What is Salvation?
January 30th, 2007
In case you missed it, you should read the conversation in the comments section of the “Isn’t She Beautiful” post from January 25th (link). It stemmed from my dislike of Rob Bell’s theology, specifically his expressed views on salvation and redemption. I see the individual’s salvation in Scripture as part of the redemption of the entire cosmos. So what do I see in Scripture that tells us what salvation is? And what does it mean to be saved? And how does one become saved? Well, let’s start with the basics, with the simplest Biblical scriptures. Because these are accurate theological statements, they can be found throughout Scripture on the basis of exegesis and hermeneutics.
- We are in need of salvation, because we are totally evil and subject to the wrath of God, even though He wishes otherwise. (Romans 3:23)
- Because we are totally evil, we will never be able to come to God on our own. (Romans 3:10-11, 8:7-9)
- We have been called to salvation, before we even know it. That is, we have been selected for salvation. There is no reason for our selection, other than God’s own sovereign choice. (Ephesians 1:4-5,11)
- The means of our salvation, that is how it is accomplished, is this: the substitution of Jesus the Christ, God’s perfect, begotten (and therefore Jesus is God) Son for our sins. This is accomplished on the cross, crucifixion. The substitution is a one-time thing because of Jesus’ resurrection, conquering our sins, and throwing them away forever. (Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 10:1-14)
- The means is useless unless it is accepted. One accepts the substitution by placing their hand on Christ’s head, just as it was in the Mosaic law. We accept the sacrifice through faith in Christ. (Romans 3:26-31)
- Salvation is not a one-time thing. It is a continual regeneration of the entire body, until it is finalized upon either death or Christ’s return. (1 Corinthians 1:7-9)
Now where do works come into play? This seems to be the confusion on behalf of many, including Pastor Bell. Some people think that we are saved because our works line up with Jesus. This is not true. We are saved through faith. But, as with any belief one holds, works follow. You set your alarm clock at night because you have faith that tomorrow is coming and you want to wake up at a certain time. You may set your alarm clock, but if you don’t believe tomorrow is coming and you don’t want to wake up at a certain time, it’s meaningless. You’re just doing it to do it. On the other hand, if you have faith that tomorrow is coming and you want to wake up at a certain time, it is necessary to set your alarm clock. Without that work of setting your alarm clock, your faith is, in essence, dead. (James 2)
Hope this example clears some things up about the relation between faith and works. Please feel free to comment.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Thanks Derek for so clearly stating such a traditional view of salvation. I think sometimes people get so caught up in analogies and metephors that they can’t simply state what things mean.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
You are surely welcome. I agree with you. A lot of times people don’t want to accept salvation as presented in Scripture because, as easy as it is, they don’t measure up. They don’t have the faith in Jesus that they should, but they still want to be “saved”. It’s simply not Scriptural.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:18 am
Here’s the thing: I agree with your position totally. What I don’t agree with is your using Rob Bell’s name to prop yourself up. I will grant that in public Rob has talked more in the other direction towards living the life of Jesus, and towards God seeking to redeem all things in Christ, than he has talked in the other direction of personal salvation. But to say he doesn’t believe in it, or that in some way his views are not “biblical” is just ludicris.
Have you talked to him? Have you heard every sermon or class he has taught? Well I have talked to him, and I have to tell you that he believes EVERYTHING you just said…and MORE.
So please stop trouncing on other Christian leaders just to make a point.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:39 am
Gary:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m in no way trying to use Rob’s name to “prop myself up”. You can also only judge a tree by it’s fruit (this is Jesus’ teaching). That is to say, all I have to go on concerning Rob’s beliefs are his teaching. When he focuses on one aspect of Scripture (living the life and cultural redemption), not only is he avoiding teaching the whole counsel of God, but he is exuding his beliefs as single-faceted (whether aware of it or not).
To be honest, I’m pretty sure that he would say the same thing to my face as he does in his sermons. I don’t picture him as two-faced. I have read his book, and his beliefs expressed there concern me too. I think you nailed the nail on the head: it’s that he believes more. We are justified by faith through Christ, who substituted Himself for us. Nothing less, but nothing more either. That’s it.
