Just some random thoughts I was having:
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Its commonly understood if you believe in Christ you will be saved. All we have to do is believe Christ and salvation will be ours.
Of course the corollary is: if you don't believe in Christ, you will not be saved. But that is showing our previous traditions and biases.
There are 2 other ways I would suggest we could look at this:
1. if you don't believe in Christ, you will still be saved (you just don't know it yet). Effectively saying: just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it won't happen.
2. if you don't believe in Christ, you won't be saved until you do believe in Christ.
Probably #2 is the better explanation, but I thought #1 was an interesting idea. Of course everyone will believe when they are bowing and confessing His name...
2] Fully agreed.
1] Disagree with the first part and agree with the second part because that's similar to 1
I wonder how the requirement to believe for those that are mentally unable to.
Mentally handicapped or (very) young children.
The Scriptures say that those that believe are saved and those that don't are condemned. Walking in condemnation up to and including anything that that can bring one's way from within, and also the shame of definitive proof in this life or in succeeding ages, and you just wouldn't believe when you were first told doesn't keep you from being saved. That's an assumption based upon ZERO Scriptures. Or something cheesy like from Ecclesiastes that where the tree falls, there will it lie. And yet, a master craftsman usually only does very much with a tree after it's fallen. It would mean nothing beyond the tree having been able to take zero glory for the intervention to make it for either common or noble useage. Infinity of sin IS mentioned in Job, but it's in the sense of a great multitude as the word would be understood in Josephus and in other writings, rather than in the sense of having an attribute of God that grace can't overcome.
I believe that righteousness is spoken of in Psalm 16 as not extending to God. So, if righteousness isn't infinite in the absolute sense, then how can sin, the act of a worm, be styled infinite by the theologians without doing great violence to the Scriptures? And even if sin were infinite in the proper sense, isn't the Blood of Christ more infinite? Is His Sovereign completion at the Sovereign Cross to have ZERO Sovereign effect in the lives of countless people whether they have any degree of sovereignty or not?? A good Calvinist's trinitarian argument alone can be turned as a tool against ET to refute it to a Calvinist's mind if they'll but reexamine their belief in the trinity and fully embrace that the applied and heralded Blood must likewise be considered Sovereign in it's cries of better things to come upon mankind (i.e. upon all It's enemies) than Abel's blood has spoken.
Wow you'r making my head hurt. This is almost beginning to sound like math. :laughing7:
All of mankind is "saved". Not all of mankind is part of the "ekklesia", or those who are called out here and now. Those who do not believe at this time do not have access to the kingdom benefits and are indeed walking through this life in condemnation.
Put it this way: if I go and pay off your mortgage, you can deny it all you want to, continue to make unnecessary payments, and generally behave as if nothing happened. But, it doesn't change the reality of the debt being paid.
The same goes for salvation. The price is paid; some receive it now, some aren't sure, and some behave as if it never happened. None of that changes the effective work of the cross.
Quote from: j. on April 25, 2009, 07:37:10 AM
Put it this way: if I go and pay off your mortgage, you can deny it all you want to, continue to make unnecessary payments, and generally behave as if nothing happened. But, it doesn't change the reality of the debt being paid.
:thumbsup:
I think that's the point I was trying to make!
[Rom 10:9] That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Christians make themselves shallow by construing the truth statement shallow.
Let us think.
"Sugar is sweet."
That is a true statement.
However, if someone who did not taste the sugar says
"sugar is sweet" by education, then that statement of his is a lie.
If he tastes sugar and says "sugar is sweet",
then it would be a true statement.
Peter confessed, "Jesus is the Saviour and the Lord" when he was with Jesus at Caesarea Philippi,
and after that he was rebuked "Get behind me Satan" by Jesus.
Why?
Because Peter at that time did not experience Jesus' salvation yet.
He made that confession contrary to his experience, and that is a lie.
Later, when Peter experienced the salvation at the Pentecost,
he made true confession "Lord is Saivour" as follow.
"And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Act 2:21]
Are we confessing Jesus as the Saviour with the experience of salvation?
If so, that is a true statement by the mouth and belief in our heart as Paul says.
If we confess Jesus as Saivour without experience of such, then we are telling a lie.
Quote from: j. on April 25, 2009, 07:37:10 AM
All of mankind is "saved". Not all of mankind is part of the "ekklesia", or those who are called out here and now. Those who do not believe at this time do not have access to the kingdom benefits and are indeed walking through this life in condemnation.
Put it this way: if I go and pay off your mortgage, you can deny it all you want to, continue to make unnecessary payments, and generally behave as if nothing happened. But, it doesn't change the reality of the debt being paid.
The same goes for salvation. The price is paid; some receive it now, some aren't sure, and some behave as if it never happened. None of that changes the effective work of the cross.
:cloud9: Good analogy j. That's the way I see it too..... :thumbsup: Blessings....
There were many hungry men.
One man as a representative of the rest ate the food.
And he said "I ate the food on your behalf, and your hunger is now gone."
The rest were happy as clam as at high tide saying,
"I surely believe we ate, thanks to him.
Some don't know that they ate and are asking for food.
But they will eventually know that they ate.
I believe we ate."
And so, they all died of hunger.
This is real good analogy.
And this is real tragedy.
It's important to differentiate reconciliation and salvation. All are reconciled, but not all have salvation knowledge of that fact. Reconciliation is God righting His relationship with all mankind. Salvation is individual mankind righting his relationship with God. We are all right with God, we don't all know it yet.
Hi legoman,
The promises of God cause salvation to be secure even for someone who does not know it yet. Being introduced to Christ is but a part of the process. God has planned for all our choices and the incredible power of God indeed allows us choices so that we righteously retain our individuality.
Each persons path is different and unique even if those paths cross one another in similar ways.
Salvation is a promise in scripture, the only issue is the journey getting there. Perhaps when one is given the knowledge of Christ, they simply become aware of the truth of the journey.
The good news we are to share is to walk our paths in such a way that when we share we are a part of that persons enlightenment and not their darkness.