On Determining the Litmus for Entrance into the Kindgom

[Vanguard]

I've struggled with this for some time now. I have made commentary on different threads about my beliefs and recognize that they divurge from the more common, accepted Christian stance (and perhaps from that of my own LDS faith) about how salvation is gained.

For starters, I would like to flesh this out with those who consider themselves Christian theists. Specifically, on what do you base your belief regards to who is "saved" and who is not?

[Skyler]

The thread that we find running throughout evangelistic efforts in the New Testament is "Repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ".

This is how a person is saved(in a nutshell--a very, very small nutshell. )

How do we know who is saved is a different question, and I'm not sure which you are asking. Jesus said that there would be many pretenders, and "by their fruits ye shall know them". So that would be my answer--look at the fruit.

Skyler

[Vanguard]

The thread that we find running throughout evangelistic efforts in the New Testament is "Repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ".

This is how a person is saved(in a nutshell--a very, very small nutshell. )

How do we know who is saved is a different question, and I'm not sure which you are asking. Jesus said that there would be many pretenders, and "by their fruits ye shall know them". So that would be my answer--look at the fruit.

Skyler

Thank you for your response, Skyler. If you hang with me maybe we can get somewhere.

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

[Skyler]

The thread that we find running throughout evangelistic efforts in the New Testament is "Repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ".

This is how a person is saved(in a nutshell--a very, very small nutshell. )

How do we know who is saved is a different question, and I'm not sure which you are asking. Jesus said that there would be many pretenders, and "by their fruits ye shall know them". So that would be my answer--look at the fruit.

Skyler

Thank you for your response, Skyler. If you hang with me maybe we can get somewhere.

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. I'm not trying to draw a distinction between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". I was pointing out that since we can't get inside peoples' heads and see if they actually repented and believed, we take their word and compare it with their lives.

Even with this criterion though, one cannot come to absolute certainty that another person is saved/unsaved. However, the evidence is usually sufficient to provide a verdict one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt.

There's always the chance that you(or I:)) may be wrong.

Just as a side note: Personal security is different, in that the Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit", showing us that we are His.

Skyler

[Vanguard]

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. I'm not trying to draw a distinction between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". I was pointing out that since we can't get inside peoples' heads and see if they actually repented and believed, we take their word and compare it with their lives.

But many times we can get inside their heads by listening to what their mouths say. If another claims he does not believe in this whole Savior notion and certainly sees no need to repent then wouldn't we be able to say at that point that he will be damned according to how you earlier defined the criteria?

Even with this criterion though, one cannot come to absolute certainty that another person is saved/unsaved. However, the evidence is usually sufficient to provide a verdict one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure what "evidence" you refer to?

There's always the chance that you(or I:)) may be wrong.

Always the chance that we may be wrong regards to what the criteria is or wrong regards to who isn't saved?

Just as a side note: Personal security is different, in that the Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit", showing us that we are His.

I don't understand what you mean by personal security?

I don't mean to be a malicious question box. If the thread continues I will flesh out my own interpretation of what I believe is required for salvation. At this point, I'm just curious how you would define it.

[Skyler]

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. I'm not trying to draw a distinction between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". I was pointing out that since we can't get inside peoples' heads and see if they actually repented and believed, we take their word and compare it with their lives.

But many times we can get inside their heads by listening to what their mouths say. If another claims he does not believe in this whole Savior notion and certainly sees no need to repent then wouldn't we be able to say at that point that he will be damned according to how you earlier defined the criteria?

Well, you would know that he wasn't saved. Not having complete knowledge of that person's future, you couldn't say that person would go certainly go to hell when he/she died. Everyone, even Christians, were at one point unregenerate.

Even with this criterion though, one cannot come to absolute certainty that another person is saved/unsaved. However, the evidence is usually sufficient to provide a verdict one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure what "evidence" you refer to?

The evidence would be that person's testimony--whether or not he/she says he/she is saved; and his lifestyle--whether his deeds match up to his words or not.

There's always the chance that you(or I:)) may be wrong.

Always the chance that we may be wrong regards to what the criteria is or wrong regards to who isn't saved?

Wrong in regards to who is(n't) saved. Note that while it may be possible to tell if someone is elect, it's basically impossible to tell if someone is reprobate until they die--if they die while still walking in the Spirit, they are elect; if not, they are reprobate.

Just as a side note: Personal security is different, in that the Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit", showing us that we are His.

I don't understand what you mean by personal security?

One can know for sure if he/she is saved, while only with reasonable assurance that some other person is saved.

I don't mean to be a malicious question box. If the thread continues I will flesh out my own interpretation of what I believe is required for salvation. At this point, I'm just curious how you would define it.

A malicious question box? That sounds like some weird enemy from Super Mario.

Skyler

[Vanguard]

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. I'm not trying to draw a distinction between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". I was pointing out that since we can't get inside peoples' heads and see if they actually repented and believed, we take their word and compare it with their lives.

But many times we can get inside their heads by listening to what their mouths say. If another claims he does not believe in this whole Savior notion and certainly sees no need to repent then wouldn't we be able to say at that point that he will be damned according to how you earlier defined the criteria?