I apologize if it seems as if I’ve been ‘trouncing’ on other leaders, but I was simply responding to a question that I believe you yourself asked in a previous comment. To blame me for expressing my views on a particular person’s theology when asked seems to be some sort of theological “entrapment”. It’s ok. I forgive you.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hey Derek,
What do you mean by “Salvation is not a one-time thing”? The 1 Corinthians 1 passage didn’t really clear up what you meant by that?
I’m not denying salvation has relevance beyond the salvation event, but Romans 10:13 seems very clear that there is or should be moment one can mark when one passes from death into life.
Related to the other comments, (a) it’s not just a “traditional” view of salvation, but a Scriptural one, and (b) I don’t think you’re “propping yourself up” by pointing out the false teachings of Rob Bell.
I’ve also listened to Mr. Bell for the last year, and have concluded he is very blurred when it comes to the issue of salvation. He doesn’t seem to see much beyond this world, and if he does, he hasn’t preached on it for at least the last year.
During one of his sermons he told his congregation that if anyone asks why you are doing good deeds, “Just tell them that I’m just trying to save my soul.”
Rob Bell is a winsome teacher, and I have learned a lot about Hebrew culture by listening to him, but there are plenty of trouble spots in his teaching, too.
Tim
10,832 days
January 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Tim:
Thanks for your comments. By salvation not being a one time thing, it is a constant renewal of our body; that is, sanctification is actually a part of salvation. Christ, as stated in 1 Corinthians 1, continually keeps us strong, giving us spiritual gifts, so that we will be blameless. We are not now, but we will be because of our faith in Him. Another verse to really look at is Philippians 2:12. We are to work out and work on (lit. Grk) our salvation.
It is not a one time action. It is a one-time decision, yes, but once you make the decision, you place your faith in Christ, but redemption is far off. Salvation and redemption work hand in hand. Salvation is the decision for redemption, and redemption is necessary for salvation. Without one, the other would not occur. Redemption is an ongoing process, therefore salvation is as well.
I hope this makes sense.
God bless and grace to you,
Derek
January 31st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Where does that leave you on the doctrine of eternal security? I’m thinking you’re in line with the Scriptures on that one, but I’m not sure.
Tim
10,832 days
January 31st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Yep, definitely in line with Scripture. You have eternal security as long as your faith is in Christ. (John 10:28-29, Philippians 1:6)
It’s just that many conservatives, in my experience, really don’t know where Scripture stands on certain issues.
When it comes to doctrinal matters, I’m as conservative as they come.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Hi Derek,
The email copy of your comment only included the first paragraph, not the second. And that second paragraph is a little more re-assuring, but at the risk of belaboring the point, I think it’s still important to clarify.
The Scriptures you quoted are standard for the traditional understanding of eternal security, but to say, “as long as your faith is in Christ” is still a red flag. (Or maybe its pink.
)
Are you leaving open the possibility of losing your faith in Christ?
Given that a person is born again (John 3), and that the faith came from God in the first place (Ephesians 2:8), I think the Scriptures indicate God will indeed finish what he started (Philippians 1:6), but I want to make sure you fully, 100% agree with that.
Thanks,
Tim
10,832 days
January 31st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I would say that “lose” your faith in Christ is the wrong term. I think a believer can definitely turn from their faith in Christ; even though it may not seem a conscience matter, it always is. I’m aware that this delves into the matter of our free will, but for that I turn to Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will. It is possible for our will and God’s will to coexist, and for God’s to constantly remain supreme. But just as with Pharoah, should we continue to succumb to His will, He may eventually relinquish it of His own choosing. We’ve all heard the phrase that the Holy Spirit is a gentleman: He will not force Himself on anyone, even though He could. With regards to salvation, if Christ has chosen you, there is eternal security, lest you refuse it. In which case, you will be “unchose”. It sounds ridiculous, because God is outside of time. But from the very beginning God did not choose you if you harden your heart to His will. I hope this makes some kind of sense. God will indeed finish what He started: should you wish it. Just as God gives faith, He can also take it away. (Job, for instance, is the most quoted here). We have a obligation to steward our salvation, because it (like finances or anything else worth stewarding) is a gift from God.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Tim, I’d also like to thank you for pushing the issue. It’s rare that you see someone truly care about Scripture, and show it on blogs across the Internet. Thank you for being a Gospel-centered, Christ-following, Bible-loving Christian. Regardless of what some in other ‘branches’ of Christianity say ( not going to call any names any longer [for a while]
), theology is important and foundational.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Derek,
I guess we are just going to have to disagree. I know Rob, I have sat with him in places where people ask him questions regarding “what they must do to be saved”, and I have heard him utter the beautiful words “Believe that Jesus died to save you, all of you. Believe that Jesus died to save you from your sins, to save you to the kingdom here, and the kingdom to come when he returns” Those were his words, not mine.
