Soteriology

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I just got done speaking to a brother and member of this forum and had the thought that a thread covering this topic could be helpful and beneficial.

What is your theology of salvation?
What does it mean to be saved, what are we saved from, how do we get saved, does God save us despite ourselves or because of ourselves, can we know if we're saved, can we lose it?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I am coming from a Reformed/Calvinist perspective.

We are saved by the works and power of God alone. We are all guilty of sin, and deserve God's wrath and condemnation as a result. We do not have the ability to make ourselves innocent when we are already guilty of transgressing God's Law. Thus, God alone as Judge, is the only One who has the power to save us from His condemnation. He has accomplished this by sending Jesus Christ to not only fulfill the Law perfectly, but to receive our punishment onto Himself on the cross, in order to both give us God's Mercy and satisfy God's Justice against our sin.

The Atonement is made in particular for the Church, it is not provisional. Thus, the Atonement is effective and accomplished what it was set out to do, not being nullified in any way. God gives this justifying work to us through the instrument of faith alone. Faith is gifted to us through God's Grace alone. There is no work we can do that can add to the work of Christ that can further justify us. Nor is there any work that can undo what He accomplished for us.

Not only does God justify us in this way, but He also sanctifies us, being transformed from one degree of glory to the next, until we are fully perfected at the last day.

 

[Uzisuicide]

I don't believe you can 'lose' your Salvation. If one denies Christ at some point after being Saved then it's feasible that they never truly accepted him in the first place. As I understand the Word, there is only ONE church. It is the blood bought Church of Jesus Christ. Salvation is the acceptance that I am a sinner and the wages of sin is death. Christ is God in the flesh and part of the Trinity: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I apprehend the Trinity but do not comprehend it. Christ is the sinless sacrifice that reconciled us to the Father. Salvation is the belief that Christ paid the price for our sin on the cross and Salvation is ours by grace alone through confessing and trusting in him. There are no works that we can perform as sinners that can lead to our Salvation or reconcile us to God. Salvation is only thorough Christ.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

I am convinced of Sola Fide after strong verses like John 3 16. Works based righteousness to me has always been a terrible idea that culminated in indulgences, and nowadays in going to a church you don't particularly care for or like, just to be saved. It sucks to sit through a bad sermon normally, but with the "I HAVE to do this or I will go to Hell" mentality, this gets terrible. Even the priests can tell who is going there just to be a "practicing" Catholic and what not.

My source of confusion is in who doesn't get saved. Things such as abortions or miscarriages make this even harder, since it's hard to call someone who didn't live a sinner. This creates a loophole where, in the theology of some denominations, you can microwave a baby, get baptized, and you will enjoy Heaven while the baby sits in Hell for eternity

When you recognize God's sovereignty and that He elects His saints, then there is no point in questioning the non-elect. Though it still lingers that some non-elect are easier to sympathize with than others.

On who is part of the elect, then I would probably draw the line liberally. If you are a church-going Christian who admits Christ is King, I have a hard time believing you can turn back to an atheist for the rest of your life.

If one denies Christ at some point after being Saved then it's feasible that they never truly accepted him in the first place.

This is a good argument for Perseverance of the Saints. I'd say that in accepting Christ you have two points, which are believing He existed, and believing He was the Son of God.

His existence is well accepted, but the tricky part is faith in Him. Nominal Christians have an issue with this. Either in applying liberalism to His Word, missing the point and turning to asceticism within a Church, or just falling for a false movement in general. Some stumbling blocks are bigger than others, but denying Christ and His teachings is the worst one.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I am convinced of Sola Fide after strong verses like John 3 16.

When I first read John 3:16, I was utterly convinced that Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God. Though I wish that the surrounding verses were quoted as much as verse 16 is.

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Verse 18 in particular is not often cited because it doesn't jive with many people's theology: whoever does not believe has been condemned already.

My source of confusion is in who doesn't get saved. Things such as abortions or miscarriages make this even harder, since it's hard to call someone who didn't live a sinner.

This is where Romans 5, on top of other verses, comes into play. All humans are born under Adam's federal headship, and thus, his sin, guilt, and punishment is imputed to us all. Christ is exempt, not because He wasn't truly human (He is), but because the person of God the Son is prior to Adam. Adam is a type of Christ, not the other way around.

On who is part of the elect, then I would probably draw the line liberally. If you are a church-going Christian who admits Christ is King, I have a hard time believing you can turn back to an atheist for the rest of your life.

This is where much of the debate takes place. Apostasy is a reality, hence the warning passages. The question is: was the apostate truly saved or was he never saved?

