Once saved always saved? A debate!

there's nothing you can make that can't be made,

no one you can save that can't be saved...

it's easy:

All you need is love.

 

I hope I don't offend you, but that is where I think Christianity gets ridiculous. To me, the idea that simply accepting this guy will make up for all you sins is ridiculous. It's like a safe zone. People can do whatever they want but they will still be "good people" because they accept this guy. It allows them to not be a good person - what should be the whole point of religion - and still get away with it simply by say "yeah, I accept you." They might as well press a button that all of the sudden makes their sins ok.

None taken, because it would be ridiculous if all you had to say was "I accept you." What it really means is that by ourselves, no matter how good we are and how much we do we will always fall short of perfection. It is only after ALL we can do, we must try our best, without Christ our best would never be good enough, but if we try our best and be as good as people as we can, THEN Christ will make up for the rest. Accepting Christ as your Savior is important, but you don't just accept Christ by saying a few words, you accept Him by following Him in your daily life, day in, day out. If you slip up along the way He is there to help you get back on track, but true repentance is something that is not easy, and it is always easier to not sin than to have to repent. Those that commit sins and say "oh Jesus will take care of all of that" don't understand His sacrifice, because if they did they would understand just a small portion of how much he had to suffer. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a deathbed repentance, because a few words at the end of life is not going to make up for a lifetime of misdeeds.

Indeed DARTH-SHREDDER as Christian religions go the one I belong to is closer to the Works end of the spectrum than the Faith end. And I don't mean to critize other churches, but I too am disturbed by the people who say "I am saved" and change nothing. To be truly "born again" that would seem to mean some kind of change in behavior rather than simple "confession" of truth. In church today someone quoted Emerson when he said, "Your actions are so loud I can't hear a word you say" or something to that effect.

 

None taken, because it would be ridiculous if all you had to say was "I accept you." What it really means is that by ourselves, no matter how good we are and how much we do we will always fall short of perfection. It is only after ALL we can do, we must try our best, without Christ our best would never be good enough, but if we try our best and be as good as people as we can, THEN Christ will make up for the rest. Accepting Christ as your Savior is important, but you don't just accept Christ by saying a few words, you accept Him by following Him in your daily life, day in, day out. If you slip up along the way He is there to help you get back on track, but true repentance is something that is not easy, and it is always easier to not sin than to have to repent. Those that commit sins and say "oh Jesus will take care of all of that" don't understand His sacrifice, because if they did they would understand just a small portion of how much he had to suffer. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a deathbed repentance, because a few words at the end of life is not going to make up for a lifetime of misdeeds.

Fair enough. You actually have to live by Christ too. However, alot of people don't actually follow the teachings of Christ but their church will still tell them they're ok because they accept Christ. And where do you draw the line of whether somebody is trying their best? Somebody could say they're doing their best but not be. It still seems people can still get away with being a bad person and accept Christ. This concept just doesn't work as well as it seems.

But more than that I think there is no need for Jesus to make up for our imperfect qualities. I know humans aren't perfect and I don't think anybody needs to make up for it. All we need is to be our best, and though we'll never be perfect, we can try, and that will help everybody in the long run.

 

I guess that is why I am glad only Christ himself will be our Judge, because unless you are all-knowing of everyones different situations it really wouldn't be fair. And in the end we will know that His judgements are just.

As for the actual need of a savior, the goal of our existence is to achieve perfection. Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Seeing how there was only one man in this life that was able to achive perfection, I guess that here in this life just to live a decent life it is not necessary to know Christ, there have been many good people that haven't. The purpose of life is for us to gain knowledge, specifically to choose between right and wrong, however our quest for knowledge doesn't end with death. As God is all-knowing, and as we have been commanded to be like him, it is only natural that it is our purpose to continually continue learning until we reach that point, but unless there is some way for us to overcome the imperfections of this life, which I think we can all agree that we have, our progress in learning would be halted, hence the need for a savior.

 

I guess that is why I am glad only Christ himself will be our Judge, because unless you are all-knowing of everyones different situations it really wouldn't be fair. And in the end we will know that His judgements are just.

However, Christ isn't with us today. And alot of people are midlead by thinking that by going to church and accepting Christ they are being a good person.

As for the actual need of a savior, the goal of our existence is to achieve perfection. Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Seeing how there was only one man in this life that was able to achive perfection, I guess that here in this life just to live a decent life it is not necessary to know Christ, there have been many good people that haven't.

That is where we disagree. I don't think all imperfection is worthless. It's not all the same to me. I don't think we need somebody to come and make us perfect. It just seems silly to me as they're not really doing anything but saying "ok, now you're perfect." But I also don't think Christ was perfect. From what the bible says about him, he was arrogant and told everybody that he was the only way to God. Doesn't really sound like a flawless being to me.