I would call that fruit…fruit picked from a tree, not fruit talked about while looking at a book, or listening to the cd…
February 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Gary:
I guess we will, although I think you’ve misunderstood my intentions and writing. I’m not, nor have I ever, questioned what Rob believes. I’m wondering why he doesn’t preach the Gospel as you’ve heard him explain it. I’ve never heard him teach the Gospel. Ever. I’ve been listening a year. True, I’ve never talked with him, but I think the Gospel should exude and pervade everything we teach because as teachers, we’re accountable. (Hebrews 13:17) I think he’s a Christian with a decent head on his shoulders and a good heart in his chest, I’m just questioning his teaching. I think the same way about a lot of teachers in the public eye: from Joel Osteen to Brian Mclaren. Their heart’s in the right place (maybe), but what about their words and writing?
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 am
My point is that you are judging Rob by the things you heard him say, not the things you have not heard him say. You haven’t been with him when he prays for someone who is seeking Jesus, you have not heard him when someone asks him what they need to do to be saved…There is so much more that he “preaches” than just what he prepares and what he writes. The same could be said about you. What if I were to start a blog criticizing you because you don’t talk here about a certain topic, saying that you don’t “preach” the Gospel. My point is he, you, I are only one person…but we are many voices. Some of us have a heart for certain areas of the Gospel in terms of leading the Church to be a force in its community, and others have a heart to preach to individual salvation on a Sunday morning. Point is, we are all preaching the Gospel, and because we are not God we cannot, not a one of us, grasp the totality and the beauty of what the Gospel is.
To pretend that you are, or that someone else should…is pretentious and arrogant.
I don’t know all of Rob’s views, I don’t know all of yours,although I could say that I think you are narrow-minded, and that you don’t preach the whole counsel of the Gospel…but that would mean that I think I have a handle on the whole thing, and that is basically not true because I am a bonehead…and so are you…and so is Rob.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 am
Gary,
First of all, no one is “judging” Rob Bell here. It is not “judgment” to observe that someone does not talk about something. It does, however, speak volumes about his ministry that, as you seem to be admitting, Rob Bell does not talk about the Gospel in public.
Doesn’t that seem at all strange to you? I mean, if you really understand the Gospel, and all that it means for your life and what it can mean for anyone’s life, you’re going to want to talk about it.
That brings me to your claim that we cannot “grasp the totality and beauty of what the Gospel is.” This is a very Rob Bell-esque kind of statement.
The same Rob Bell wrote, “The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can’t be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something that God is not.”
I understand (a little) the post-modern effort to deconstruct something down to it’s core, and then build off the essentials, but here Mr. Bell’s deconstruction goes too far by eliminating something essential. He has, by fiat, basically claimed we have no way of knowing anything for sure about God.
The problem with saying language fails is that God himself used language (a) to create everything, (b) to reveal himself to us, and (c) Jesus Christ is the Word himself (John 1:1). God, who is not limited, used and uses language. Language does not inherently fail.
We can understand the Gospel, Gary. Maybe not in “totality” as you put it, but we can understand what the Gospel is.
And no, we are not “all preaching the Gospel.” God’s revealed Word in no way endorses the notion of “preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary use words.” St. Francis of Assisi was reported to have said that.
