Is the Bible Clear on How Someone Can Be "Saved"?

Is the Bible Clear on How Someone Can Be "Saved"?

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

September 20th, 2010, 6:24 pm #1

Is the Bible Clear on How Someone Can Be "Saved"?
~Ken Pulliam
Below is another post by Common Sense Atheism guest blogger Ken Pulliam of Former Fundy. Benefiting from his Ph.D. in Christian theology, Ken will discuss the coherence and plausibility of specific Christian doctrines.

One of the factors in my de-conversion from Evangelical Christianity was my realization that the Bible does not read as one would expect a divine revelation to read.

First, it simply reflects the ideas and beliefs of the time and culture in which it was written. It would seem that if it were a divine revelation, it would present ideas that would transcend those of its times. For example, why doesn't it condemn slavery? Why does it attribute mental illness or epilepsy as demon possession?

Second, it contains much information and detail that seems to be unimportant and unworthy of a divine being. For example, the detailed genealogies in 1 Chronicles (9 chapters) and the gathering of 100 Philistine foreskins by David (1 Sam. 18:25-27).

Third, it is ambiguous on important matters such as how one is to be "saved" or redeemed to God. In an interview that I did with Luke on his podcast, I said:
If the Bible is really a revelation from God and if God really loves man and really wants to reconcile man to himself, would he not have made it much clearer how someone is to be saved? I know that if my children were separated from me and I had the opportunity to write them a letter to tell them how to get back to me, I certainly wouldn't do it in parables and language that's ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I would do my best to make it crystal clear how they could find me .. and if I would do that as a finite human being, certainly God being infinite and being omniscient could find a way to do that. So as I looked at the Bible, as I read it, as I studied it I just came to the conclusion that it cannot be from a divine being.
Most Evangelical Christians will maintain that the Bible is clear on how to be saved. For example, Kevin Bauder, the President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, writes:
In other words, the aspect of Scripture that can be understood by anyone is its saving message. Any truth that is essential to salvation is clearly and comprehensibly revealed "in some place of Scripture or other." Anyone can learn the way of Salvation by reading the Bible. It is no small matter that the way of salvation has been revealed in language that any person can understand. We do not have to rely upon sophisticated intellectual tools. We do not have to rely upon specially-endued ecclesiastical spokesmen. If we can read the Bible in our hands, then we can know how to be saved.1
Bauder is espousing one of the main tenets of the Reformation-the perspicuity of Scripture. The Reformers argued that one could understand the major teachings of the Bible without any help from the Roman Church. The RCC, on the other hand, maintained, that they, and only they, could properly interpret the Scriptures. One Roman leader is reported to have said that if we allow each person to interpret the Bible for himself there will be total confusion and an unlimited number of sects. That is precisely what has happened.

The fact is that Evangelicals cannot even agree among themselves as to what the Bible requires for salvation. They unanimously maintain that faith is required but they disagree on the meaning of faith, the exclusivity of faith, the origin of faith, and the object of faith.
The Meaning of Faith: What Exactly is Involved in Saving Faith?

Those who believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God cannot agree among themselves as to what exactly is involved in having saving faith. For some, faith is simply intellectual assent. For example, on the website of the Grace Evangelical Society, one reads:
Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus ("he who believes in Me has everlasting life") is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16).

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17).
For others, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, and J. I. Packer, saving faith is much more than simply intellectual assent. It is that plus submission to the Lordship of Christ? In his very popular book, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? , MacArthur argues that obedience
* is included in the "definition of faith, being a constitutive element in what it means to believe" (p. 171).
* is "an integral part of saving faith" (p. 174).
* is "synonymous with faith" (p. 174)
* is "indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing" (p. 176).
This is no minor controversy as it involves precisely what is required in order to be saved. It has evoked a number of books in which evangelicals debate one another on the nature of saving faith.2 The various positions are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be harmonized.
The Exclusivity of Faith: Is Faith Alone Sufficient for Salvation?

