"Getting Saved"

[subllibrm]

rsc2a and Alayman seem to have some serious differences in how they see the concept of salvation. I am starting this thread as an opportunity for them to give a basic explanation of what salvation is and how it happens.

Ground rules: the two of you may start with your own doctrinal position but may NOT respond to what the other one posts until I have had an opportunity to ask some clarifying questions of my own. Since both of you have an incredible ability to talk past each other, I am setting this limit so that the rabbit trails can be avoided until I understand what your actual position is. Afterwards feel free to misrepresent each other as you please.

If this is unacceptable to you then don't bother to post at all.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Pot stirrer.

















I'll give rsc2a the floor for opening remarks.



And it is likely that the activities of the day, as well as the weekend busy-ness, will preclude me from participating much until Monday.

 

[rsc2a]

What is salvation? Salvation is God's deliverance from sin and its consequences.

How does this happen? God chooses to save, and they are saved.

What is the effective means of salvation? The effective means of salvation is the perfect sacrifice of His Son, Jesus, on the cross where sin was atoned for and its effects were defeated as evidenced by His resurrection three days later. To those God saves, He gives the righteousness of the God-man Jesus so that we are made whole and so the effects of sin are removed.

What methods does God use to save? When I look at Scripture and when Jesus brings salvation, I see a variety of methods. In one case, He uses a prophet to tell a man to wash in a river. In another, He uses an angel to touch a man's tongue with fire. For the Israelite nation, He provides bread from heaven. There are dozens of methods, really. After the Incarnation, Jesus brings salvation by the following means: telling a man his sins are forgiven, calming a storm, feeding thousands through a miraculous provision of God, letting a woman touch His garment, telling a little girl to wake up, touching a man's ears and then tongue, calling out to a man to come out, among many many others. Lastly, He uses His apostles to bring His salvation by giving them the power to cast out demons, giving them power to bring the dead to life, and other ways. He tells us that He uses confession, repentance, baptism, the Eucharist, good works and a host of other means to bring about our salvation.

When does salvation occur? I was saved. I am being saved. I will be saved.
Is salvation a communal or individual process? Yes.
Is it for the individual or all of creation? Yes.
Is this a process or a point in time? Yes.



There is a ton more I could write but ask away.

 

[subllibrm]

Cool, you guys are great.

rsc2a I do not see anything that makes me go "no-way" although I did go Hmmm in a couple of spots.

For instance, I'm not sure how feeding thousands would be "salvation" other than He met  a temporal need. That need reappeared after they had digested the fish and bread so it would not have been eternal nor spiritual. Since my key thought is the eternal salvation of the soul I will accept the premise of a temporal "saving" and move on. The same with the "communal" idea you mentioned. Both ideas to dig into at a later time maybe.

Question: how/when does the individual know they are saved, being saved, will be saved? (I agree fully with the past/present/future idea of salvvation BTW)

 

[rsc2a]

Cool, you guys are great.

rsc2a I do not see anything that makes me go "no-way" although I did go Hmmm in a couple of spots.

[quote author=subllibrm]For instance, I'm not sure how feeding thousands would be "salvation" other than He met  a temporal need. That need reappeared after they had digested the fish and bread so it would not have been eternal nor spiritual. Since my key thought is the eternal salvation of the soul I will accept the premise of a temporal "saving" and move on. The same with the "communal" idea you mentioned. Both ideas to dig into at a later time maybe.[/quote]

I don't think these are separable. A hard separation of physical/spiritual (and, by extension, sacred/secular) is a defining point of gnosticism. Regarding the communal comment, salvation is found by individual actions, but salvation is also found through the Church (although not from the Church). When we feed hungry folks and care for the sick, we are God's tools that He is using to bring salvation to those people. (And, in a greater sense, He is bringing about our salvation by allowing us to be His tools.)

[quote author=subllibrm]Question: how/when does the individual know they are saved, being saved, will be saved? (I agree fully with the past/present/future idea of salvvation BTW)[/quote]

I think this is the idea behind faith/hope. (I find it impossible to separate those two as well.) Faith is trusting that God is who He says He is and that He will work all for the good. Knowing this, we hope for the day when we see the Kingdom of God in its fullness (alhtough it is already here). Part of the majesty of Communion is the major eschatological promise seen in our Passover Lamb.

