What do you believe is required for Salvation?

Faith in this:

Anything other than this, is overcomplicating a very simple matter. It just requires faith. Now does it require repentance??? Of course! Of every sin? No. Just a change of one's course. But, that only happens, when Salvation is real.

But, it does not require one to "go become holy" first. You simply have to believe.

 

So your saying Ann that this man is not a professing Christian?

 

That's a great witness your husband did. It warms my heart just to read about it. But I have to wonder why he didn't go ahead and baptize him, you know, just in case??? Anyway, that is what Jesus said to do in the Great Commission.

 

Heretic has to do with one's theological views or pratices that are contrary to scripture and not necessarily reflective of their actual spiritual condition. I or you may be heretical on any given teaching of scripture. However, if their theological views are heretical in regard to essentials versus relatively none essentials, and especially in regard to those things the Scriptures themselves delcare to be essential and regard those who oppose them as heretical, such as Galatians 1:8-9 then they fit the condemnation that scripture defines them as (e.g. "accursed" Gal. 1:8-9) and thus we are to regard them such in agreement with the Biblical assessment.

 

This begs the question: Scripturally speaking, what does ACCURSED really mean in real terms? Can a saved person be 'accursed'? What do you think this means?

 

Oh TS.... Wally is forever calling someone a heretic, an apostate or something or another. you gotta get over that & there will be a judgment day fortunately. :thumbs:

 

You seem to miss my final point. Galatians 1:8-9 explicitly states that those who preach another gospel than what Paul preached are to be regarded as "accursed." He repeats it for emphasis. If you openly proclaim a different gospel you fit that Biblical classification.

There is sufficient, over sufficient scriptures to precisely determine that Paul is speaking about the essential distinction between justificaiton by works versus by faith and Romans 3:24-5:2 precisely defines what he means by justification by faith without works in contrast to justification by works.

There is no "plethora of views" presented in the scripturs but the same simple consistent contrast made throughout the scriptures:

1. narrow versus broad, many versus few - Mt. 7:13-14
2. grace versus works - Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 11:6
3. works versus faith - Rom. 3:24-5:2; Gal. 1:6-4:28
4. Same gospel before and after cross - Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43;26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; etc.

Only in the mind of heretics and those confused by heretics are there a plethora of options. The scriptures are plentifully clear and painstakenly precise on this point.

 

No I don't wear wigs, FTR, although I perhaps should as I am now follicly challenged.

I think the critical Person in salvation is Jesus. Not you, not me, not even particularly what we believe or do - up to a point of course*. The soteriological starting point has to be Jesus, the Man-Who-Is-God: His life, death, resurrection, ascension and future return in glory.

* As a bare minimum, it is vital (a) how we regard Him (was He fully human and fully Divine, Son of God and God the Son, did He die on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven), and how we respond to Him and His love for us.

 

We aren't God Ann....only He knows at this stage. Again I always console myself with Genesis 18:25 Shall not the Judge of the earth do right.

 

You have a choice! You can side with the judgment of Scriptures or you can oppose the judgment of scriptures. Galatians 1:8-9 repeatedly states that anyone from heaven or earth that preaches "another gospel" than what Paul preached is to be regarded as "accursed." He wrote this to Christians in Galatia and he said about the same thing to the church at Corinthian (2 Cor. 11:4).

The only confusion that exists concerning the gospel Paul preached is in the minds of the "accursed" and those they have confused. Paul painstakenly makes it abundantly clear he is talking about the distinction between justification by faith versus justification by works throughout the book of Galatians. He defines with precision what he means by justification by faith without works in Romans 3:24-5:2.

The only confusion about what he means is in the mind of the "accursed" and those confused by them - simple and to the point. Inspired scriptures make the call and define who fits within that "accursed" or heretical position - not me. I simply choose to stand with the Biblical assessment according to the Biblical definition which is explicit, clear, uncomplicated, unambiguous and simply stated over and over and over again in the Scriptures.

If you balk at such clarity it is because either you are confused by the accursed or you are the accursed.

 

Yes, but we have those pesky passages that include baptism in the plan of salvation. See, e.g., Post 25 above.

I once had this discussion with my pastor, who doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration. He said that if an unbaptized person made a profession of faith to him and appeared to be dying (could not be taken to a traditional baptistry), that he would baptize him by sprinkling.

And if there really is something to the idea of baptismal regeneration, it might save the man from the fires of Hell. What is the down side here?

 

The reason that many believe in baptismal regeneration is very simple. They do not consider the whole context of scriptures in regard to redemption and ceremonial redemptive ordinances. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are simply divine ordinances under the New Covenant in contrast to divine ordinances under the Old Covenant but both are ceremonial in nature and as such identify ceremonially ("sign" "seal" - Rom. 4:12) with redemption as they were designed to. Hebrews 10:1-4 plainly tells you this identification with the language of redemption is not to be understood literally but rather such ordinances are a "shadow" and not the reality of redemption and NEVER literally removed sins (v. 4). No ceremonial ordinances prior to the cross literally took aways sins and no ceremonial ordinances after the cross literally takes away sins but both before the cross and after the cross ceremonial ordinances accompany the langauge of redemption ("for sin" "for remission of sins" etc.).

Paul makes it very very clear in Romans 4:6-12 that justification (remission of sins and imputation of righteousness - vv. 6-8) occur by faith BEFORE submission to such divine ordinances - v. 12. However, baptismal regenerationists interpret baptism exactly as the Jews interpreted circumcision (Acts 15:3) linking LITERAL salvation and remission of sins inseparably from the ordinance.

Baptism saves, and remits sins but the question is how? Literally or figuratively. Peter makes it clear it is a like "FIGURE" - 1 Pet. 3:21. Paul makes it clear it is not literally but a "sign" and "seal" of something already accomplished (Rom. 4:12). The Writer of Hebrews makes it clear it is a "SHADOW" not the reality.

The gospel is the SAME before and after Calvary (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43) in regard to remission of sins. If the pre-cross ceremonial ordinances did not literally remove sins (Heb. 10:4) and it remission of sins was by faith (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:12) then the post-cross gospel remits sins literaly by faith and figuratively by ceremonial ordinances as well or else it is not the same gospel (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23 - "none other things")