Is it possible to be saved but not be a disciple of Christ?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread:

No to a) and b) for the Christian faith. Selling one's possessions and/or abandoning all earthly pursuits is not a direct requirement for "salvation."

How do you interpret this scripture?:
Luk 14:33 "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

Is it possible to be saved but not a disciple of Christ?

Of course.

I know there are many Christians out there who believe that all it takes to be a Christian is to accept Christ as your savior and nothing else. However there is a lot of fine print in the bible that expects a lot more than just that and when people like myself say I am no longer a Christian there are a lot of excuses given by Christians as to why I was not a true Christian to begin with. It seems that just accepting Christ as your savior is not enough to be considered a "true Christian".

So can one be saved and not be a disciple of Christ?
Is it possible to have salvation without following Christ and doing what he says we should be doing?
If I accepted Christ as my savior and was "saved", now that I am an ex-Christian, and no longer a follower of Christ, am I still saved?
Please justify your answers.

[OnceConvinced]

As you've already conceded with the loan analogy there is no non-sequitur here either as the principle is the same for salvation as it is for the loan analogy.

The bible is not a legal document and as such cannot be compared to one.

Let me put it this way. The Bible clearly tells us how we are saved. If there were a different set of "rules" for maintaining our salvation, once saved, it would be just and fair for God to clearly disclose this in the Bible. As clearly as He disclosed how we are saved. God is just and fair. Therefore, the absence of any clear set of "rules" to maintain our salvation is evidence that no such set of "rules" exist.

This is perhaps your best argument so far. Good point. Although I must say there are many things that aren't clear in the bible and are open to debate, even amongsts Christians. So therefore who's to say that's not the issue here?

Mat 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

This is more than just having faith and repenting. You are instructed to follow. This is discipleship. If you don't, then you are not worthy of him. Do you think you can be saved if you are not worthy of him?

Yes I do. No one is worthy of Jesus, OC. No one is worthy of being saved. Thank God for grace and the work Jesus did on the cross. We are instructed to take up our own cross to be worthy of being like him or be one of his disciples, not saved.

Once again you seem to be suggesting I am saying that one must be deemed worthy of Christ first to be saved. That's not what I'm saying and it's not what this scripture is saying. This verse is saying if you don't take up your cross you are not worthy of him. So what if you are saved and you refuse to take up your cross? Then you are not worthy of him, so therefore will not be saved.

If one is sincere in their conversion they will take up their own cross to bear so to speak. It's a callenge, not a rule for maintaining salvation. Jesus is being honest here in this whole section that becoming a Christian will set you apart and bring division.

It's more than just a challenge. It's a condemnation. You are not worthy. Why would he say you are not worthy if you don't take up your cross? You either take up your cross and are deemed worthy or you don't and you are deemed unworthy.

Secondly: The parable of the faithful servent. Luke 12:35-48

Take special note of:
Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming�, and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful.
This is dealing with certain standards of behavior. See how if you do not follow Christ's teachings you will be judged as one of the unfaithful?

We can't take this as an absolute command, as it's a parable. And it says nothing about following Christ's teaching or you will be judged as unfaithful. It seems the first slave is an allegory for a Christian placed in a position of authority that treats his fellow servants (subordinate Christians) in such a way is not saved as he is displaying behaviour that is not good fruit. Therefore, he will be judged by the master(God) as a non-believer. At most, this might be taken as a warning to Christians placed by God into authority roles - pastors, priests, elders, etc. - will be treated like a non-believer if they abuse their authority given by God. It's not a universal command to follow a laundry list of rules to maintain salvation.

Or it could mean that if you are not a good steward of the gifts God has given you, you will lose those gifts. Whether it's a straight out command or not is irrelevent. Parables were used by Christ to teach truths. Even if it is about people in positions of powers it still warns of what will happen if they abuse those positions.

I spoke of internal and external checks revolving around the fruit. You introduced boxes to be checked.

What's the difference?

One could argue that Paul viewed sin as a slippery slope. That once a Christian begins sinning it could lead to more sin if left unattended to. From there a Christian may go so far down that path of sin that he eventually hardens his heart and turns his back on God and loses his salvation.

Well yeah! If the Christain were to follow Christ's teachings that wouldn't happen. Thus the need for being a disciple rather than just a believer.

So trying to look deeper into the scripture rather than just taking it at face value is a mistake?

The first place to begin is taking it at face value unless the immediate context and wording of the text or genre tells us to take it otherwise. "Reading between the lines" should never be taken as authoritative. Especially over clear wording indicating a contrary position.

I don't actually believe I'm looking at it that deeply. It seems to stand out to me.

