It's the formulaic aspect that I object to.That's only your definition of 'formula'.
OK, so you disagree that saving faith is a formula (your definition, not mine). But I'll go with your definition.
If saving faith doesn't include the 2 aspects that I gave, which of the 2 don't you agree with?
Not originally.I said:
" I hold every lost person responsible for understanding that God has revealed Himself in creation (Rom 1:19,20) and has no excuse for not being thankful to Him. And by such realization, I hold them responsible for seeking Him, per Acts 17:27.
That's all I am saying.The 2 aspects are NECESSARY for faith in anything, whether a person or object.
No one needs to have a conscious understanding of them. But they need to be there.
What I meant is that since 1John is the "test" that God gave us to know if we actually are truly saved someone who thinks he or she is saved might fail the test because they were not actually saved in the first place.I agreed with your post up until the last sentence.
Are you saying we can lose our relationship with Jesus based on doctrinal disagreements with others?
Oh, great defense. How about this one:
No where in Scripture is the word Trinity found.
Here's the facts. Jesus went to Hades after His death, to "preach to the spirits in prison". Jesus gave us a conversation in Hades between Abraham (in Paradise) and a rich man (in torments).
Therefore, both Paradise and torments are IN Hades.
That's an interesting comment. Paradise could be considered a subset of Hades.
Hades: the underworld; the abode of the spirits of the dead.
There are 29 references to "the realm of the dead" in the NIV Bible. (Hades)
The only two references in the NT are in Acts chapter two.
One is in Ecclesiastes chapter nine (vs 10). Just five verses away from the key "proof text" used to claim that death is unconscious nonexistence (vs 5).
What anyone needs to be saved is to believe what God requires. That's found in the doctrine of salvation.Right. They don't have it, nor should we expect them to.
That's my main point here. Doctrine is not needed (by the lost) to be saved.
Salvation isn't complicated, which is the subject that I'm addressing.What I was responding to in your post was much more complicated than that.
Are you just trying to be dense, or what?Is it a biblical term, or did you make it up?
Well, if one wants to get saved, they need to be "saved through faith".I said "I'm not sure there is any such thing..."
Anyone who denies the reality of "saving faith" does not understand how to be saved.Here's what you said, "Then I'm not sure you have salvation."
Your objection is your freedom. But any kind of faith must have an object and a goal.It's the formulaic aspect that I object to.
If the 2 aspects of faith are so difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry for you.You seem to want to overcomplicate it.
So, please explain to me how ANY kind of faith doesn't need an object nor a goal or purpose. I'd love to see how such a 'faith' works.It shouldn't be like playing a game of Twister that requires the convert to conform to all the contortions you are requiring.
Glad to be of help.Not originally.
You simplified things after I objected.
Then please provide clear evidence of this, because I've never read that He went to Hades before He died. I have read that He went to Hades after He died.Did you ever read what I'd written. Yes, Jesus soul went to Hades, but that actually happened before He died.
If you think I was trying to discount the Trinity, then you obviously have a problem with grasping any of my posts.Your argument about the word Trinity doesn't hold up to scrutiny either because terms like "Godhead", "Us make man in our image" are in the Scripture.
Do you believe that the souls of believers in the OT went to Paradise or somewhere else?No where does it say "Abraham's bosom" is "Paradise". Nor does it say this is the "top part of Sheol".
Here's an explanation from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:That is a theory someone came up with; seeing how those who enter heaven did not do so until Jesus died.
And I never said either of these things.Also, Jesus "His soul was not left in hell" and "preaching to the spirits in prison".
You've proven nothing.BUT ABRAHAM'S BOSEM IS NOT PARADISE!
You have that wrong - look at your Bible carefully!
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM
Figurative.
A full seminary degree is required before salvation? Better pick the right school. That could be an expensive mistake. Right?
No. The account of Lazarus and the rich man was no parable. Jesus named names. No names are found in any parable.No. Parable is the use of simple physical existence to illustrate a less obvious point. It's a physical location in ancient Jewish concepts.
I assume that you believed as best you could when you believed did you not? Were you aware of all the soteriological implications and details when you believed? I certainly wasn't. Did you not learn more as you studied & understood Scripture? The thief obviously did not have the luxury of time to do that. As I wrote earlier, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You can make a big deal out of it if you wish but I have no interest in quibbling about such details.That was my point. When someone adds "as best they could" muddies the waters.
He believed savingly. It wasn't about doctrine. It was about the Person and work of Christ.
Well, there's one example. But, yes, most people do need help in their unbelief. btw, the one example of a father concerned about his son did have faith, but he was weak in his faith.
Of course.
If you think I was trying to discount the Trinity, then you obviously have a problem with grasping any of my posts.
Your argument about the word Trinity doesn't hold up to scrutiny either because terms like "Godhead", "Us make man in our image" are in the Scripture. There's passages in the Old Testament about Yahweh pointing out Yahweh to Moses. There are 3 people involved in the conversation. God speaking to Moses, is point Moses to Yahweh. (A voice from heaven pointing Moses to a theophoric figure is most likely what is happening.)
Then please provide clear evidence of this, because I've never read that He went to Hades before He died. I have read that He went to Hades after He died.
If Paradise, then we KNOW that Abraham, who was a believer, was IN Paradise, which is also called "Abraham's bosom".
Here's an explanation from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
We know that Paradise is where OT believers went. And so Abraham was IN Paradise in Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus.
And I never said either of these things.
No where does it say "Abraham's bosom" is "Paradise". Nor does it say this is the "top part of Sheol". That is a theory someone came up with; seeing how those who enter heaven did not do so until Jesus died. Also, Jesus "His soul was not left in hell" and "preaching to the spirits in prison".
I'm not saying the theory is a bad one; because it does fit.
BUT ABRAHAM'S BOSEM IS NOT PARADISE!
You have that wrong - look at your Bible carefully!
Jesus recounted an actual conversation between Abraham and the rich man.
Your assumption is incorrect. When faced with a statement, one either believes the statement or doesn't believe the statement. In the case of not comprehending the statement, then they can't believe what they don't comprehend.I assume that you believed as best you could when you believed did you not?
I never said "all the implication" were part of saving faith, now, did I.Were you aware of all the soteriological implications and details when you believed?
Do you believe that a person is saved immediately, or over a period of time?I certainly wasn't. Did you not learn more as you studied & understood Scripture?
He didn't need more time. He had saving faith. As Jesus clearly noted.The thief obviously did not have the luxury of time to do that.
Thanks for your opinion.As I wrote earlier, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Salvation is a big deal in my opinion. And the opinion of the Bible. EVERY human being needs to be saved.You can make a big deal out of it if you wish but I have no interest in quibbling about such details.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?