While evangelicals such as John MacArthur and the Grace Evangelical Society disagree on what constitutes saving faith, they do agree that faith alone is the single requirement for salvation. Others who also believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, though, disagree. They would insist that water baptism is also required. Those evangelicals who trace their lineage to Alexander Campbell (including the churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) believe that faith plus baptism is necessary for salvation. Campbell, a former Baptist, became convinced that the Bible demanded baptism in order to receive forgiveness of sins. He maintained that he was following the clear teaching of Scripture. Campbell's maxim was: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

On the churches of Christ website, one reads that through baptism:
* You are saved from sins (Mark 16:16 1 Peter 3:21)
* You have remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
* Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21)
* You enter into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47)
* You enter into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4)
* You put on Christ and become a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27)
* You are born again, a new creature (Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17)
* You walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-6)
* You obey Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 10:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
Other evangelical groups also insist that baptism is an important element for salvation, although they would disagree with Campbell that it follows faith (and must be by immersion). For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, holds that baptism precedes faith and somehow produces faith. On their website, they state:
Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die.
Evangelical Anglicans also hold that baptism regenerates. ((See Article XXVII in the Thirty Nine Articles (1563) and "The Public Baptism of Infants," in the Book of Common Prayer (1662).)) The vast majority of evangelicals, however, disagree; but, yet all claim to be following the "clear" teaching of the Bible.
The Origin of Faith: How is Faith Generated?

Bible-believing evangelicals also cannot agree on how man acquires faith. Calvinists say that faith is a gift from God. According to them, "Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God" (see here). While Arminians say that faith originates in man. According to them, "The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth" (see here).

So, some Christians read the Bible and conclude that God determines who is saved and implants faith in those people and other Christians read it and conclude that any man can choose to have faith. This is a crucial matter but yet Christians reading the same Bible come to different conclusions.
The Object of Faith: In Whom Must One Have Faith?

Most evangelicals would hold that one must have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. However, there is a growing movement among evangelicals who maintain that one can be saved without ever having heard of Jesus. For example, the evangelical John Sanders writes:
Saving faith . does not necessitate knowledge of Christ in this life. God's gracious activity is wider that the arena of special revelation. God will accept into his kingdom those who repent and trust him even if they know nothing of Jesus ("Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?" The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July-Sept. 1988): 252-53).
Similarly evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock states:
Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information. A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved . The issue that God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology.3
In other words, these evangelicals hold that as long as one has faith in accordance with how much revelation one has of God, that is sufficient for salvation. Other evangelicals violently disagree. They insist that one must have faith specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. ((See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (1996) and John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (2010). For a debate among evangelicals on this subject, see John Sanders, Ronald Nash, and Gabriel Fackre, What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (1995).)) But then this group of evangelicals disagree among themselves on precisely what one must believe about Jesus in order to be saved. Must one believe that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit or is it adequate to believe that Jesus is the Son of God without being more specific? The debate goes on.

So, what must one do to be saved? It depends on which bible-believing evangelical you ask. Even though they all agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they cannot agree on what it says. As I stated at the beginning, it seems to me that if the Bible were really a divine revelation, it would be clear and unambiguous throughout but at the very least it would be plain on how one is to be saved.

- Ken Pulliam
1. "Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 8" [?]
2. After MacArthur published his Gospel According to Jesus in 1988, Zane Hodges, a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote two books opposing his position: Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (1989) and The Gospel Under Siege: Faith & Works in Tension (1992). Charles Ryrie, another professor at Dallas Seminary, tried to take a middle of the road position in his book, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (1989) disagreeing with both Hodges and MacArthur. [?]
3. A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions [1992], p. 158. [?]
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Quote
Like
Share

QUITTNER
QUITTNER

September 20th, 2010, 7:40 pm #2

The "Kingdom of God" was (still is?) an alternative community, an artificial "family" consisting of only GOOD people (those in Jesus' time are now called "Saints"), specially selected and fully qualified to get to be members. All members of "The Kingdom of God, having left the "normal" community called "The World" were SAVED from its many troubles and worries and problems and violence. That's in the bible, and shows how Someone Can be "Saved", and actually WAS SAVED.
Quote
Share

Seoc Colla
Seoc Colla

September 20th, 2010, 8:00 pm #3

This term is a manipulative ploy to put non-religious folk on the back foot in discussion.
The Jehovah folk use this ploy immediately the door opens - to etthe conversation onto their terms. Thus: JW, 'Do you want to be saved'? the loaded question begs a 'Yes, please' I've always countered this ploy with: 'from what and by whom' - and never had a reply yet.

Or, 'Do you believe the bible to be the word of god'? The one they get fro me is: which bible for which god'? And so on.
They're very nice folk, nevertheless.
Quote
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2009, 7:55 pm

September 20th, 2010, 8:09 pm #4

They're very nice folk, nevertheless.