This is about falling into temptation and sinning.

Exactly. It's not about losing one's salvation.

Slippery slope.

The word "Stand" here is being used in the context of remaining faithful. Falling is in the context of falling from grace.

Stand is in reference to standing firm in one's own strength.

No, it's not. Why would he be saying "Therefore let him who thinks he stands in his own strength take heed lest he fall." Why put in the word "thinks"? In the context here it is talking about someone who thinks he is strong in the faith. It doesn't make sense any other way.

Even if it was a reference to falling from grace, that is not the same as losing one's salvation.

Actually it is. If God's grace is not upon us, then we are not saved. It's by God's grace that we are saved to begin with.

Acts 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Well what do you think it means to "discipline" your body? What do you think Paul is saying when he is talking about preaching in relation to bringing his body into subjection?

In context, get control of his physical desires and urges. Be disciplined so he can be effective at preaching the gospel and running the race of winning people to God's kingdom.

Agreed. I'm glad you used the word "disciplined" there, derived from the word "disciple". So certain actions are required there.

What actions? The Greek word used here for "discipline" is hupopiazo; to hit under the eye (buffet or disable an antagonist as a pugilist), that is, (figuratively) to tease or annoy (into compliance), subdue (one’s passions): - keep under, weary (Strong's). How do you get "disciple" from that word is once again beyond me. The Greek word for disciple is mathetes; a learner, that is, pupil: - disciple. (Strong's).

I'm not looking at the Greek. I'm looking at the black and white English text. What happened to your idea about taking it at face value unless it doesn't make sense?

Actions are involved in getting control of something. Do you claim otherwise?

The entire chapter relates to doing things for our own good. And if we don't do those things which are for our own good?

It's for the good of the gospel that Paul, an apostle, does these things. He's speaking of himself as an apostle, not of what all believers need to do. 1Cor 9:23 Paul said, "I do all this for the sake of the gospel in order to have a share in its blessings." He does them for the gospel. Not to be saved, but blessed.

So you don't think he's inferring others should follow his example?

Not as requirement to maintain or earn our salvation, no.

That's the problem when it comes to debating the meaning of scripture. Everyone has different perspectives so sees things differently.

He sums it up with the last sentence in this scripture "least when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

No. I'm suggesting that Paul likens running a physical race to the race for winning people to Christ. He keeps his body under control (like an athlete would) so he can be effective at preaching (like an athlete would be more effective at his sport) so he is not rejected by those he preaches to (loses the race like an untrained athlete would). The Greek word here for "disqualified" is adokimos; unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally): - castaway, rejected, reprobate(Strong's). He uses it directly in context with the people he is preaching to. You are really stretching here if you think Paul means he must be physically fit or bring his bodies desires under control to maintain his salvation.

It's sad that the English translations of the bible cannot be taken as accurate. We have to go back to the Greek texts to look for different meanings. That's why Christians will never come to an agreement on the meanings of scriptures. Not a criticism aimed at you, but one at bible translations in general.

Perhaps you are right with this one though. But I still don't think it's as obvious as what you claim it to be.

Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

According to their works! Damn! Contradicts the whole faith angle.

Not at all. It supports my whole position. The books would be seen as a record of all good and evil. For the Christians this would be the record of their fruits - whether their faith was the type that saves. Which would be related to their treasure built up in heaven as well. The sheer fact that our names are recorded in the Book of Life gives a sense that our salvation is assured if we have the type of faith that saves. Rev 3:5 Jesus said, The person who conquers in this way will wear white clothes, and I will never erase his name from the Book of Life. I will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and his angels.

So then why would there be any judging at all if that's the case? Judging by works is a very strong statement. But anyway, I don't believe salvation is based on good works, but it seems to carry a lot more weight than what you are suggesting.

This scripture talks about acts that lead to death that put us in the situation of having to repent again, thus showing that certain standards must be met to avoid losing salvation.

Huh? It talks about maturing in Christ to avoid continually repenting.

Yes. It talks about both. And why the need to keep repenting?

What standards are you talking about?

Well if one returns to a situation of having to repent, then it's because of standards that have not been met. Certain actions have been taken that lead to death. What sort of actions would you think lead to death?

In fact this entire chapter addresses falling away. This does not suggest denouncing Christ. It suggests falling from grace. How does one fall from grace? By not following the set standards. Once again discipleship.

It doesn't say anything about discipleship in this chapter. Again, you are inserting that which is not there. It simply says once someone has left the faith it is impossible to continue to renew them back to repentance. Probably because they are not savable evidenced by continually producing bad fruit (Hebrews 6:8).

