Are You Saved By Grace or Faith Alone

[Aenon]

So you believe in the New testament?

Get to the point.

 

[RJ]

Get to the point.

I would think that was an easily understood question. Let me put it this way, does your Bible have a new testament?

 

[DHC]

Hello Aenon.

1) I do not believe in defining ultimate salvation as mere one time event of conversion to Christianity, but rather seeing it as a
journey. The picture of Salvation, as I see it, is likened to Origen's allegory of the Exodus. Being called out of Egypt, passing through
the waters of baptism, leaving the old man to die in the waters, to be led to the wilderness to feast on the manna from heaven to sustain
you (eucharist), to ultimately be led to the promised land ("he who endures to the end will be saved"). I see salvation not as one moment
in this journey, but the whole journey from start to finish.

I do not see the Christian life as a journey as such Aenon, rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Christ Himself is the beginning and the
end of the journey. You begin with Christ and end with Christ. So the true journey is simply the enduring belief in the Christ for salvation.

2) I reject sola scriptura, for reasons I have not ceased from mentioning.

The scripture contains some hand written letters from the early apostles, these letters are an
invaluable source of information regarding the Christ and His mission. These letters are mostly
eye witness testimonies and contain important points to consider regarding any method of
interpretation.

Is the entire Bible the only source of information on the Christ, is the entire Bible written by
men under the power of the Holy Spirit? I do know that the messianic prophecies within the
Old Testament carry the signature of God. I have no reservation in regarding these messianic
prophecies as sola scripture in their own right. Also Aenon, the early letters by the apostles are
without question reliable and inspired. As far as these two collections of manuscripts are concerned,
definitely sola scripture.

3) I reject the idea that the eucharist and baptism are merely symbolic.

By the term eucharist do you mean breaking the bread in rememberance of the Christ?
Which baptism do you mean, water or fire?

4) I reject the protestant canon, as I accept the old testament books not included in protestant bibles.

What matters is not which manuscript is accepted but do you believe in the death and the resurrection of the Christ.
The gospel is the foundation of Christianity, the manuscripts themselves are not the foundation of Christianity.

5) I reject the judicial concept of atonement as an overemphasis and distortion of the book of Romans, in favor
of the more ancient views modernly termed as Christus Victor.

Not sure if many church organisations or even church theologies ever read Romans correctly.
Not sure either if church tradition is ultimately very reliable, the rock is probably the only place to truly make a stand.

6) I reject a literal understanding of Hell, as it is absurd to think physical fire can burn a soul. I believe Hell is
merely the experience of unbelievers in the presence of God and his glory (2 th 1:9)

How about understanding hell as the rejection of God's pure love and the grave consequence of such a rejection.

 

[Aenon]

I would think that was an easily understood question. Let me put it this way, does your Bible have a new testament?

Yes. Next pointless question.

 

[RJ]

Yes. Next pointless question.

• Is the New testament the same as a Protestant Bible?
• What is the name of the Bible you use?

 

[Spockrates]

Precisely. Everyone has a tradition, some newer than others. It has nothing to do with how much authority you have in the bible, it has to do with where your secondary authority (interpretation) lies, whether it be in yourself or another.

Yes. Then how does one determine what teachers and traditions are true?

 

[Aenon]

Hello Aenon.

I do not see the Christian life as a journey as such Aenon, rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Christ Himself is the beginning and the
end of the journey. You begin with Christ and end with Christ. So the true journey is simply the enduring belief in the Christ for salvation.

Honestly, what you just said is nonsensical. It sounds nice and spiritual because you mentioned Christ multiple times, but it makes no sense in practical terms. You make it sound like the entire purpose of the Christian life is having the correct intellectual checkmark. It seems like you believe the "belief" in Christ is merely thinking in your head that Jesus is God and died for your sins. That is not how the ancient church understood the word "belief." Belief is the inward motivation that fuels every aspect of outer life. Belief is what makes you walk through the waters, eat the body of Christ, repent of sin unto sanctification, and enter the heavenly kingdom unto glorifcation. Your oversimplification misses the entire point.

The scripture contains some hand written letters from the early apostles, these letters are an
invaluable source of information regarding the Christ and His mission. These letters are mostly
eye witness testimonies and contain important points to consider regarding any method of
interpretation.

Don't really understand your need to post this. My reverence of scripture can't get any higher.

Is the entire Bible the only source of information on the Christ, is the entire Bible written by
men under the power of the Holy Spirit? I do know that the messianic prophecies within the
Old Testament carry the signature of God. I have no reservation in regarding these messianic
prophecies as sola scripture in their own right. Also Aenon, the early letters by the apostles are
without question reliable and inspired. As far as these two collections of manuscripts are concerned,
definitely sola scripture.