Yes, if but just a bit naive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is only enough room in heaven for 144,000 souls, right?

And they have a current worldwide membership of 7.3 million?

Has anyone ever tried to explain mathematics to them?

-----------------------------------------------
"Forget Jesus! Stars died so we all could exist!" -- Lawrence Krauss, astrophysicist
Quote
Like
Share

lox
lox

September 20th, 2010, 8:31 pm #5

Is the Bible Clear on How Someone Can Be "Saved"?
~Ken Pulliam
Below is another post by Common Sense Atheism guest blogger Ken Pulliam of Former Fundy. Benefiting from his Ph.D. in Christian theology, Ken will discuss the coherence and plausibility of specific Christian doctrines.

One of the factors in my de-conversion from Evangelical Christianity was my realization that the Bible does not read as one would expect a divine revelation to read.

First, it simply reflects the ideas and beliefs of the time and culture in which it was written. It would seem that if it were a divine revelation, it would present ideas that would transcend those of its times. For example, why doesn't it condemn slavery? Why does it attribute mental illness or epilepsy as demon possession?

Second, it contains much information and detail that seems to be unimportant and unworthy of a divine being. For example, the detailed genealogies in 1 Chronicles (9 chapters) and the gathering of 100 Philistine foreskins by David (1 Sam. 18:25-27).

Third, it is ambiguous on important matters such as how one is to be "saved" or redeemed to God. In an interview that I did with Luke on his podcast, I said:
If the Bible is really a revelation from God and if God really loves man and really wants to reconcile man to himself, would he not have made it much clearer how someone is to be saved? I know that if my children were separated from me and I had the opportunity to write them a letter to tell them how to get back to me, I certainly wouldn't do it in parables and language that's ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I would do my best to make it crystal clear how they could find me .. and if I would do that as a finite human being, certainly God being infinite and being omniscient could find a way to do that. So as I looked at the Bible, as I read it, as I studied it I just came to the conclusion that it cannot be from a divine being.
Most Evangelical Christians will maintain that the Bible is clear on how to be saved. For example, Kevin Bauder, the President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, writes:
In other words, the aspect of Scripture that can be understood by anyone is its saving message. Any truth that is essential to salvation is clearly and comprehensibly revealed "in some place of Scripture or other." Anyone can learn the way of Salvation by reading the Bible. It is no small matter that the way of salvation has been revealed in language that any person can understand. We do not have to rely upon sophisticated intellectual tools. We do not have to rely upon specially-endued ecclesiastical spokesmen. If we can read the Bible in our hands, then we can know how to be saved.1
Bauder is espousing one of the main tenets of the Reformation-the perspicuity of Scripture. The Reformers argued that one could understand the major teachings of the Bible without any help from the Roman Church. The RCC, on the other hand, maintained, that they, and only they, could properly interpret the Scriptures. One Roman leader is reported to have said that if we allow each person to interpret the Bible for himself there will be total confusion and an unlimited number of sects. That is precisely what has happened.

The fact is that Evangelicals cannot even agree among themselves as to what the Bible requires for salvation. They unanimously maintain that faith is required but they disagree on the meaning of faith, the exclusivity of faith, the origin of faith, and the object of faith.
The Meaning of Faith: What Exactly is Involved in Saving Faith?

Those who believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God cannot agree among themselves as to what exactly is involved in having saving faith. For some, faith is simply intellectual assent. For example, on the website of the Grace Evangelical Society, one reads:
Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus ("he who believes in Me has everlasting life") is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16).

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17).
For others, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, and J. I. Packer, saving faith is much more than simply intellectual assent. It is that plus submission to the Lordship of Christ? In his very popular book, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? , MacArthur argues that obedience
* is included in the "definition of faith, being a constitutive element in what it means to believe" (p. 171).
* is "an integral part of saving faith" (p. 174).
* is "synonymous with faith" (p. 174)
* is "indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing" (p. 176).
This is no minor controversy as it involves precisely what is required in order to be saved. It has evoked a number of books in which evangelicals debate one another on the nature of saving faith.2 The various positions are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be harmonized.
The Exclusivity of Faith: Is Faith Alone Sufficient for Salvation?