 

[God's lonely asperger]

This is where Romans 5, on top of other verses, comes into play. All humans are born under Adam's federal headship, and thus, his sin, guilt, and punishment is imputed to us all. Christ is exempt, not because He wasn't truly human (He is), but because the person of God the Son is prior to Adam. Adam is a type of Christ, not the other way around.

This is something I address in talking about His sovereignty. But still, without being deeply theological, you think it's unfair. Not sure if it's a Catholic thing, but I always heard young people are saved past a certain age. This would also contribute to more loopholes like disorders, but that would probably fall under the blind person God healed, and why he was born blind.

This is where much of the debate takes place. Apostasy is a reality, hence the warning passages. The question is: was the apostate truly saved or was he never saved?

Case by case bases make you lost. As a teenage atheist I never blasphemed, or really had an easy time making jokes about God or Christ. Pascal's wager and why people believe are also a big part of the argument.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is something I address in talking about His sovereignty. But still, without being deeply theological, you think it's unfair.

I understand why someone could consider that unfair, but I cannot give credence to it because it's simply what the Bible says. It is not just Romans 5 though. The Old Testament has many examples of what could be called a corporate guilt, with entire families being punished on account of the father's sins, etc. The Creator-creation distinction must be emphasized here. God is the Creator, He is the ultimate definer of these things and He always does what is right. It shouldn't be astonishing that God would be right to condemn us all, what is truly astonishing is that He still has mercy and grace despite our transgression. That is why the Gospel is such good news.

Not sure if it's a Catholic thing, but I always heard young people are saved past a certain age. This would also contribute to more loopholes like disorders, but that would probably fall under the blind person God healed, and why he was born blind.

Catholicism also recognizes that we are all born guilty, but that the means of grace for us is baptism. Thus, if you want your baby to be saved, you better baptize him. That's a little different than saying that someone's salvation is up to God entirely. What about the unbaptized baby? Well... All I can say on that is this: God is free to save the baby just as He is free to save any one of us, just as He is free to save someone with a disorder. I do not feel it is my place to say they all go to hell, I only recognize that all are guilty and need salvation, and that God always does what is right.

Case by case bases make you lost. As a teenage atheist I never blasphemed, or really had an easy time making jokes about God or Christ. Pascal's wager and why people believe are also a big part of the argument.

I don't like Pascal's Wager, I do not think it is a Biblical argument, though the man had many other great insights. That is good to hear that you did not want to blaspheme, I believe God was preserving you from that horrific sin. I suffered with scrupulosity when I was younger, always in fear that I had blasphemed God in thought, word, or deed. It is something that he has given me deliverance from, giving me peace of mind.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

I understand why someone could consider that unfair, but I cannot give credence to it because it's simply what the Bible says. It is not just Romans 5 though. The Old Testament has many examples of what could be called a corporate guilt, with entire families being punished on account of the father's sins, etc. The Creator-creation distinction must be emphasized here. God is the Creator, He is the ultimate definer of these things and He always does what is right. It shouldn't be astonishing that God would be right to condemn us all, what is truly astonishing is that He still has mercy and grace despite our transgression. That is why the Gospel is such good news.

Ultimately, I'm not one to question it or judge it, but this creates a contradiction in verses such as Deuteronomy 24 16. Old Testament, of course, but it raises questions, and you cited the OT in your example.

Catholicism also recognizes that we are all born guilty, but that the means of grace for us is baptism. Thus, if you want your baby to be saved, you better baptize him. That's a little different than saying that someone's salvation is up to God entirely. What about the unbaptized baby? Well... All I can say on that is this: God is free to save the baby just as He is free to save any one of us, just as He is free to save someone with a disorder. I do not feel it is my place to say they all go to hell, I only recognize that all are guilty and need salvation, and that God always does what is right.

This is the truth on discussing or thinking of who gets saved. I don't think any of us can judge the unbaptized baby.. or the hypothetical sicko going around microwaving babies and a day later being baptized. That would be God's job.

I don't like Pascal's Wager, I do not think it is a Biblical argument, though the man had many other great insights. That is good to hear that you did not want to blaspheme, I believe God was preserving you from that horrific sin. I suffered with scrupulosity when I was younger, always in fear that I had blasphemed God in thought, word, or deed. It is something that he has given me deliverance from, giving me peace of mind.

Pascal's wager is probably the dumbest argument. I remember hearing about it in history class and it dumbed down to "if you want an apartment, your best bet is talking to the owner". I still think of it as an argument to think about. I don't know many people who would want to miss out on apartments, and Heaven is the ultimate.. apartment.. I've never been good at analogies.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Ultimately, I'm not one to question it or judge it, but this creates a contradiction in verses such as Deuteronomy 24 16. Old Testament, of course, but it raises questions, and you cited the OT in your example.