I don't think you understand my argument against sola scriptura. Sola scriptura has literally nothing to do with authority in the bible, it has to do with the rejection of additional authority. My rejection is not with a high view of scripture, my rejection is with the low view of patristic interpretation.

By the term eucharist do you mean breaking the bread in rememberance of the Christ?
Which baptism do you mean, water or fire?

By eucharist I mean the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. By baptism i mean water immersion.

What matters is not which manuscript is accepted but do you believe in the death and the resurrection of the Christ.
The gospel is the foundation of Christianity, the manuscripts themselves are not the foundation of Christianity.

If that's all that matters then the bible would be a lot shorter.

Not sure if many church organisations or even church theologies ever read Romans correctly.
Not sure either if church tradition is ultimately very reliable, the rock is probably the only place to truly make a stand.

Again, you're saying silly things. The "rock" is the only place to make a stand? What does that even mean?

How about understanding hell as the rejection of God's pure love and the grave consequence of such a rejection.

Not very nuanced but I'll agree with you.

 

[Aenon]

• Is the New testament the same as a Protestant Bible?
• What is the name of the Bible you use?

A1: Yes. No Christian bible has ever included New Testament pseudepigrapha.
A2: I usually use the KJV

 

[Aenon]

Yes. Then how does one determine what teachers and traditions are true?

Patristics, my friend.

 

[RJ]

A1: Yes. No Christian bible has ever included New Testament pseudepigrapha.
A2: I usually use the KJV

• You are a different character and I am really trying to understand what you believe.
• So, in you usually using the KJV version of the Bible...that is a protestant Bible, right?

 

[Aenon]

• You are a different character and I am really trying to understand what you believe.
• So, in you usually using the KJV version of the Bible...that is a protestant Bible, right?

Yes, I am a Protestant after all. There is nothing wrong with the protestant new testament. It is the old testament that has missing books, in which i simply read them online or in the orthodox study bible.

 

[RJ]

es, I am a Protestant after all. There is nothing wrong with the protestant new testament. It is the old testament that has missing books, in which i simply read them online or in the orthodox study bible.

O.K., I am starting to get somewhere.

• So you think that the "Protestant Bible" is the infallible word of God, except that the Old Testament is incomplete....missing some books... as appear in the Septuagint and Vulgate, correct?
• So, you currently have Christ living inside you?

 

[Aenon]

O.K., I am starting to get somewhere.

• So you think that the "Protestant Bible" is the infallible word of God, except that the Old Testament is incomplete....missing some books... as appear in the Septuagint and Vulgate, correct?
• So, you currently have Christ living inside you?

I believe all scripture is given by inspiration. If a bible has missing books, it doesn't mean it isn't scripture or fallable, just like if two slices of pizza are missing from the pie, it doesnt mean the other six are no longer pizza, or somehow not good to eat. If by Christ you mean the Holy Spirit, then yes.

 

[RJ]

I believe all scripture is given by inspiration. If a bible has missing books, it doesn't mean it isn't scripture or fallable, just like if two slices of pizza are missing from the pie, it doesnt mean the other six are no longer pizza, or somehow not good to eat. If by Christ you mean the Holy Spirit, then yes.

I am done, God bless you and your future spiritual growth in Jesus Christ!

 

[amadeus2]

I'll put it in contrasting terms for you to get an idea of what facets of Protestantism I no longer accept:

1) I do not believe in defining ultimate salvation as mere one time event of conversion to Christianity, but rather seeing it as a journey. The picture of Salvation, as I see it, is likened to Origen's allegory of the Exodus. Being called out of Egypt, passing through the waters of baptism, leaving the old man to die in the waters, to be led to the wilderness to feast on the manna from heaven to sustain you (eucharist), to ultimately be led to the promised land ("he who endures to the end will be saved"). I see salvation not as one moment in this journey, but the whole journey from start to finish.

With this I would certainly agree. It has been expressed by others as, "I have been saved, and I am being saved, and I will yet be saved.

2) I reject sola scriptura, for reasons I have not ceased from mentioning.

Most people who believe in God really, do also reject "sola scriptura" even if their words seem to say otherwise. Without the Holy Spirit the scripture itself is not alive to anyone. The necessity of the quickening Spirit makes the Bible alone powerless... even though it was written by men inspired by that Spirit.

3) I reject the idea that the eucharist and baptism are merely symbolic.

In a very strict sense I would also agree with the above.

4) I reject the protestant canon, as I accept the old testament books not included in protestant bibles.

As I have said recently elsewhere on this forum, God has spoken more than that which is written in the 66 books. This doesn't make the Apochrypha scripture, but neither would it definitely exclude it.