While evangelicals such as John MacArthur and the Grace Evangelical Society disagree on what constitutes saving faith, they do agree that faith alone is the single requirement for salvation. Others who also believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, though, disagree. They would insist that water baptism is also required. Those evangelicals who trace their lineage to Alexander Campbell (including the churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) believe that faith plus baptism is necessary for salvation. Campbell, a former Baptist, became convinced that the Bible demanded baptism in order to receive forgiveness of sins. He maintained that he was following the clear teaching of Scripture. Campbell's maxim was: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

On the churches of Christ website, one reads that through baptism:
* You are saved from sins (Mark 16:16 1 Peter 3:21)
* You have remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
* Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21)
* You enter into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47)
* You enter into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4)
* You put on Christ and become a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27)
* You are born again, a new creature (Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17)
* You walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-6)
* You obey Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 10:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
Other evangelical groups also insist that baptism is an important element for salvation, although they would disagree with Campbell that it follows faith (and must be by immersion). For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, holds that baptism precedes faith and somehow produces faith. On their website, they state:
Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die.
Evangelical Anglicans also hold that baptism regenerates. ((See Article XXVII in the Thirty Nine Articles (1563) and "The Public Baptism of Infants," in the Book of Common Prayer (1662).)) The vast majority of evangelicals, however, disagree; but, yet all claim to be following the "clear" teaching of the Bible.
The Origin of Faith: How is Faith Generated?

Bible-believing evangelicals also cannot agree on how man acquires faith. Calvinists say that faith is a gift from God. According to them, "Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God" (see here). While Arminians say that faith originates in man. According to them, "The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth" (see here).

So, some Christians read the Bible and conclude that God determines who is saved and implants faith in those people and other Christians read it and conclude that any man can choose to have faith. This is a crucial matter but yet Christians reading the same Bible come to different conclusions.
The Object of Faith: In Whom Must One Have Faith?

Most evangelicals would hold that one must have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. However, there is a growing movement among evangelicals who maintain that one can be saved without ever having heard of Jesus. For example, the evangelical John Sanders writes:
Saving faith . does not necessitate knowledge of Christ in this life. God's gracious activity is wider that the arena of special revelation. God will accept into his kingdom those who repent and trust him even if they know nothing of Jesus ("Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?" The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July-Sept. 1988): 252-53).
Similarly evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock states:
Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information. A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved . The issue that God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology.3
In other words, these evangelicals hold that as long as one has faith in accordance with how much revelation one has of God, that is sufficient for salvation. Other evangelicals violently disagree. They insist that one must have faith specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. ((See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (1996) and John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (2010). For a debate among evangelicals on this subject, see John Sanders, Ronald Nash, and Gabriel Fackre, What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (1995).)) But then this group of evangelicals disagree among themselves on precisely what one must believe about Jesus in order to be saved. Must one believe that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit or is it adequate to believe that Jesus is the Son of God without being more specific? The debate goes on.

So, what must one do to be saved? It depends on which bible-believing evangelical you ask. Even though they all agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they cannot agree on what it says. As I stated at the beginning, it seems to me that if the Bible were really a divine revelation, it would be clear and unambiguous throughout but at the very least it would be plain on how one is to be saved.

- Ken Pulliam
1. "Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 8" [?]
2. After MacArthur published his Gospel According to Jesus in 1988, Zane Hodges, a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote two books opposing his position: Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (1989) and The Gospel Under Siege: Faith & Works in Tension (1992). Charles Ryrie, another professor at Dallas Seminary, tried to take a middle of the road position in his book, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (1989) disagreeing with both Hodges and MacArthur. [?]
3. A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions [1992], p. 158. [?]
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Things of God are just that: things of God and not man!




But the things of God cannot be reasoned with the carnal mind since that mind is hostile toward

the things of God. Just look at how that mind, even in religious ones treat a son of God!


But the first question is: Saved?


Second: from what/who?

We know that God has layed out the Way and there is no other way!


Does God compromise?


NO!


Total surrender of that mind/ego and no less.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

September 20th, 2010, 8:56 pm #6

Is the Bible Clear on How Someone Can Be "Saved"?
~Ken Pulliam
Below is another post by Common Sense Atheism guest blogger Ken Pulliam of Former Fundy. Benefiting from his Ph.D. in Christian theology, Ken will discuss the coherence and plausibility of specific Christian doctrines.

One of the factors in my de-conversion from Evangelical Christianity was my realization that the Bible does not read as one would expect a divine revelation to read.

First, it simply reflects the ideas and beliefs of the time and culture in which it was written. It would seem that if it were a divine revelation, it would present ideas that would transcend those of its times. For example, why doesn't it condemn slavery? Why does it attribute mental illness or epilepsy as demon possession?

