Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 I am in a quandary. How many steps do you think it takes for someone to get 'saved'? 1, 2, 3, 7, or more? I think there is one - Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart. What say you, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 Ro 10:9-10 reveal two. Believing withe the heart unto righteousness, confessing with the mouth unto Salvation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 Salvation isn't necessarily a process. Grace, faith, belief, repentance, confessing Christ are all involved but not in a step-by-step process where we must check off one before we get to the next and so on. For the most part, these seem to all come together at the point of salvation. This is why I've heard preachers say that if a person has truly been moved by the Holy Ghost to salvation he was saved before he ever came forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 1, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 Salvation isn't necessarily a process. Grace, faith, belief, repentance, confessing Christ are all involved but not in a step-by-step process where we must check off one before we get to the next and so on. For the most part, these seem to all come together at the point of salvation. This is why I've heard preachers say that if a person has truly been moved by the Holy Ghost to salvation he was saved before he ever came forward. I find it humorous that some preachers have a list of things you have to 'fulfill' before one can claim to be saved. I know they prOBably occur at the same moment in time, but it seems so 'much' to put on someone who doesn't know exactly what in the world they are talking about. Example: http://www.melvinbaptistchurch.com/gods-way-of-salvation.html#.VM5zHvnF-Vo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators OLD fashioned preacher Posted February 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2015 I find it humorous that some preachers have a list of things you have to 'fulfill' before one can claim to be saved. I know they prOBably occur at the same moment in time, but it seems so 'much' to put on someone who doesn't know exactly what in the world they are talking about. Example: http://www.melvinbaptistchurch.com/gods-way-of-salvation.html#.VM5zHvnF-Vo I would think that if you are going to use the church that an OB member (Bro Scott Markle) pastors as an example then you should address him personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 I am in a quandary. How many steps do you think it takes for someone to get 'saved'? I think there is one - Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart. I find it humorous that some preachers have a list of things you have to 'fulfill' before one can claim to be saved. So actually, you weren't in a quandary. What was your real purpose with this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 1, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 I would think that if you are going to use the church that an OB member (Bro Scott Markle) pastors as an example then you should address him personally. Oh, I am not allowed to ask a question about a site that is recommended on OB by a member without asking him first? That seems a bit 'legalistic'. I see this stuff all the time with so-called 'gospel' tracts, his just happened to remind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 I find it humorous that some preachers have a list of things you have to 'fulfill' before one can claim to be saved. I know they prOBably occur at the same moment in time, but it seems so 'much' to put on someone who doesn't know exactly what in the world they are talking about. Example: http://www.melvinbaptistchurch.com/gods-way-of-salvation.html#.VM5zHvnF-Vo I would say the example you cited is an expanded version of the way of salvation. One doesn't have to go into such depth to be saved, and one wouldn't likely go through all that's on that web page in witnessing to someone, but in the context of an online page where there is no opportunity to interact with an individual I can see good reason for going into such detail for the sake of those who might be looking for, or in need of, more detail. For others, they could skim the page and come to the same saving grace that those who need to dig in more. In the end, it's not our presentation of the Gospel, not a matter of how we abridge the Gospel or try to give a fully unabridged, all-encompassing presentation, but rather the work of the Holy Ghost through our efforts and in the heart of the lost sinner. For most, a simple sharing of the Gospel in simple terms will suffice if their heart is open to the calling of the Holy Ghost. For some, it takes a more thorough presentation before their heart is open to the work of the Holy Ghost. Then, even those saved through a simple Gospel message usually want to go more in-depth at some point as they marvel at the work of God in their heart. Personally, I most often give a simple and to the point Gospel witness, but there have been times when someone has questions which requires a more in-depth approach. One doesn't have to know every verse and detailed facet on the web page cited to be saved, but to have the information there for those who wish to, or need to have such is fine. It's the Holy Ghost that does the saving, we are only His flawed servants. Really, there are only three points on the page cited, which short version being that one must recognize they need to be saved, that Jesus is the only Saviour, and to accept the Lord's offer of salvation. The rest of the page gives proof to these points for those who need some or all of what's provided there. As I said, one could skim the page and come to salvation in Christ, but if one needs see in-depth proof, it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 1, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 So actually, you weren't in a quandary. What was your real purpose with this thread? My real purpose was to ask a question. You might like to look up the definition of quandary before you try to guess my 'real purpose with this thread'. Then maybe, instead of getting off the question and getting upset, an answer would be given by each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 My real purpose was to ask a question. You might like to look up the definition before you try to guess my 'real purpose with this thread'. Then maybe, instead of getting off the question and getting upset, an answer would be given by each. You do realize if you continue responding in this manner things won't go well, right? Scripture has much to say about our speech, and also how we view and treat our brothers/sisters in Christ and there are no loopholes if we don't like how they are toward us. If we have a valid case to present, we should be able to do so in a civil manner. Please take this in the kindness it is offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators OLD fashioned preacher Posted February 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2015 Oh, I am not allowed to ask a question about a site that is recommended on OB by a member without asking him first? That seems a bit 'legalistic'. I see this stuff all the time with so-called 'gospel' tracts, his just happened to remind me. I didn't say you needed to ask him first nor did I say you needed his permission. It would have been a more polite approach which would have leaned to a more "inquiring" type of feel had you done it differently. Such as, "Hey Bro Markle, do I have to pull out my checklist and get these steps in the proper order, one at a time?" Okay, not in those words. The fact still remains that it would be better to get the answer from the available "horse's mouth" than 20 people debating what he means instead. Legalistic, hmmmn, the word that seems to have 101 definitions to fit any occasion. So, just what part of the Law do you thing this would be forcing you under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted February 1, 2015 Members Share Posted February 1, 2015 I find it humorous that some preachers have a list of things you have to 'fulfill' before one can claim to be saved. I know they prOBably occur at the same moment in time, but it seems so 'much' to put on someone who doesn't know exactly what in the world they are talking about. Example: http://www.melvinbaptistchurch.com/gods-way-of-salvation.html#.VM5zHvnF-Vo Assuming something WAS indeed false doctrine or if I believed it was leading people wrong; I would NOT find it "humorous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 2, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 You do realize if you continue responding in this manner things won't go well, right? Scripture has much to say about our speech, and also how we view and treat our brothers/sisters in Christ and there are no loopholes if we don't like how they are toward us. If we have a valid case to present, we should be able to do so in a civil manner. Please take this in the kindness it is offered. You are correct, of course. Thank you for the reminder. I shall try to do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 2, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 Assuming something WAS indeed false doctrine or if I believed it was leading people wrong; I would NOT find it "humorous". I didn't mean that literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted February 2, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2015 I didn't say you needed to ask him first nor did I say you needed his permission. It would have been a more polite approach which would have leaned to a more "inquiring" type of feel had you done it differently. Such as, "Hey Bro Markle, do I have to pull out my checklist and get these steps in the proper order, one at a time?" Okay, not in those words. The fact still remains that it would be better to get the answer from the available "horse's mouth" than 20 people debating what he means instead. Legalistic, hmmmn, the word that seems to have 101 definitions to fit any occasion. So, just what part of the Law do you thing this would be forcing you under. Kinda sounded like I did something 'illegal' for bringing up a subject that just happened to be the same as a fellow OBer. Notice the two little marks around the word 'legalistic'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.