5) I reject the judicial concept of atonement as an overemphasis and distortion of the book of Romans, in favor of the more ancient views modernly termed as Christus Victor.

I guess I don't understand what is meant by statement 5).

6) I reject a literal understanding of Hell, as it is absurd to think physical fire can burn a soul. I believe Hell is merely the experience of unbelievers in the presence of God and his glory (2 th 1:9)

I believe that our God is a consuming fire that will burn us up completely if there is no "new" or "inner man" in us. The "old man" is seen in type in the strong soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar who died when they got too close to the fiery furnace to throw the three inside. The three Hebrews who not personally touched they fiery furnace were able to be embraced by that same "consuming fire", which our God is. Notice that the gate to Eden was kept by a flaming sword. The sword we may all recognize as the Word of God. That is Jesus, who is also the Door. The flame burns up evil leaving the good clean and pure .

 

[Aenon]

This doesn't make the Apochrypha scripture, but neither would it definitely exclude it.

I do not call those books apocrypha, because they're not. Apocrypha refers to books that were never considered sacred scripture. The Septuigint books not found in the Protestant OT have always been considered scripture by the early church. I find no reason to make them any lower than the rest of the OT.

 

[amadeus2]

I do not call those books apocrypha, because they're not. Apocrypha refers to books that were never considered sacred scripture. The Septuigint books not found in the Protestant OT have always been considered scripture by the early church. I find no reason to make them any lower than the rest of the OT.

Call them whatever you like, but we need some identifying word to be able to communicate.

 

[DHC]

If that's all that matters then the bible would be a lot shorter.

Hello Aenon.

You make it sound like the entire purpose of the Christian life is having the correct intellectual
checkmark. It seems like you believe the "belief" in Christ is merely thinking in your head that Jesus is
God and died for your sins. That is not how the ancient church understood the word "belief." Belief is
the inward motivation that fuels every aspect of outer life. Belief is what makes you walk through the
waters, eat the body of Christ, repent of sin unto sanctification, and enter the heavenly kingdom unto
glorifcation. Your oversimplification misses the entire point.

Hello again Aenon.

Sorry to bother you with my simplistic approach.

The church as a whole down through the ages was always wrestling with, and proclaiming almost
everything else, bar the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of the older churches have so much canon law,
that you could spend years in the study of their church laws. This endless prattle and debate over matters
they think are important, were never part of the original Christian doctrine, which says a lot about human
nature I think.

Simplicity is the hallmark of the understanding of the revelation of the Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the
simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Read it again 'simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ', is there anything else that needs any attention?

How are we saved?

1 Corinthians 15
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in
which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures

Salvation is only available through the belief in Jesus Christ, the one and only primary doctrine in Christianity.

That is about the sum total of the apostles preaching Aenon, there is not much more to this simple narrative.

Not much else other than say, the royal law, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (James 2:8).

Love for others is probably one of the few secondary doctrines in the scripture.

All very simple Aenon, if there is any complexity in what you believe then, you may be assured that you are
travelling on a wrong path. God knows our nature and He kept it all very simple, so that a simple person,
even a child could readily believe in the Christ and be saved.

I remember a university professor warning us about the submission of assignments. He said to follow
the 'kiss' principle in every assignment, Keep It Simple Stupid!

 

[Aenon]

Hello Aenon.



Hello again Aenon.

Sorry to bother you with my simplistic approach.

The church as a whole down through the ages was always wrestling with, and proclaiming almost
everything else, bar the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of the older churches have so much canon law,
that you could spend years in the study of their church laws. This endless prattle and debate over matters
they think are important, were never part of the original Christian doctrine, which says a lot about human
nature I think.

Simplicity is the hallmark of the understanding of the revelation of the Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the
simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Read it again 'simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ', is there anything else that needs any attention?

How are we saved?

1 Corinthians 15
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in
which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures

Salvation is only available through the belief in Jesus Christ, the one and only primary doctrine in Christianity.

That is about the sum total of the apostles preaching Aenon, there is not much more to this simple narrative.

Not much else other than say, the royal law, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (James 2:8).

Love for others is probably one of the few secondary doctrines in the scripture.

All very simple Aenon, if there is any complexity in what you believe then, you may be assured that you are
travelling on a wrong path. God knows our nature and He kept it all very simple, so that a simple person,
even a child could readily believe in the Christ and be saved.

I remember a university professor warning us about the submission of assignments. He said to follow
the 'kiss' principle in every assignment, Keep It Simple Stupid!

A child can come to faith and be given grace for not knowing the complex. However, fifty year old who still breastfeeds on mama is disturbing. One must grow in theology. Paul says in MALICE be infants, but not in understanding.

 

[Spockrates]

Patristics, my friend.

Why do you call me friend?