Instead, the Scriptures constantly exhort us to preach the Gospel:
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Timothy 4:2
I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. Psalm 40:9
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 4:17
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. 1 Corinthians 1:23
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. 2 Corinthians 4:5
Not only does Rob Bell not preach the Gospel, Rob Bell constantly preaches against any form of God’s judgment. He frequently tries to reduce that to just “coercion” and “violence” and claims our God is not like that.
A person does not have to know “all of Rob’s views” to know that’s a problem.
Tim
10,835 days
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
You know what, I am just gonna stop making comments to you. You are not listening:
Let me say it again–Rob DOES preach the gospel in public.
You can’t judge a man by the specificity of one or two or three or even a hundred quotes from a book.
I never said that Rob’s view are not problematic…I would say that all of our views are problematic.
My point is simple: Rob seems to approach the scriptures with humility, he approaches people with humility…and he has drawn thousands to a saving faith in JESUS CHRIST AS THE ONLY SUBSTITUTION FOR SIN AND THE ONLY HOPE FOR THE WORLD…and the people he draws to Christ here a message about how Christ lived, and what Christ loved, and what Christ sought to change in the world.
I’m done with you…
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Hey Gary,
I’m not ready to give up on you quite yet.
You wrote, “Rob seems to approach the scriptures with humility, he approaches people with humility.”
I think you misunderstood. I think Rob Bell is an excellent teacher, and I really have learned a lot about an original understanding of the Scriptures by listening to him for the last year. He says a lot of interesting things.
Derek and I are not talking about what we hear him say; it’s what we never hear him say that, if we take your word for it, he only talks about individually.
You wrote, “he has drawn thousands to a saving faith in Jesus Christ as the only substitution for sin and the only hope for the world.”
THAT is the Gospel, and if what you say is indeed true, I praise the Lord, and I’m sure Derek does, too. As Paul said, “whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice” (Philippians 1:18). (And no, I’m not even intending to imply that Rob Bell is proclaiming Christ “in pretense.”)
It’s your description of that substitution that bothers me: “the people he draws to Christ here a message about how Christ lived, and what Christ loved, and what Christ sought to change in the world.”
As far as I can tell from listening to dozens of Rob’s sermons, your statement is accurate. Rob talks a lot, if not always, about how Christ lived.
The problem is, this is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is about so much more than just this world. At best, this is a very incomplete telling of the Gospel, and at worst, false teaching. (The theological term for this is reductionism.)
There is more to Christ’s life than how he lived. There is his death and resurrection which are fundamental to the Gospel itself.
If Christ was not crucified, then there is no substitution for sins. “Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).
And then, Paul clearly implies in 1 Corinthians 15:12 that the purpose of preaching Christ is to preach the resurrection: “Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead.”
If that’s the whole point of preaching, that the people might have hope, and if a preacher never preaches on it, then it’s a very legitimate question to ask why that’s the case.
Do you have hope, Gary? Do you trust in the finished work of Christ and his blood to cover and wash away your sins? Will you rise again on that day when Jesus returns?
There is an alternative to not doing so.
Tim
10,835 days
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
My name is Derek Brown, and I endorse Tim’s message.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Look, I am not trying to beat anyone up here. But it just seems like none of you are really listening to me, or to what I am saying here.
You said:
“It’s your description of that substitution that bothers me: “the people he draws to Christ here a message about how Christ lived, and what Christ loved, and what Christ sought to change in the world.”
As far as I can tell from listening to dozens of Rob’s sermons, your statement is accurate. Rob talks a lot, if not always, about how Christ lived.
The problem is, this is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is about so much more than just this world. At best, this is a very incomplete telling of the Gospel, and at worst, false teaching.”
I NEVER said that was the gospel…NEVER, NOT ONE TIME DID I SAY THAT!!! You are doing to me exactly what you are doing to guys like Rob. You are taking the things that we do say as authoritative to our whole understanding of scripture and the Gospel. And it is just simply not the truth. Neither of us are saying that the things we are saying represent the totality of the Gospel message. What we are saying is that this is an area of the Gospel message that Churches, preachers, and people are ignoring.
I suspect one of the reasons that people are ignoring it is because they fear guys who would beat up on them in public forums for not adding another 42 points to the discussion.
