Are you Saved? Really?

[Eph]

Cnorman wrote:

The question is not whether the offending Christian is "saved" (as a Jew, I prefer to leave that question to God anyway)

Amos wrote:

I agree that salvation is a gift from God that, try as we might, we can never earn. It is not of works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:5-11). But the works that are excluded are not works of obedience to God. Obedience to God is essential to salvation (Matthew 7:21, Luke 6:46, Hebrews 5:9, 1 John 5:3, Romans 6:16-23, Galatians 6:7-8, James 2:14-26). Faith itself is a work of obedience to God (John 6:28-29). Salvation is by grace (God's part) through faith (our response to God's invitation). That's what Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching.
We cannot continue in sin and expect to be saved (Hebrews 3:12-14, 2 Peter 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-20, Hebrews 10:23-31). We are saved while sinners, but that salvation is not apart from repentance (Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30-31, Acts 11:18, Luke 13:3, 2 Peter 3:9). We have to walk in the light as He is in the light if we expect the blood of Jesus to continually cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:5-2:6).

So many traditional Christians spend a lot of time declaring that they are “saved� and spend a lot of additional time telling others that they must be “saved� also. Matthew 7:21 says, Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

My question is - Since ultimately it is the Lord's call, is it appropriate to declare Salvation for oneself? Since it is a gift from God, should Christians spend so much time declaring themselves saved, and declaring others saved for that matter?

[tlong]

Your lengthy response was quite impressive, but it does not prove anything. It took me 2 seconds on google to find my link. You obviously have the gift of gab but your message is lacking. What about he Hittites. The were considered not to be real until recently when archaeologists found proof. If any one could prove the bible to be false it would be front page news, but all there are is skeptics with their goofy catch phrases[god goggles]. People have been trying far longer than you or me to prove the bible wrong and it hasn't happened yet, even when people came from those times much less visited them centuries later and then profess themselves experts on the subject. Hope you had a good vacation.

As you can see, our replies were very close and i did not realise you had posted a response over a reply.
I did request you address all the comments I posted, as I showed enough respect to YOU to answer you completely.

As such, I DO look foward to your COMPLETE reply. Please address each point point by point. IF as you claim you have evidence to supprt your case, and it was a simple "google" then please show for all to see. Many people read these threads only, and much information can be gleened from both sides of the fence of debate.

As to the vacation? My first was eye-opening. The second was confirming, however my second trip was not a vacation, so to speak. I was heading to Iraq for work and had a few days prior to commencement to visit friends I have in Israel. I took advantage of the opportunity to touch base as I was in the 'region".

Again, I full forward to FULL reply.

Alright! You called my bluff. I really don't aim to please. If by all your research you aren't convinced, then I'm not going to bother. You know as well as I do that you cannot prove your position conclusively nor can I. The main thing here to me is that given the bible as a whole, I have no reason to doubt it. I am more interested in debating with people that believe the bible. That is why I am in this forum. We are suppose to consider the bible authoratative. If you or any one else could prove that it wasn't, then I would love to hear about it though. Until then, I hear blah blah blah.

[Cathar1950]

Alright! You called my bluff. I really don't aim to please. If by all your research you aren't convinced, then I'm not going to bother. You know as well as I do that you cannot prove your position conclusively nor can I. The main thing here to me is that given the bible as a whole, I have no reason to doubt it. I am more interested in debating with people that believe the bible. That is why I am in this forum. We are suppose to consider the bible authoratative. If you or any one else could prove that it wasn't, then I would love to hear about it though. Until then, I hear blah blah blah.

Welcome to the forum.
This is a debating or even discussion forum but the default position is not the Bible.
If you only want to debate fellow believers then you might want to try the Holy Huddle or something. Here religion and disbelief are challenged on a daily bases and no one has an authority other then what is agree and sometimes disagreed.

[I AM ALL I AM]

If any one could prove the bible to be false it would be front page news, but all there are is skeptics with their goofy catch phrases[god goggles]. People have been trying far longer than you or me to prove the bible wrong and it hasn't happened yet, even when people came from those times much less visited them centuries later and then profess themselves experts on the subject.

G'day Tlong.