Do I know? I absolutely know.
Do I absolutely know? I hope I do and I strive to finish the race.

 

[subllibrm]

Okay, plenty for me to chew on for now. I will be looking forward to Aman's post.

Thanks for playing nicely guys!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Salvation is the act of God to reconcile man to Himself through the propitiation of His Son.  Without getting into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, God receives all the glory for the entirety of salvation, which is generally understood in evangelical circles to consist of justification, sanctification, and glorification of man.  Salvation is now and has always been in the person of God, wrought through faith.  The Westminster Catechism sums up the purpose of man in this process by asking "what is the chief end of man?...to glorify God and enjoy Him forever".  So salvation brings about a punishment for the sins of mankind, and it appropriates/imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner's account, quickening his dead spirt at the moment of justification.  As a result of this new life in Christ (ie "salvation") I am enabled by the Spirit to cooperate with God to do the works which He created me to do, and thereby glorify him.  This doesn't merely regard the aspects of evangelism as traditionally understood in evangelical circles (preaching, missions, etc), but also provides a basis for me to enjoy His creation and its redemption.

The object of that faith is the triune God (though the OT saints were unaware to the same extent that we are of this triune nature), and each member plays a vital yet different role in the salvation process.  In the New Testament era salvation is wrought in us by God through the intrumentality (or "ordinary means of grace") and agency of the gospel.  This faith, wrought by the gospel comes about by the hearing of the word of God, either having been read or heard.  Salvation includes the spiritual (soul) as well as the physical (resurrection of the body).  The cumulative benefits of salvation extends eschatologically beyond merely our personal individual being to ultimately a new heaven and earth, where the effects of the fall and sin will be eradicated.

 

[christundivided]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

 

[subllibrm]

While reading the tit-for-tat between our two scholars I was reminded of a claim made by a former co-worker years ago. He said that he had been regenerated in the womb. That his salvation in Christ had no earthly time or date. That he had never taken a breath as a condemned sinner as his salvation was secured during gestation. That any sin issues he dealt with were due to having a earthly body and those were forgiven already. As such he had no need to confess or repent because to do so would undermine the atonement paid for by Christ on the cross.

I do not atribute that to anyone here but it is what popped up in my old pea-brain.

 

[subllibrm]

I heard this recently and thought of it when gnosticism was mentioned.

"Most people think of their body as who/what they are and see themselves as having a soul. Instead we need to understand that we are a soul and that we have a body."

Chewing on that a little too.

 

[rsc2a]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't?

 

[rsc2a]

I heard this recently and thought of it when gnosticism was mentioned.

"Most people think of their body as who/what they are and see themselves as having a soul. Instead we need to understand that we are a soul and that we have a body."

Chewing on that a little too.

I would disagree with both. We are a soul and a body.

 

[christundivided]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't?

You said....

""all of the above""

It can't be all the above. The choices are not compatible.

You can't say "all the above" and then proceed to appear evangelical by saying "PS" is the "most" correct. In typical rsca fashion, you want to appear to be all things to everyone while constantly trolling to find fault with whatever someone else believes. The very fact you said "all the above", means you really don't know the subject.

 

[christundivided]

I heard this recently and thought of it when gnosticism was mentioned.

"Most people think of their body as who/what they are and see themselves as having a soul. Instead we need to understand that we are a soul and that we have a body."

Chewing on that a little too.

I agree with you.

Certainly our soul and body are not equal parts. Rsca fails to realize our "body" has a date with a destiny that will forever change our being. I imagine rsca has never song that old hymn "It is well" and realized just what it meant.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Soul and body have to be separate, because the song is "Body and Soul" not "Soul with a Body".

 

[Izdaari]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't?

I liked his "all of the above answer". And see my post immediately after his, the one he linked to.

