving things - naming his will and his works (in spite of Scripture saying the exact opposite, that it is NOT a matter of fallen man's will and deeds). I'm trying to get a handle on this: You claim that without God, anything not of God - is sin (and I take it thus bad). And yet your whole theology on this point depends - entirely - on the will and works of the fallen man BEFORE God does anything in or for him (the fallen man MUST will and work FIRST so as to permit God to begin His work in him). Curious. This is no doubt part of why it SO upsets you when any Protestant says "Jesus is the Savior, Jesus saves" and yet you say you agree and yet you protest that its wrong and yet you say you agree but you go on and on and on and on about how passionately you disagree. I continue to wonder: Maybe you haven't decide - does it begin with the heart of God (Sola Gratia), the saving incarnation and life and death and resurrection of Christ (Solus Christus) and the GIFT of life and faith (Sola Fide, "... Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life...) OR does it begin with the one who is not of God willing and working - and God rewarding those with the earned payment?




.

 

[MennoSota]

So infants cannot be saved since they don't speak yet... according to your doctrine that something outwardly must be proven to God before He will save someone?

That's what the water sprinkle is for. Splash and save. Located at a Lutheran Church near you...

 

[Albion]

Which one would that be, Menno?

Because although it delights Fundamentalists and Puritans to say the word "sprinkle," relatively few churches actually use sprinkling as their usual mode of Baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Which one would that be, Menno?

Because although it delights Fundamentalists and Puritans to say the word "sprinkle," relatively few churches actually use sprinkling as their usual mode of Baptism.

Well...since I live in Lutheran purgatory... that's the Concordia Lutheran Church a block and a half down...

 

[Albion]

So that church baptizes by sprinkling, you are saying?

 

[Arsenios]

This is no doubt part of why it SO upsets you when any Protestant says "Jesus is the Savior, Jesus saves"

Josiah -

You are mind-reading again...

I have asked you not to do so...

Will you please stop attributing motives to me that are your presumptions?

Your remark is pure slander...

Please cease this slander...

Please acknowledge this post and either agree or not to cease slandering my motives...

Thank-you...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which one would that be, Menno?

Because although it delights Fundamentalists and Puritans to say the word "sprinkle," relatively few churches actually use sprinkling as their usual mode of Baptism.

The only sprinkling I've ever seen in a church is when the pastor sprinkles the congregation at Easter time during the Easter Vigil mass but that isn't baptism.

 

[Josiah]

Arsenios-

True, I cannot know how you feel or what motivates you (and should not theorize). Sorry.

But this IS obvious: Some Protestant posts "Jesus is the Savior" or "Jesus saves" - and the response from you is NOT: "I agree" or "That's right" and then the discussion ends because we simply have full agreement (the thread lasting 2 or 3 posts). NOR is it ever a case of "That's absolutely right - but remember what Luther and Calvin so much stressed, immediately we are called to MANY things and those are not optional!" Because then the whole thread would end, too - because everyone would thus fully agree. And yet..... my full unseparated brother..... these threads go on and on and on and on and on.... for hundreds of posts.... sometimes for hundreds of pages of posts.... often quite passionate.... the Protestants reposting "Jesus is the Savior" and "Jesus saves" and a few non-Protestants being very passionate in arguing that, debating that. Friend, it's OBVIOUS and it's UNDENIABLE. And it's been true at CH since it started. And it's true at every other Christian discussion forum I know of. Hum. Think about that.

Remember that verse? "Anything not of God is sin."

Interesting... and yet your whole premise, your entire concept of justification, is that the fallen, dead, atheistic enemy of God who has not yet received spiritual life, not yet recieved the Holy Spirit - such DOES perfect, sinless, saving things - namely his will and his works (in spite of Scripture saying the exact opposite, that it is NOT a matter of fallen man's will and deeds).

I'm trying to get a handle on this: You claim that without God, anything not of God - is sin (and I take it thus bad). And yet your whole theology on this point depends - entirely - on the will and works of the fallen man BEFORE God does anything in or for him (the fallen man MUST will and work FIRST so as to permit God to begin His work in him). Curious. This is probably part of why when any Protestant says "Jesus is the Savior, Jesus saves" and yet you say you agree and yet you protest that its wrong and yet you say you agree but you go on and on and on and on about how passionately you disagree. I continue to wonder: Maybe you haven't decide - does it begin with the heart of God (Sola Gratia), the saving incarnation and life and death and resurrection of Christ (Solus Christus) and the GIFT of life and faith (Sola Fide, "... Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life...) OR does it begin with the one who is not of God willing and working - and God rewarding those with the earned payment?


.

.

 

[MennoSota]

The only sprinkling I've ever seen in a church is when the pastor sprinkles the congregation at Easter time during the Easter Vigil mass but that isn't baptism.

So you immerse babies?

 

[Albion]

I think we've got the point by now that you literally don't know what you're talking about. Maybe then, we should return to the subject of salvation.