I mean, how can you say in one sentence “he has drawn thousands to a saving faith in Jesus Christ as the only substitution for sin and the only hope for the world.
THAT is the Gospel, and if what you say is indeed true, I praise the Lord, and I’m sure Derek does, too”
and then in the next paragraph totally ignore what you just said and go back to the old argument “well we have read him and heard him speak and he is not preaching the “whole” gospel”?
It seems disingenuous and pigheaded. Like I said, its like you don’t want to hear.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Gary:
I think you’re beating a dead horse. It’s not that we aren’t hearing, it’s that you aren’t. We love that Rob believes the Gospel (Jesus dying as a substitute). We are simply wondering how come, in a year of preaching, he has never articulated it. He has focused on one aspect of Jesus, His life. But hasn’t once focused on the essential part of the Gospel: His death and resurrection.
Has Rob mentioned it? Yes. Has Rob wrote about it? Yes. But it isn’t central to Rob’s teaching; it is central to the Bible’s teaching. It doesn’t matter if what Rob teaches is correct or not if he isn’t preaching Christ crucified and resurrected.
The Gospel, being Jesus’ substitutionary atonement, is left out in favor of something essentially true, but not essential Truth.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
The point is that it is not left out. Just left out in the sphere of influence that you choose to judge a man in.
You hear the sermons, but you don’t hear the music, the worship, the invitations, the conversations.
No one is really asking the question, like was asked in the book of Acts, “what must I do to be saved”. They are asking the question, “what does being saved look like, and why should I care”. Rob, and Mars Hill are opening that door for people by putting on display in their community, and in their preaching, what it looks like to be a follower of Jesus and why you should desire to be one too.
What bothers me is that you guys seem to be saying that you can only answer the salvation question from one direction, and that all other directions that people come to Jesus are invalid. I came to Jesus because I read Cosmos by Carl Sagan, and it made no sense with how I percieved reality at all.
Have you even read their statement of faith?
Here is what it says concerning Jesus and salvation:
“Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, to bind up the broken hearted and set captives free. He lived a perfect life proclaiming the arrival of the Kingdom. He was rejected by many, crucified, buried, and rose again. His death and resurrection bring hope to all creation. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and God is reconciling us to himself, each other, ourselves, and creation. Jesus is the only mediator between God and humans. For all who accept his sacrifice he gives the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth through a communal life of worship and a missional expression of our faith. The church is called to put the resurrected Christ who lives in and through us on display to a broken and hurting world.”
You wanna know who wrote that, who preached it…Rob.
I don’t know about you, but that screams substitutionary atonement to me.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
You’re right about Rob. I’m sorry. Have a good day.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I remembered one of Rob’s sermons that is highly relevant to our conversation here. I think it’s one of the better examples of our concerns. Over Christmas break, I listened to Rob’s December 17, 2006 sermon, A Brief History of Non-Violence.
Rob began that message by saying, “My goal is to serve you by giving you as much possible background and insight I can. My goal is that these passages we look at–that I’m assuming some of you have heard before–you will see how the original audience would have understood what Jesus was saying. And I’m hoping that some of you become Christians today. Because you say, this is so brilliant, this guy, I want more.”
And then after saying, “I’m hoping that some of you become Christians today,” he never said another word about how, according to the Scriptures, one actually becomes a Christian.
And Mars Hill Bible Church usually includes the audio all the way up to dismissal, and this one was no exception with Rob ending, “If you’re giving an offering, there are joy boxes at the back. Peace be with you.” And Rob has explained before, that’s when the people leave.
In the last three minutes leading up to that he said, “History is filled with brilliant people who thought of all sorts of imaginative, creative ways to face down injustice, cruelty, and oppression, and say, ‘There’s another way.’”
He then quoted “Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea” by Mark Kurlansky, which he called a “mainstream historical overview of non-violence.” Quoting the end of one of the chapters mid-way through: “If someone were to come along who would not compromise–a rebel who insisted on taking the only moral path, rejecting violence in all its forms. Such a person would seem so menacing that he would be killed. And after his death he would be canonized or deified, because a saint is less dangerous than a rebel. This has happened numerous times, but the first prominent example was a Jew named Jesus.”