There is no requirement that one theory of the Atonement be the only correct one. Those are just human attempts to explain something God has done. What matters is THAT it works. HOW it works is for our "little pea-brains" to try to figure out, and we may still have it wrong... but it still works.

 

[christundivided]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't?

I liked his "all of the above answer". And see my post immediately after his, the one he linked to.

There is no requirement that one theory of the Atonement be the only correct one. Those are just human attempts to explain something God has done. What matters is THAT it works. HOW it works is for our "little pea-brains" to try to figure out, and we may still have it wrong... but it still works.

Would you like to figure it out or have you given up? How often do you give an "all the above" answer to difficult things to understand? If you don't understand something, then I wouldn't think you'd say "all the above". You might just be honest and say "I don't know".

 

[rsc2a]

You said....

""all of the above""

It can't be all the above. The choices are not compatible.

Why not?

[quote author=christundivided]You can't say "all the above" and then proceed to appear evangelical by saying "PS" is the "most" correct. In typical rsca fashion, you want to appear to be all things to everyone while constantly trolling to find fault with whatever someone else believes. The very fact you said "all the above", means you really don't know the subject.[/quote]

I didn't say PS is the most correct. I said that, from a certain perspective, PS is most correct. And, some tremendous theologians, guys who are a lot smarter than both you and I when it comes to theology, also agree the answer is "all of the above". You know...conservative guys like Piper, Carson, Wright, and Sproul...or do they not really know the subject either? They may say that one model drives the other, but they all acknowledge that all are compatible and correct.

(Of course, your position also ignores all the verses that speak of a CV model of atonement...verses that go along with all those verses that speak about a PAS model of atonement.)

[quote author=christundivided]Would you like to figure it out or have you given up? How often do you give an "all the above" answer to difficult things to understand? If you don't understand something, then I wouldn't think you'd say "all the above". You might just be honest and say "I don't know".[/quote]

She didn't give an "all of the above" because she thought it was difficult to understand. She gave an "all of the above" answer because she believes that's the correct answer.



[quote author=christundivided]Certainly our soul and body are not equal parts. Rsca fails to realize our "body" has a date with a destiny that will forever change our being. I imagine rsca has never song that old hymn "It is well" and realized just what it meant.[/quote]

Actually, I've read Paul and I've read the gospel accounts of Jesus after the Resurrection. That's why I don't hold to a belief that would make us "of all people most to be pitied".

But if you want to adhere to gnostic beliefs, by all means...just don't call them "Christian".

 

[Izdaari]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't?

I liked his "all of the above answer". And see my post immediately after his, the one he linked to.

There is no requirement that one theory of the Atonement be the only correct one. Those are just human attempts to explain something God has done. What matters is THAT it works. HOW it works is for our "little pea-brains" to try to figure out, and we may still have it wrong... but it still works.

Would you like to figure it out or have you given up? How often do you give an "all the above" answer to difficult things to understand? If you don't understand something, then I wouldn't think you'd say "all the above". You might just be honest and say "I don't know".

If I had to pick just one, I would say Christus Victor. But I'm glad I don't have to.

But as far as certainty that I'm correct, "I don't know" is the right answer. This is one of those things that we "see as through a glass darkly" in this life.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Since you both are taking questions...

I rather certain that Alayman subscribes to a "Penal Substitutionary" explanation of The Atonement. On the other hand, I'm rather certain that rsca2 doesn't. Can you both elaborate in how you view "The Atonement". I've found that such a discussion shows how/what someone really believes about  "salvation"! Take your time rsca2. You may have to study a little bit...

I don't feel like I really have studied thoroughly enough yet to know enough about CV to make any real educated criticism.  What I do know is that the element of that theory which does go into more explanation as to the corporate nature of the atonement is somewhat appealing.  I don't think the two theories are contradictory, at least not from my understanding, and as such they could be viewed as complementary.  As I comprehend the atonement, I find it's value to be far more compelling at the individual level rather than the eschatological, and as such, find pragmatic reasons for using it as my preferred model of evangelism.  More people can fathom the depths of their own sinfulness as it relates to their own life and deeds than they can to "the restoration of all things" IMHO.