The purpose of life is for us to gain knowledge, specifically to choose between right and wrong, however our quest for knowledge doesn't end with death. As God is all-knowing, and as we have been commanded to be like him, it is only natural that it is our purpose to continually continue learning until we reach that point, but unless there is some way for us to overcome the imperfections of this life, which I think we can all agree that we have, our progress in learning would be halted, hence the need for a savior.

I agree that you can use a very great person to look up to and use as a role model, however, I don't think he makes up for your sins. To me the best way to overcome imperfection is to act on it and fix it, and even if you're not perfect, you can always work harder, but to me saying that this guy rights your wrongs is kinda silly and irrelevent to the helping yourself become a better person.

 

Now if Christ wasn't the only way to God as he said, then he would be liar, and a pretty bad moral leader, so for me He is either the Savior of the world or a liar.

I guess what it really comes down to is faith. There is really no way for me to "prove" to you that he was perfect and that He was the Son of God and Savior of mankind, that is where faith must come in. The only way to find that out is through the Holy Spirit, by divine communication. Anyone can gain this knowledge, but it must be done through first studying what Jesus taught and did, then meditating or thoughtfully thinking about it, and most of all asking in prayer with real intent for truth from God, and all this comes from James 1:5.

Spiritual knowledge does not come the same way as secular knowledge, but it does come and it IS real, because I have felt it and it has changed my life. I know that Christ lives, and that He will come again. That is why I took time out of my life to go to those who were already Christians to teach them the whole truth, and how they could return to their Heavenly Father.

 

Now if Christ wasn't the only way to God as he said, then he would be liar, and a pretty bad moral leader, so for me He is either the Savior of the world or a liar.

That's a really absolute statement. Why would he be a liar? Couldn't he preach all the things he did and the stuff like "let the man with no sin throw the first stone" without saying if you don't follow me you will burn in a firely pit of endless torture? Why do you have to say your way is the only way when talking about morality? You don't have to say "these are the morals I believe in and if you don't follow me you'll go to hell."

 

I've noticed that there seem to be a good number of people that seem to be under the impression that the more they talk about Jesus, the less they need to act like him. Personally, if there is a Jesus and all, I don't think he'd be taking to kindly to that.

 

Well for me the bible answers this question in Matthew 24:13
"But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved."

So no not once saved always saved.

 

We seem to be sprialing away from the original topic of discussion pretty quickly. Let's try to keep on track. But a few things, as usual.

He absolutely could have. But he didn't. Jesus claimed that he was the only way to salvation. Therefore, if that statement is not true, he is a liar. We're not saying it's not possible to teach something different, but simply that he didn't.

In the first place, people aren't just declared perfect after accepting God. It's that that is the only acceptable method to have your imperfections excused. At the same time, though, you are initiating a process that will fundamentally change your nature so that perfection becomes achievable. Secondly, though, while you're certainly free to have your own opinion of Jesus, that's simply a disagreement with the things he teaches, which is something you'd really have to reconcile on your own.

Espaldapalabras, your discussion might be better suited to the Mormonism thread (so as not to derail this one), but briefly, I'd say your whole argument is based off of things that aren't necessarily true.

It's not really so hard to detect a false prophet as you seem to propose. We have extensive guidance in this area. Most basically, three is this principle:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

We know what Paul and the others taught. It's in the New Testament. If it's anything different, then it's not true. Quite simple, really. It certainly doesn't necessitate the steps you suggested. And as to the

This is simply untrue. While in general, there has been some apostasy, the Bible does not speak of Christianity beign lost altogether at any time. Nor, particularly, can the passages you cited in Thessalonians be support for what you said. That passage refers to the coming of the Beast. If you disagree with that point, you will at least have to concede that it cannot have happened already, since it speaks of the "son of perdition" sitting in the temple and being worshipped as God. Seeing as how A) this has not happened and B)there is no temple for this to even happen in--and hasn't been since the destruction of Jerusalem--there is no way that that scripture could support what you claim.

I guess I don't see where you're going here. Why should church hierarchy have anything to do with recieving prophecies and such? It's not as if only the high priest could recieve visions in ancient Israel.

There is no new thing under the sun. These "new issues" are by and large permutations of issues that have already existed for quite some time. The principles for analyzing and delaign with them are already contained in the scripture. Meanwhile, your "new prophets" scenario does nothing to h

 

Truthfully I've never really understood what being "saved" really ment so im confused about always being saved? What religions are you "saved" in?

 

In Christianity, you are "saved" when you pray to Jesus Christ, tell him you believe he died for you, for your sins, that you are a sinner, and accept him as your Saviour and the only one who can make you whole again. I am saved, and by the sounds of things many others in this thread are as well. There was a time when when I personally asked him into my heart, (spiritually) and accepted him as my personal Lord and Saviour. Its a personal choice that each person has to make, or reject.

 

He absolutely could have. But he didn't. Jesus claimed that he was the only way to salvation. Therefore, if that statement is not true, he is a liar. We're not saying it's not possible to teach something different, but simply that he didn't.