Rob explained “canonized or deified” to mean “if you hyper-spiritualize, the danger would be if somebody actually did it. The danger would be that this person’s message would get hyper-spiritualized. It would become about some other world, and people would lose the fact that his message was about this world, here, today. Jesus was talking to real people in real situations under real oppression facing real evil, and saying, ‘There’s a third way.’”
Rob continued, “Here’s a question that haunts me, and it should drive us. Because you’re like me, we face all sorts of situations every day. The question a Christian ought to ask all the time when given the standard, totally lame, uncreative solutions the world gives us options that simply to ask in every such– ‘Is there a third way here?’”
And then he prayed, “God, we want to be people of the third way. We want to take Jesus’ message of non-violence, and we want to be bold, imaginative, creative, and we want to change the world. Help us to follow this Jesus and take his message as far as we have to.” And then they were dismissed.
Gary, your entire argument this whole time has been Rob says part of his message (justice) in some places (public sermons, writing, etc.) and the rest of his message (the atonement part of the Gospel) in other places. (Actually, as I went back and re-read the conversation you were saying Rob has preached the Gospel of atonement in public, and Derek and I were pointing out that has not happened in more than a year. Thus, our original question is, why so infrequent?)
Some of the things Mr. Bell says in public are not a different part of the message so much as they are a direct contradiction to the Gospel message and the teachings found in the Scriptures.
God is not about “rejecting violence in all its forms.” In this sermon he said Jesus is. The Gospel did not “become about some other world.” In this sermon he said it did.
It is possible to look at “a hundred quotes from a book,” and listen to dozens of sermons to get a pretty thorough idea of what a man’s thinking is. Here Rob made it pretty clear and direct. He told us, this is the question that haunts him and drives him: “Is there a third way here to respond to injustice, cruelty and oppression?”
I don’t think it’s being judgmental, pretentious, arrogant, disingenuous or pigheaded to say that the essentials of the Gospel include more than “injustice, cruelty, and oppression” and “this world, here, today.” Yes, it’s about justice. And that very well may be “an area of the Gospel message that Churches, preachers, and people are ignoring.” But should we then neglect the rest of the Gospel because justice has been neglected?
The Gospel is also about righteousness, and sin, and offense to God and his wrath.
You wrote, “What bothers me is that you guys seem to be saying that you can only answer the salvation question from one direction, and that all other directions that people come to Jesus are invalid.” There is one way to God, and that is through Jesus. Yes, everyone has a different story of how they came to Christ, but in the end, they all came to Christ by trusting in the same sacrifice to pay for their sins.
In this message, Rob never explained how to become a Christian and then jumped to “the question a Christian ought to ask.” He seems to be implying a Christian is someone who asks, “Is there a third way here?” or someone who is “of the third way.” Asking that question or doing those things are not what make you a Christian.
I hope there is a faithful remnant of people at Mars Hill Bible Church who do understand the Gospel and can explain to people there how they could have actually become Christians that day as Rob said. If “No one is really asking the question, like was asked in the book of Acts, ‘what must I do to be saved?’” that might be because no one is talking about salvation. People tend to ask about what you’re talking about.
Tim
10,850 days
February 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Agreed, Tim. Throughly and graciously explained, without a hint of sarcasm or malice. Thanks for doing something I cannot.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
I think it is also crucial to understand that salvation is a supernatural work of God. Ezekiel 36:24-28 make it absolutely clear as God does the work(replaces the heart of stone with a heart of flesh) and states “I will cause(make) you to walk in my statutes!”…and He does it for His own glory, not because of something we did to motivate Him. The only thing we could motivate God to do is send us to hell. Thank you Lord that by your grace you chose to save some of us for Your glory and also because You are love.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 am
[…] this search phrase: “what was accomplished on the cross”. They came to my post “What Is Salvation” by searching about that. Take that, Satan. Partner with Harmony Church Harmony […]
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
[…] the early church, and to modern-day paganists. [By the way, I called this out a long time ago here: What is Salvation?]Is this sensationalist? Nope. It’s a necessary outworking of the duty of a Christian outlined […]