faith based doctrines

[LynneClomina]

in the "if you are not reformed, your soul in damned" thread, knight said this (hope you dont mind me quoting you):

Without exception, all the Christian cults and other world religions teach a works-based salvation. Biblical Christianity stands alone in the doctrine of grace.

what about "faith-based" doctrines - where people say when are you saved - and people say, when you had faith?

i know that we are saved BY GRACE, which results in faith and then produces works....

on the continuum of:

Grace---------------Faith----------------Works

we know salvation starts with Grace and goes left-->right, so to speak, in terms of where it starts, and there are many that are Works, from right to left salvation, and there are those Faith Folk.... starting in the middle, and going .... out?

i'm supposing that is the essense of arminianism, am i correct? i know arminianism is often considered "works" based, in the sense that to CHOOSE in an action, but the source of salvation isnt really works, its faith, albeit starting in an action of choosing to have faith....

is faith-only salvation arminianism? if so, is ALL faith only arminianism? or are there other doctrines i dont know about yet?

there was a poll somewhere in cf about HOW you are saved, and NONE of the options were "by grace", and that frusterated me.

i suppose i'm more ranting and thinking aloud than asking a big question, it's just that it's not so simple as calvinism vs. arminianism in the "real world" - i mean, yes, either God chooses you, or you choose God, are the only theological options, but lots of people dont go with either, they have their own understanding, and its so hard to figure out exactly where they are coming from sometimes.

any comments, hints, suggestions, or wry remarks?

thanks.

 

[Knight]

in the "if you are not reformed, your soul in damned" thread, knight said this (hope you dont mind me quoting you):

I'll send you a bill...

what about "faith-based" doctrines - where people say when are you saved - and people say, when you had faith?

i know that we are saved BY GRACE, which results in faith and then produces works....

on the continuum of:

Grace---------------Faith----------------Works

we know salvation starts with Grace and goes left-->right, so to speak, in terms of where it starts, and there are many that are Works, from right to left salvation, and there are those Faith Folk.... starting in the middle, and going .... out?

i'm supposing that is the essense of arminianism, am i correct? i know arminianism is often considered "works" based, in the sense that to CHOOSE in an action, but the source of salvation isnt really works, its faith, albeit starting in an action of choosing to have faith....

is faith-only salvation arminianism? if so, is ALL faith only arminianism? or are there other doctrines i dont know about yet?

there was a poll somewhere in cf about HOW you are saved, and NONE of the options were "by grace", and that frusterated me.

i suppose i'm more ranting and thinking aloud than asking a big question, it's just that it's not so simple as calvinism vs. arminianism in the "real world" - i mean, yes, either God chooses you, or you choose God, are the only theological options, but lots of people dont go with either, they have their own understanding, and its so hard to figure out exactly where they are coming from sometimes.

any comments, hints, suggestions, or wry remarks?

thanks.

I haven't time to give this the attention it deserves. However, consider one question: If faith is the sole source of salvation then what is that faith in and where does it come from? Faith must have an object.

 

[LynneClomina]

I haven't time to give this the attention it deserves. However, consider one question: If faith is the sole source of salvation then what is that faith in and where does it come from? Faith must have an object.

yes.... so if it is faith alone - then one could argue that faith in ANYTHING would do, but of course it doesnt.... the difference is that Christ saves, buddha don't. and if we NEED to be saved, then it's not something we can get ourselves out of, right? then for us to be saved, our savior needs to first extend the hand of grace....

but they would say that God will only extend HIS hand of grace to those who have faith first..... but we can't have faith first, because we are SLAVES to sin and satan before salvation, and can't see a good thing when it hits them on the head.....the grace of God needs to come in first and "wake us up" to the reality of who He is, and our desire will be for Him and Him alone, and we will be saved.... He has to wake us up before we can have faith, and the wake up call is always His hand of grace.......

 

[Ryft]

yes.... so if it is faith alone - then one could argue that faith in ANYTHING would do, but of course it doesnt...
[SNIP rest of agreeable material]

The way I see it, when scriptures talk about faith being what saves us, I find that it tends to be juxtaposed against the idea of works, and that is a relevant, important, and necessary distinction. Of course, in the Reformed articulation of the ordo salutis, salvation begins (in a logical sense, not a temporal sense) with election. It is true that we are saved by grace — election is unmerited — through faith, "not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." It's an idea that is supposed to maintain our focus on the fact of God's grace, lest we become inclined towards the idolatry of works.

but they would say that God will only extend HIS hand of grace to those who have faith first..... but we can't have faith first, because we are SLAVES to sin and satan before salvation, and can't see a good thing when it hits them on the head.....the grace of God needs to come in first and "wake us up" to the reality of who He is, and our desire will be for Him and Him alone, and we will be saved.... He has to wake us up before we can have faith, and the wake up call is always His hand of grace.......

I particularly love the examples in the gospels of Jesus restoring sight to the blind, especially the entire ninth chapter of John, notably the final verses (35-38)—

Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.​

—for isn't that exactly what regeneration is? Until sight is restored to our blind eyes, we are incapable of seeing. And once our sight has been restored, we see God for the first time and he becomes our heart's strongest desire.

 

[theseed]

So reformed theology saves us?

From a practical standpoint. We read in Romans 10.9-13 what we need to do to be saved. Despite all the complexeties and abractions of the soteriology. All one has to do is simply believe/trust christ as thier savior. They simply have to love Christ and his word. It's so simple that even a child can understand it. Christ said, "If continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8.35-36???).

As my sig. implies in the song lyrics, we chose life from the one who choses us.

 

[Ryft]

So reformed theology saves us? ...[SNIP rest]...

No, it doesn't, and no one here has either said or even implied that. The rest of your post sounds a little too much like debate caliber and I am therefore ignoring it. Mostly, however, because of the gross mischaracterization above.

 

[theseed]

No, it doesn't, and no one here has either said or even implied that. The rest of your post sounds a little too much like debate caliber and I am therefore ignoring it. Mostly, however, because of the gross mischaracterization above.

in the "if you are not reformed, your soul in damned" thread, knight said this (hope you dont mind me quoting you):

 

[Ryft]

I was referring to this thread, and in this thread no one has said or even implied that Reformed theology saves us. I cannot account for what was said in some thread elsewhere, since it's practically assured that I don't read all the same threads you or others do. "If you are not Reformed, your soul is damned" was the title of some other thread. The words that LyneeClomina had quoted here from Knight likewise neither said nor implied it, nor has anything else said here.

 

[Reformationist]

i know arminianism is often considered "works" based, in the sense that to CHOOSE in an action, but the source of salvation isnt really works, its faith, albeit starting in an action of choosing to have faith....

Here's an ironically "wry" comment from a reformed Christian. The "source of salvation" IS works. It's just not our works. It's the works of Jesus.

God bless

 

[theseed]

I was referring to this thread, and in this thread no one has said or even implied that Reformed theology saves us. I cannot account for what was said in some thread elsewhere, since it's practically assured that I don't read all the same threads you or others do. "If you are not Reformed, your soul is damned" was the title of some other thread. The words that LyneeClomina had quoted here from Knight likewise neither said nor implied it, nor has anything else said here.

Ok.

 

[LynneClomina]

Here's an ironically "wry" comment from a reformed Christian. The "source of salvation" IS works. It's just not our works. It's the works of Jesus.

God bless

haaa! good one!