Why does the word "disciple" need to be there? A disciple is someone who follows the standards and teachings of another. What do you think a disciple is? Perhaps you and I have totally different ideas of what one is?

Mat 6:15
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

You must forgive

As a Christian, if one is forgiven by the father because of Christ, then it would follow that if one's conversion were sincere they would forgive others. If you don't forgive you show you do not appreciate the significance of being forgiven. Forgiving others would be seen as good fruit, not a condition for maintaining salvation.

However this verse quite clearly states that if you don't forgive then your father will not forgive you. Is there any need to look deeper into these words?

Mat 10:33
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

You must never deny being a Christian.

This would be evidence of bad fruit, denying Jesus (not denying being a Christian). Why would a sincere convert deny the one that saved him? He wouldn't if he were sincere.

But yet the warning is there for those who are sincerely converted. Do you think Peter was not a sincere convert of Christ?

Verse 37:
“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

You must love God more than anyone else in your life.

This would be good fruit too.

Agreed but the ramifications are clear if you do not show that fruit. Once again, this scripture is aimed at the converted, not fake Christians.

How about the scripture about “if you are luke warm I will spit you out of my mouth?� What do you think that is saying? I personally see it as being address to fence sitters who have not accepted Christ as their saviour yet. But what about you? Many Christians would claim it’s about being a lukewarm Christian eg a pew sitter.

Luke warm Christians usually do not produce good fruit. If they are not producing good fruit they are either insincere or luke warm. It's an indicator that they do not have the type of faith that saves.

Ok. It always comes back to this. If they are not showing the fruits, then they were not saved in the first place. I find it strange that you do not see that by showing the fruits and acting on those fruits that you are showing yourself to be a disciple. To me this goes hand in hand: Showing Fruits=Disciple. So if one is not showing the fruits then they are not a disciple. If they are not showing the fruits, they are not showing the faith that genuinely saves. To me that proves my point that you must be a disciple. It seems to me that salvation and discipleship go hand in hand. But I don't think you can have one without the other.

Now the other issue I have. I think you may have said earlier that because the only criteria for salvation is faith we can have assurances that we are saved. However from this discussion it seems that there is no assurances. Even you yourself seem to be saying that if we do not show the fruits, then chances are we did not have a sincere conversion. Now I am yet to come across any Christian that doesn't struggles with things like this. In fact many Christians show little of the fruits at all. I'm sure even you yourself are not perfect and fail some times. So does that mean you are not sincerely converted?

On the other hand if one becomes saved and then works at becoming more like Christ, then they can be assured of that salvation (actually it might have been the verses themselves that claimed that). Even if they do fail, they can know that they can ask for forgiveness and they will be forgiven (as long as they are willing to forgive others). They can know that God knows their heart and that they are sincere (like Christ knew the heart of the theif on the cross). I see more confidence in salvation there, than I do in your scenario. In fact in your scenario, there appears to be no such thing as a sincerely converted Christian for the simple fact that no Christian follows Christ's teachings as they should. No Christian shows all the fruits that they should.

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, I’m going to concede this one, Goose. Let me explain why…

When I started debating this one, I was doing my best to argue from the point of view I would have argued as a Christian. Obviously because I am agnostic, I no longer believe what the bible says about this. But I enjoy debating based on Scripture anyway, because I always did before as a Christian. I find it very easy to put on the God glasses when I want to and debate from the POV of a Christian. I guess it’s just a natural thing because I’d been doing it all my life. I think some people may see me as confused or contradictory because I tend to take them on and take them off depending on the topic. Well I had my God glasses off pretty much for the following thread and made these comments:

Why is suicide a sin if Jesus did it

Basically it's as I've maintained over the last year or so, sin ultimately doesn't matter. You can be the most evil person in the world but really it only comes down to whether you accept Christ as your lord and savior. It's that alone that determines whether we go to Heaven or Hell. Sin in general is really irrelevent.

After my following post on that thread is suddenly occurred to me that I seemed to be arguing the same point you are arguing in this thread. That actions have nothing to do with whether we are saved or not, but faith only. This is what I see now as a non-believer looking at scripture without the God glasses on. So applying that same logic to our debate the only conclusion I can come to is that you are right about what you say. It’s all about faith, it has nothing to do with what we do or we don’t do.

I think John 3:16 does pretty much says it all. Believe and you’ll be saved. If not you will perish. Works are not mentioned there anywhere. Sin is not mentioned there anywhere. Ultimately it comes down to faith and nothing more.

So I concede that being saved does not depend on anything you do, thus not dependent on you being a disciple. It is also not dependent on sin.

I still however believe the bible contradicts itself on the matter.