Harmonize Joshua 7 with Deuteronomy 24. To sum it up, Deuteronomy 24 would fall into what would be called Prescriptive Will: this is how the judges of Israel were to normatively carry out their judgements. But Joshua 7 demonstrates that God retains this right to judge in this way and to carry out His judgement through His representatives.

This is the truth on discussing or thinking of who gets saved. I don't think any of us can judge the unbaptized baby.. or the hypothetical sicko going around microwaving babies and a day later being baptized. That would be God's job.

This question usually gets asked in this way: "If Hitler repented and believed on his death bed, would he be saved?" The answer is yes, Jesus is able to save even Hitler. However, for someone to microwave babies would suggest a level of reprobation where this person would likely never be saved, but ultimately, God will judge. I do not think it would be wise to welcome the baby murderer into your congregation, even if he gives a profession of faith.

Pascal's wager is probably the dumbest argument. I remember hearing about it in history class and it dumbed down to "if you want an apartment, your best bet is talking to the owner". I still think of it as an argument to think about. I don't know many people who would want to miss out on apartments, and Heaven is the ultimate.. apartment.. I've never been good at analogies.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it gives too much credence to an unbelieving worldview: "God may not be real but if He is, then you may as well take a shot with Him since the pros would outweigh the cons." Show me anywhere in the New Testament where the Apostles come even close to arguing like that.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Harmonize Joshua 7 with Deuteronomy 24. To sum it up, Deuteronomy 24 would fall into what would be called Prescriptive Will: this is how the judges of Israel were to normatively carry out their judgements. But Joshua 7 demonstrates that God retains this right to judge in this way and to carry out His judgement through His representatives.

I have a feeling that death in these two are different. A death of someone too young (0-2 years) is more tragic than a 12 year old with speaking and reading skills to comprehend at least a little bit of theology. The right is a different thing. In Job, death is the one thing God doesn't allow Satan to do with him.
The OT punishments probably would not fall on a 1 year old, though feel free to prove me wrong.

This question usually gets asked in this way: "If Hitler repented and believed on his death bed, would he be saved?" The answer is yes, Jesus is able to save even Hitler. However, for someone to microwave babies would suggest a level of reprobation where this person would likely never be saved, but ultimately, God will judge. I do not think it would be wise to welcome the baby murderer into your congregation, even if he gives a profession of faith.

Bah, I've always hated how the mustache German is seen as Satan for the secular man. There were way worse warmongers even on his time. Microwaving babies is like the "children with leukemia" analogy to the tribe no one can criticize.

I imagine it must be the wildest and most emotional deathbed in Argentina, but that's what the Lord can do. 1 second with Him is probably worth 5 years of sin. Gott mit uns.

Show me anywhere in the New Testament where the Apostles come even close to arguing like that.

The New Testament was a time where Jesus was big news around Rome. It's different to argue with a more conservative, saner atheist, or nominal Christian, than it is to argue with a Roman guard. If I recall correctly, one or more of the guards around the crucifixion admitted after it that He was the Son. We just live in a different world, with different people. The atheist of 20 years ago would not recognize the atheist of today, as silly as it sounds.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Some questions I always had with Sola Fide were, can one truly horrible sin ruin someone's chance of being saved, what would these sins be, and if someone can be too far gone in sin, or how to deal with someone who is too far gone.

For the first question, try to imagine a truly practicing Christian, like yourself maybe, but who is also born with homosexual tendencies (textbook sin, one of the worst) and is very resistant on "praying it away". To play devil's advocate, some people are kind of just born like that to some extent, and living with it is challenging. Not saying there is a "homo gene", but having an absent father or being abused as a kid can mess with someone. Tale as old as time in my country. Definitely harder for some to not commit certain sins, for biological reasons and whatnot. I believe even Roosh at one point admitted fornicators are almost the same as homosexuals, which is my example here. The issue comes with fornicators having an easier time with repenting than someone like Freddy Mercury in his deathbed (not really a good example as he died a Zoroastrian as well). I'm not in any way defending homosexuality, I just have questions on how behavior like this interacts with Sola Fide.

For what these sins would be, homosexuality is probably a good example. It is historically just nasty and no one here, or anywhere a few decades ago, has sympathy towards it. Murder and sociopathy are easier to manage since it is a crime and universally hated. Christians having homosexual tendencies is somewhat rare, but with society putting it as a normal behavior, and the rise of liberal churches, I can't help but have a bit of sympathy for these guys regarding them going to eternal hellfire. I did not have sympathy however when I heard a guy say "I would rather not be lonely in 50 years, than to be lonely in 50 to have eternal years in Heaven".