Second, it contains much information and detail that seems to be unimportant and unworthy of a divine being. For example, the detailed genealogies in 1 Chronicles (9 chapters) and the gathering of 100 Philistine foreskins by David (1 Sam. 18:25-27).

Third, it is ambiguous on important matters such as how one is to be "saved" or redeemed to God. In an interview that I did with Luke on his podcast, I said:
If the Bible is really a revelation from God and if God really loves man and really wants to reconcile man to himself, would he not have made it much clearer how someone is to be saved? I know that if my children were separated from me and I had the opportunity to write them a letter to tell them how to get back to me, I certainly wouldn't do it in parables and language that's ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I would do my best to make it crystal clear how they could find me .. and if I would do that as a finite human being, certainly God being infinite and being omniscient could find a way to do that. So as I looked at the Bible, as I read it, as I studied it I just came to the conclusion that it cannot be from a divine being.
Most Evangelical Christians will maintain that the Bible is clear on how to be saved. For example, Kevin Bauder, the President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, writes:
In other words, the aspect of Scripture that can be understood by anyone is its saving message. Any truth that is essential to salvation is clearly and comprehensibly revealed "in some place of Scripture or other." Anyone can learn the way of Salvation by reading the Bible. It is no small matter that the way of salvation has been revealed in language that any person can understand. We do not have to rely upon sophisticated intellectual tools. We do not have to rely upon specially-endued ecclesiastical spokesmen. If we can read the Bible in our hands, then we can know how to be saved.1
Bauder is espousing one of the main tenets of the Reformation-the perspicuity of Scripture. The Reformers argued that one could understand the major teachings of the Bible without any help from the Roman Church. The RCC, on the other hand, maintained, that they, and only they, could properly interpret the Scriptures. One Roman leader is reported to have said that if we allow each person to interpret the Bible for himself there will be total confusion and an unlimited number of sects. That is precisely what has happened.

The fact is that Evangelicals cannot even agree among themselves as to what the Bible requires for salvation. They unanimously maintain that faith is required but they disagree on the meaning of faith, the exclusivity of faith, the origin of faith, and the object of faith.
The Meaning of Faith: What Exactly is Involved in Saving Faith?

Those who believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God cannot agree among themselves as to what exactly is involved in having saving faith. For some, faith is simply intellectual assent. For example, on the website of the Grace Evangelical Society, one reads:
Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus ("he who believes in Me has everlasting life") is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16).

No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17).
For others, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, and J. I. Packer, saving faith is much more than simply intellectual assent. It is that plus submission to the Lordship of Christ? In his very popular book, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? , MacArthur argues that obedience
* is included in the "definition of faith, being a constitutive element in what it means to believe" (p. 171).
* is "an integral part of saving faith" (p. 174).
* is "synonymous with faith" (p. 174)
* is "indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing" (p. 176).
This is no minor controversy as it involves precisely what is required in order to be saved. It has evoked a number of books in which evangelicals debate one another on the nature of saving faith.2 The various positions are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be harmonized.
The Exclusivity of Faith: Is Faith Alone Sufficient for Salvation?

While evangelicals such as John MacArthur and the Grace Evangelical Society disagree on what constitutes saving faith, they do agree that faith alone is the single requirement for salvation. Others who also believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, though, disagree. They would insist that water baptism is also required. Those evangelicals who trace their lineage to Alexander Campbell (including the churches of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) believe that faith plus baptism is necessary for salvation. Campbell, a former Baptist, became convinced that the Bible demanded baptism in order to receive forgiveness of sins. He maintained that he was following the clear teaching of Scripture. Campbell's maxim was: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

On the churches of Christ website, one reads that through baptism:
* You are saved from sins (Mark 16:16 1 Peter 3:21)
* You have remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
* Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21)
* You enter into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47)
* You enter into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4)
* You put on Christ and become a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27)
* You are born again, a new creature (Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17)
* You walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-6)
* You obey Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 10:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
Other evangelical groups also insist that baptism is an important element for salvation, although they would disagree with Campbell that it follows faith (and must be by immersion). For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, holds that baptism precedes faith and somehow produces faith. On their website, they state:
Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die.
Evangelical Anglicans also hold that baptism regenerates. ((See Article XXVII in the Thirty Nine Articles (1563) and "The Public Baptism of Infants," in the Book of Common Prayer (1662).)) The vast majority of evangelicals, however, disagree; but, yet all claim to be following the "clear" teaching of the Bible.
The Origin of Faith: How is Faith Generated?

