what is, the prayer of salvation, exactly?

He doesn't know... and that is why he isn't going to tell us.

 

Stephen it's like bulding a pryamid. You start at the bottom and work your way up. If you don't agree with the foundation that is laid it is pointless to continue to go further and expect that you will suddenly agree when the final block is placed on.

I have explained as clearly as possible why these two ideas are not the same. Standingfirm even acknowledged that, but has since backed away from his statement.

So I will ask you since you agree that Acts 16 and Eph. 2 is speaking of the same subject as Romans and the gospel accounts, my question to you is how do you work around that contradiction? Because Paul CLEARLY says salvation is the result of faith through grace and NOTHING else. He states that in two different places.

Yet as standingfirm has pointed out both Paul and Jesus said confession was needed.

How do you make those two ideas mesh together. Because believe+nothing does not equal believe+confession+repentance+baptism+whatever else you might want to thrown in the mix. Right?

 

I know I don't get it. It would be like teaching a child math, and he thinks 2+2=5, and you keep saying wrong, but won't tell him the answer is four. You wouldn't get very far.

 

No offense, but I have never had someone try and explain or teach me something from the bible, and be as confusing as you. I also have never had someone refuse to say what they believe while trying to explain, especially so when they are trying to tell me what I believe is wrong.

 

So, explain it. You obviously think you know something that the rest of us have missed.
This is a debate forum. Let's debate it.

 

That's not it at all. The fact that they don't "know" is meaningless. It is understood that they don't know.

The point is if you can't agree on the foundation stones that are laid why good does it do to continue on?

If you don't agree on the premise there is no way you can agree on the conclusion, so why does everyone want to know what the conclusion is when they have already stated they don't agree with the premise the conclusion is built on.

That would be like someone discussing global warming. If I say I believe in global warming and you say okay prove it and I say okay do you agree that the weather has dramtically changed over the last few decades and you say no I don't agree with that. What would be the point in continuing to lay out the basis for my belief in global warming other than to give you knowledge on what I believe. That just seems to be silly to me and a complete waste of time.

I would much rather focus on the foundation until we can come to an agreement than to speed off down the road not knowing where we are going.

Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?

If we are not agreed continuing is pointless.

 

Do we agree that Romans 10:9,10 is speaking of some type of salvation even if you are convinced that it is different than Acts 16 and Eph 2?

 

That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do. But you folks are only interested in one side of the debate.

You all say that you do not agree with me on point 1. Okay well now debate that your view of point 1 is correct.

How do you mesh Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2 which CLEARLY says that salvation is the result of believe/faith+nothing, with the rest of Scripture that says salvation is the result of believe+confession+repentance+whatever else you might add in here.

That is debate. Debate is not asking one side for the whole enchilada. Now do you want to debate?

 

I see where it's going. You are teaching two salvations. A classic Zany Hodges/Joey Faust heresy.

 

That was the first thing that made sense.

Let me guess, is there a secret handshake involved or something? :laugh:

 

Revmitchell what does the text "say"?

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

When I am hungry and order something at a restaraunt, I do not tell the waitress to bring me a potato first and then when I am finished, bring me some macaroni, etc. No, I order the whole plate all at once.

 

Nah that's a gang thing I think. No membership dues either in case you were wondering .

 

Well see that's where we are a little different. We generally get an appetizer and then we get the main course and then sometimes if we are in the mood we will get dessert.

 

LOL:laugh:

 

Yes. Just as soon as I figure out what it is we're debating.

It sounds like you're talking about 2 salvations.

We are saved by grace + faith + nothing.

What else are you talking about?

 

saved from what?

 

Amy we are in complete agreement here. But Paul says in Romans that salvation comes from confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that He was raised from the dead that leads to salvation.

So in two places Paul says grace+faith+nothing and then in another he says believe+confession.

How can those two statements be talking about the same subject? The equation differs.

One is grace+faith+nothing=salvation and the other is believe+confess=salvation.

 

So what does this lead to?

.[/quote]

 

Revmitchell you need to make up your mind if you want to discuss the Scriptures or not. In one thread you say you don't and then in another one you do. Which is it revmitchell?