The other question, someone being "too far gone" is something you see often. Leftist individuals going around sinning to their hearts content, without much care as to what is and isn't sin. There are a ton of cases of this, with it ending in the individual turning into an ascetic Christian. This was the case with our former forum host as well. What do you do when you are friends of family of someone like this, however? Do you just sit it out in distance while he kind of ruins his life in sin and ignores you, or is there a more effective way of Christ pilling, so to speak. The main problem in this is the worst of the 7 deadly sins, pride. Someone too far gone is too proud to recognize why or how he is too far gone. That is the root of almost all problems.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

"Looking back", this is kind of just sympathy for the Devil, in an ontological sense. The word ontological in itself I only learned in a Patrick Bateman meme (attached to not bloat up the thread) not too long ago, and it changed my view of it completely. The sympathy varies in people, but eternal hellfire is also ontologically the worst thing you can do for your spiritual life. One has to ask what would push a Christian or former Christian to overlook this at some point in their lives. Sexual immorality is frequently stated in the Bible to be the worst sins, in terms of body.

Still, one has to ask what the Bible itself says is the "minimum to be saved", as a poster on the older forum made a thread on (someone got a warning for answering the thread in a "non-Orthodox manner" btw), and if or what can also Biblically break that minimum, outside of faith. That thread was interesting and I wish I still had an archive of it. Most of the responses were just meme ascetic advice like "fast 24 7 and have a Gnostic view of the world".

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Some questions I always had with Sola Fide were, can one truly horrible sin ruin someone's chance of being saved, what would these sins be, and if someone can be too far gone in sin, or how to deal with someone who is too far gone.

Tough. In one sense, no one deserves salvation as it is, and grace cannot be demanded, only freely given. But in another, the Bible plainly speaks that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. John mentions "a sin that leads to death" and to not even pray for such a one who commits this sin. I believe these are all the same sin and was likely what the Apostolic Church dealt with the most given their context in 1st century Palestine.

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable not because "the Holy Spirit is so much better than Jesus" but because the Holy Spirit is the One who effectively applies the work of God the Father and God the Son to us. How can you receive Christ's righteousness by faith when you've blasphemed the very One who gives you that faith?

What do you do when you are friends of family of someone like this, however? Do you just sit it out in distance while he kind of ruins his life in sin and ignores you, or is there a more effective way of Christ pilling, so to speak. The main problem in this is the worst of the 7 deadly sins, pride. Someone too far gone is too proud to recognize why or how he is too far gone. That is the root of almost all problems.

Cut them off. Try to restore them to faith and repentance but if they are unwilling, they must be cut off. Almost never an easy thing to do.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Tough. In one sense, no one deserves salvation as it is, and grace cannot be demanded, only freely given. But in another, the Bible plainly speaks that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. John mentions "a sin that leads to death" and to not even pray for such a one who commits this sin. I believe these are all the same sin and was likely what the Apostolic Church dealt with the most given their context in 1st century Palestine.

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable not because "the Holy Spirit is so much better than Jesus" but because the Holy Spirit is the One who effectively applies the work of God the Father and God the Son to us. How can you receive Christ's righteousness by faith when you've blasphemed the very One who gives you that faith?

No one deserves it, right. It is a gift from our Sovereign God, and somewhat of a trade. That is the standard for this thread. But, the Bible has the rules (training in righteousness) for this gift. What are the big rules, and what are the exceptions? This is the crux of asking how to be saved, or the minimum rules, after learning He is King. The slip ups are also worth asking about, like blasphemy, fornication, etc.

Cut them off. Try to restore them to faith and repentance but if they are unwilling, they must be cut off. Almost never an easy thing to do.

Dialogue is key, I find. They're still humans, but humans can (and will) get varyingly lost in any field. Salvation is the one important field, and we need to spread that gospel without stumbling along the way. Easier said than.. said.. or dialogued.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Dialogue is key, I find. They're still humans, but humans can (and will) get varyingly lost in any field. Salvation is the one important field, and we need to spread that gospel without stumbling along the way. Easier said than.. said.. or dialogued.

I've had to cut certain people off who one should never have to cut off. The person who is unrepentantly, brazenly ruining their life through sin, will not only ruin yours but anyone else's who they come into contact with. Dialogue is key, sure, but there's a point when dialogue isn't enough. Scripture warns about such people, warns against approving of them in their sin, even warns against eating with them.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Dialogue is key, sure, but there's a point when dialogue isn't enough.

So should you beat your wife? That's usually the example, but tolerance of heathens has always been a political thing, and a Christian life thing. Not sure where I draw the line as some people just reach out to me a few months after not talking because of this type of problem. I'm usually the one to cut off over religion, but I also sit around "trolling" atheists for fun once I lose the reason to care about them.

even warns against eating with them.

Kind of hits home. Don't recall the verse, but this is very good advice even literally.