I doubt very much that it would be "front page news" as it has already happened and it wasn't "front page news". Have a read of 'The Bible Fraud' by Tony Bushby and then you will know that the bible is indeed a fraudulent document. Here's the link for you to order your copy .....

http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/bible ... /fraud.htm

[Amos]

Welcome to the forum.
This is a debating or even discussion forum but the default position is not the Bible.
If you only want to debate fellow believers then you might want to try the Holy Huddle or something. Here religion and disbelief are challenged on a daily bases and no one has an authority other then what is agree and sometimes disagreed.

Cathar1950, in this particular subforum, the bible is allowed to be used as a primary reference without first having to prove it is true. I would say that means it is the default position.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

You must be thinking about the apologetics subforum listed a couple of places above this one on the forum index.

[Cathar1950]

Welcome to the forum.
This is a debating or even discussion forum but the default position is not the Bible.
If you only want to debate fellow believers then you might want to try the Holy Huddle or something. Here religion and disbelief are challenged on a daily bases and no one has an authority other then what is agree and sometimes disagreed.

Cathar1950, in this particular subforum, the bible is allowed to be used as a primary reference without first having to prove it is true. I would say that means it is the default position.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

You must be thinking about the apologetics subforum listed a couple of places above this one on the forum index.

I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.

[Amos]

Welcome to the forum.
This is a debating or even discussion forum but the default position is not the Bible.
If you only want to debate fellow believers then you might want to try the Holy Huddle or something. Here religion and disbelief are challenged on a daily bases and no one has an authority other then what is agree and sometimes disagreed.

Cathar1950, in this particular subforum, the bible is allowed to be used as a primary reference without first having to prove it is true. I would say that means it is the default position.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

You must be thinking about the apologetics subforum listed a couple of places above this one on the forum index.

I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. However, all I did was copy and paste the purpose of the subforum. Your argument is not with me.

[Cathar1950]

Welcome to the forum.
This is a debating or even discussion forum but the default position is not the Bible.
If you only want to debate fellow believers then you might want to try the Holy Huddle or something. Here religion and disbelief are challenged on a daily bases and no one has an authority other then what is agree and sometimes disagreed.

Cathar1950, in this particular subforum, the bible is allowed to be used as a primary reference without first having to prove it is true. I would say that means it is the default position.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

You must be thinking about the apologetics subforum listed a couple of places above this one on the forum index.

I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. However, all I did was copy and paste the purpose of the subforum. Your argument is not with me.

The NT is a collection of writings with opinions often competing with other opinion by people that were not there. Some of thew writings are thought to be forged and others are largely anonymous.
What kind of authority does that give you?

[tlong]

[
I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.[/quote]


So what you're saying is, the rules don't apply to you? It must be nice to have such a high authority on this site. Sounds like a bias self serving position for a site supporter.

[Cathar1950]

[
I might agree if we are debating the content of the writings but I see no reason to make the Bible the default authority as that is one of the problems of the Bible Believer. Given the majority of scholars understand that some of the writings are pious forgeries their authority must be question as even authorities.
Also there are disagreements within the Bible or NT which then requires you to decide which is which if either and also makes any appeal to Biblical authority questionable at best.

So what you're saying is, the rules don't apply to you? It must be nice to have such a high authority on this site. Sounds like a bias self serving position for a site supporter.[/quote]
It must be nice to claim some authority without showing how it is an authority or why and for what.
The self serving bias would be those that claim it is an authority for their beliefs and therefore must be an authority to others.
I have no real bias except I didn't believe everything that was written or interpreted without question or explaination.
What is it that the NT is suppose to be an authority on?
The self serving seems to be your method.

[Amos]

It must be nice to claim some authority without showing how it is an authority or why and for what.
The self serving bias would be those that claim it is an authority for their beliefs and therefore must be an authority to others.
I have no real bias except I didn't believe everything that was written or interpreted without question or explaination.
What is it that the NT is suppose to be an authority on?
The self serving seems to be your method.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

There is a stickied thread which gives the purpose for this subforum. Go read it, or better yet, have your wife or mother or a literate friend help you read it.

Then go to the apologetics board where the argument you want to have is raging as I type.