Bible-believing evangelicals also cannot agree on how man acquires faith. Calvinists say that faith is a gift from God. According to them, "Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God" (see here). While Arminians say that faith originates in man. According to them, "The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth" (see here).

So, some Christians read the Bible and conclude that God determines who is saved and implants faith in those people and other Christians read it and conclude that any man can choose to have faith. This is a crucial matter but yet Christians reading the same Bible come to different conclusions.
The Object of Faith: In Whom Must One Have Faith?

Most evangelicals would hold that one must have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. However, there is a growing movement among evangelicals who maintain that one can be saved without ever having heard of Jesus. For example, the evangelical John Sanders writes:
Saving faith . does not necessitate knowledge of Christ in this life. God's gracious activity is wider that the arena of special revelation. God will accept into his kingdom those who repent and trust him even if they know nothing of Jesus ("Is Belief in Christ Necessary for Salvation?" The Evangelical Quarterly 60.3 (July-Sept. 1988): 252-53).
Similarly evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock states:
Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information. A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved . The issue that God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology.3
In other words, these evangelicals hold that as long as one has faith in accordance with how much revelation one has of God, that is sufficient for salvation. Other evangelicals violently disagree. They insist that one must have faith specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. ((See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (1996) and John Piper, Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (2010). For a debate among evangelicals on this subject, see John Sanders, Ronald Nash, and Gabriel Fackre, What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (1995).)) But then this group of evangelicals disagree among themselves on precisely what one must believe about Jesus in order to be saved. Must one believe that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit or is it adequate to believe that Jesus is the Son of God without being more specific? The debate goes on.

So, what must one do to be saved? It depends on which bible-believing evangelical you ask. Even though they all agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they cannot agree on what it says. As I stated at the beginning, it seems to me that if the Bible were really a divine revelation, it would be clear and unambiguous throughout but at the very least it would be plain on how one is to be saved.

- Ken Pulliam
1. "Fundamentalism: Whence? Where? Whither? Part 8" [?]
2. After MacArthur published his Gospel According to Jesus in 1988, Zane Hodges, a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote two books opposing his position: Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (1989) and The Gospel Under Siege: Faith & Works in Tension (1992). Charles Ryrie, another professor at Dallas Seminary, tried to take a middle of the road position in his book, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (1989) disagreeing with both Hodges and MacArthur. [?]
3. A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions [1992], p. 158. [?]
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Do the math, even!

Quote
Like
Share

lox
lox

September 20th, 2010, 9:57 pm #7

an acknowledged need and at times hit bottom to even consider: I need to get it right with God!
Quote
Share

Seoc Colla
Seoc Colla

September 20th, 2010, 11:13 pm #8

Things of God are just that: things of God and not man!




But the things of God cannot be reasoned with the carnal mind since that mind is hostile toward

the things of God. Just look at how that mind, even in religious ones treat a son of God!


But the first question is: Saved?


Second: from what/who?

We know that God has layed out the Way and there is no other way!


Does God compromise?


NO!


Total surrender of that mind/ego and no less.
""We know that God has layed out the Way and there is no other way""

We do? Which god laid out what?

Quote
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

September 21st, 2010, 3:03 am #9

Do the math, even!

Baptism by fire.

On a serious note, this doctrine stuff .. it doesn't take much to see how contrived it is. This "ask Jesus into your heart" crap, and it is crap -- it's just humans preying on emotions.

The appeal of the evangelical stuff is obvious. Emotional release, absolution, cleansed!

It's not like it would make a difference to me if The Bible spelled it out, because I have drawn my conclusions from evidence, that the Bible was not written or inspired by God (any more than any other book .. not saying there isn't some inspired stuff in there) -- so even if it was consistent on what salvation is and how to get it, it wouldn't matter to me.

But the fact is, it's vague and contradictory. Both on what it is and how to get it.

Doctrines of devils.

The easy part is Jesus' commandments. Loving one another, being forgiving, listening to a higher calling. Easy is probably the wrong word. It's simple. Not easy.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

September 21st, 2010, 3:26 am #10


Not surprising that the "religious right" is both a religious and political movement. Quite similar to the Taliban and other similar fundamentalist movements of other religious in other countries. They're not able to see or understand that, though.
Quote
Like
Share