Well, you would know that he wasn't saved. Not having complete knowledge of that person's future, you couldn't say that person would go certainly go to hell when he/she died. Everyone, even Christians, were at one point unregenerate.

But were that person to hold on to his conviction that the Savior is merely a fiction right up until his last breath we would be able to say he would not be saved. Is that correct?

Even with this criterion though, one cannot come to absolute certainty that another person is saved/unsaved. However, the evidence is usually sufficient to provide a verdict one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure what "evidence" you refer to?

The evidence would be that person's testimony--whether or not he/she says he/she is saved; and his lifestyle--whether his deeds match up to his words or not.

Does it need to be both however?

There's always the chance that you(or I:)) may be wrong.

Always the chance that we may be wrong regards to what the criteria is or wrong regards to who isn't saved?

Wrong in regards to who is(n't) saved. Note that while it may be possible to tell if someone is elect, it's basically impossible to tell if someone is reprobate until they die--if they die while still walking in the Spirit, they are elect; if not, they are reprobate.

By reprobate I gather you mean someone who is not saved?

Just as a side note: Personal security is different, in that the Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit", showing us that we are His.

I don't understand what you mean by personal security?

One can know for sure if he/she is saved, while only with reasonable assurance that some other person is saved.

But again, one can know another is not yet saved by whether they claim not to believe in the Savior.

To sum up what I understand your position to be, I would say an indispensable criterion for entrance into the kingdom requires that every individual accept the Savior in this life. Is that accurate?

I don't mean to be a malicious question box. If the thread continues I will flesh out my own interpretation of what I believe is required for salvation. At this point, I'm just curious how you would define it.

[A malicious question box? That sounds like some weird enemy from Super Mario.

My has the Super Mario game line come a long way in the last two decades. I remember playing Donkey Kong many moons ago...

[Skyler]

I'm not sure what distinction you draw between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". Didn't you answer it already? If you don't repent of your sins and put your faith in Christ then you aren't saved. Do you believe this or are you simply reporting what you think Christianity in general believes?

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. I'm not trying to draw a distinction between "how a person is saved" and "who is saved". I was pointing out that since we can't get inside peoples' heads and see if they actually repented and believed, we take their word and compare it with their lives.

But many times we can get inside their heads by listening to what their mouths say. If another claims he does not believe in this whole Savior notion and certainly sees no need to repent then wouldn't we be able to say at that point that he will be damned according to how you earlier defined the criteria?

Well, you would know that he wasn't saved. Not having complete knowledge of that person's future, you couldn't say that person would go certainly go to hell when he/she died. Everyone, even Christians, were at one point unregenerate.

But were that person to hold on to his conviction that the Savior is merely a fiction right up until his last breath we would be able to say he would not be saved. Is that correct?

Yep. That's right.

Even with this criterion though, one cannot come to absolute certainty that another person is saved/unsaved. However, the evidence is usually sufficient to provide a verdict one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure what "evidence" you refer to?

The evidence would be that person's testimony--whether or not he/she says he/she is saved; and his lifestyle--whether his deeds match up to his words or not.

Does it need to be both however?

No, though with both the case is considerably stronger than with only one.

There's always the chance that you(or I:)) may be wrong.

Always the chance that we may be wrong regards to what the criteria is or wrong regards to who isn't saved?

Wrong in regards to who is(n't) saved. Note that while it may be possible to tell if someone is elect, it's basically impossible to tell if someone is reprobate until they die--if they die while still walking in the Spirit, they are elect; if not, they are reprobate.

By reprobate I gather you mean someone who is not saved?

Who is not and who will finally die unsaved, yes.

Just as a side note: Personal security is different, in that the Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit", showing us that we are His.

I don't understand what you mean by personal security?

One can know for sure if he/she is saved, while only with reasonable assurance that some other person is saved.

But again, one can know another is not yet saved by whether they claim not to believe in the Savior.

Yes, it's possible to determine if someone is not saved.

To sum up what I understand your position to be, I would say an indispensable criterion for entrance into the kingdom requires that every individual accept the Savior in this life. Is that accurate?

Yes. The other one is repentance of sins. The two are, I think, inseparable.

I don't mean to be a malicious question box. If the thread continues I will flesh out my own interpretation of what I believe is required for salvation. At this point, I'm just curious how you would define it.

A malicious question box? That sounds like some weird enemy from Super Mario.

My has the Super Mario game line come a long way in the last two decades. I remember playing Donkey Kong many moons ago... [/quote]

Last one I played was Super Mario 64, the 3D version for Nintendo64... on an emulator though.

Skyler

[Vanguard]

Forgive my avoidance of the rest of our post. This I believe is the main theme I would like to pursue. I thank you for indulging me thus far.

But were that person to hold on to his conviction that the Savior is merely a fiction right up until his last breath we would be able to say he would not be saved. Is that correct?

Yep. That's right.

Could you elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion?

My has the Super Mario game line come a long way in the last two decades. I remember playing Donkey Kong many moons ago...

Last one I played was Super Mario 64, the 3D version for Nintendo64... on an emulator though.

Yes indeed, you are young.