Oh, I see what you're saying. But personally, I think it's very narrow-minded to say that you're the only way to God, and I have an inkling the disciples made that up. I think the most important thing to learn from Jesus is to simply be a good person, not how you're going to get into heaven or if you're not.

And again, I really don't think there is any need for somebody to make us perfect. If understand people using Jesus as a role model, and that's what I think he should be used for, but I just don't see anybody in him simly saying "ok, now you're perfect." Simply saying this won't change anything. People's actions will. I know that was "part of the deal" (to not only accept Jesus but to live like him) but I think that's the most important part, simply living like him.

 

Ya but you cant just "accept" him and be in heaven, you have to combine faith with good works.

 

Yes, I know, but I think the good works part should be the only part. To me the part about "ok, now you're prefect" because he makes up for your sins is is silly.

 

I guess I have derailed this thread, but being about as Mormon as you can get, it is pretty much impossible for me to talk about Christianity without including my own beliefs, so I will stop derailing this thread, but I will just respond to a few comments.

Why should church hierarchy have anything to do with recieving prophecies and such? It's not as if only the high priest could recieve visions in ancient Israel

That is true, but without a High Priest where would they have been?

You made the assumption that no one calling themselves prophets means that there actually are none.

It isn't an assumption, the prophets of the Bible declared they were prophets sent from God, and there were many more teachers than prophets.

 

Again, though, I don't see what you're getting at. The tests given to the children of Israel to detect false prophets did not depend on the High Priest. Further, we see that in the case of Jeremiah, the High Priest actually rebuked him for speaking the word of God. I don't mean to suggest by use of that example that High Priests are a detriment to the process. Rather, I am simply pointing out that a High Priest (or, in modern times any particular hierarchichal strucutre) hasn't been shown to be necessary for their to be prophets.

 

Again, though, I don't see what you're getting at. The tests given to the children of Israel to detect false prophets did not depend on the High Priest. Further, we see that in the case of Jeremiah, the High Priest actually rebuked him for speaking the word of God. I don't mean to suggest by use of that example that High Priests are a detriment to the process. Rather, I am simply pointing out that a High Priest (or, in modern times any particular hierarchichal strucutre) hasn't been shown to be necessary for their to be prophets.

 

We have other threads that are specific to one religion (such as the Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, etc threads). There is nothing in this thread that is contrary to the Senate rules.

Those threads are for discussion of Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. You don't have to be a Mormon or a Catholic to participate, and though you have to be respectful you don't have to frame your arguments as a Mormon or a Catholic. This thread is discussing an issue that only makes sense in a Christian context, and we have been specifically instructed to base our arguments on Biblical authority. That's not at all appropriate for a Senate thread.

 

This thread is for discussion of a Christian idea. You don't have to be a Christian to participate, and though you have to be respectful you don't have to frame your arguments as a Christian.


Works both ways...

 

You don't get to decide what is or is not appropriate for a Senate thread.

It is no different than saying that if someone is going to criticize a Christian belief in a discussion of a Christian topic, they need to base it upon Christian scripture. If you had a discussion of Islam, and someone wanted to criticize its beliefs, it wouldn't be appropriate for them to cite the Pauline Epistles as their basis, nor should htey be allowed to cite the Book of Mormon. You can still draw upon other sources for examples or clarification, but you ultimately need to set some sort of baseline for the discussion, and for religion that means that you need to look to the scriptures of a specific religion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

None deserve it, yet it's offered to all. Christ is the mechanism for salvation, and that mechanism is part of a reality that goes way beyond what the human brain can conceptualize, even with the existence of Scripture, thousands of years of theology, etc. Drawing human distinctions about what counts as faith or works is in the end futile, and the very height of pride would be to try to foresee God's intentions with regard to people who fit some set of external criteria.

He's told us, "You're covered, not because of anything you did, but because of what I did. Both Justice and Mercy are fully realized, you can thank me later." In the end that ought to inspire some good behavior, but we've all got our own demons to fight, and some will be more successful than others. The one thing I can say for sure is that the difference between any one of us and the best or worst of humanity, whether measured by faith or works, from God's point of view, is vanishingly slim - truly worthy Good was only ever accomplished by One.

My favorite Scripture quote is the one about removing the beam from your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of your brother's. Be wary of drawing distinctions between saved and damned.

 

So?to your mind, is there such a thing as a ?Christian? who has not been ?saved? (by your above-quoted definition of the concept)? I?m just curious?

 

Formally, the only people that can actually be called Christians are those that end up in Heaven. However, any number of people can claim to be Christian. And this includes those who do so without having met anyone's minimum standard for salvation.

 

The ?Christian? version of Heaven, you mean?no?

So, does ?anyone?s minimum standard for salvation? basically = what you claim being ?saved? consists of?
__________________

I?m still kinda awaiting an answer to this one, myself? (what specific sects of Christianity embrace this concept of being ?saved??)