"'Oops, I missed a step' Salvation."

[heartstrings]

Ok. back to the original topic, I reiterate that there are no "steps" to take to get saved. Jesus took all the necessary steps and all we are required to do is to believe on him, trusting Him to save us from our sin. Some people cannot physically "call" on Him or "confess" him audibly. But it's the heart God is interested in and one cannot, nor will not "call" upon God in faith until the heart has already truly repented/turned to Jesus.

 

Geneva, I believe that those gentiles in Acts 13 "ordained" themselves. But ,to avoid hijacking this thread, we can save that discussion for another.

Edited April 8, 2015 by heartstrings
clarification

[Genevanpreacher]

​I don't know what you're trying to say. perhaps you could tell me what you think this verse means...

Acts 13:48

48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed..

 

​They didn't 'ordain' themselves like Heartstrings thinks, but they were already known by God to be one's who 'would believe', (because of the preaching of the gospel), ahead of our time, in God's time, (which is eternal time, you know, from the end God sees the beginning and knows what is going to happen even before it does.) Thus they were ordained even before the world was. All because God is all knowing.

[DaveW]

It also depends on what you are really trying to teach...........

 

And the truth finally comes out.....

 

 

[heartstrings]

In most every passage of the King James Bible, where the word "ordain" or "ordained" is used, you will find what or who was ordained, what it or they were ordained to, and who did the ordaining. But In Acts 13:48, it only says who was "ordained", and what they were ordained to: eternal life. Therefore, the word denotes a state of being, But how did the state come to be? First we need to define "ordained".

ordain

v.

late 13c., "to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church," from stem of Old French ordener "place in order, arrange, prepare; consecrate, designate" (Modern French ordonner) and directly from Latin ordinare "put in order, arrange, dispose, appoint," from ordo (genitive ordinis) "order" (see order (n.)). The notion is "to confer holy orders upon." Meaning "to decree, enact" is from c.1300; sense of "to set (something) that will continue in a certain order" is from early 14c. Related: Ordained; ordaining.

[heartstrings]

Remember English Lit in high school? This is an excerpt from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which demonstrates an early use of the word "ordained", and I would ask you: who ordains concupiscence in a man?

This concupiscence, when it is wrongfully disposed or ordained in a man, it maketh him covet, by covetise of flesh, fleshly sin by sight of his eyes, as to earthly things, and also covetise of highness by pride of heart."

[heartstrings]

Here's one more:

 The Greek word "tasso", the very same word which was translated as "ordained" in Acts 13:48, is translated into the following word in 1 Corinthians..

1Corinthians 16:15

I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

 

[heartstrings]

Oh wait....here's a modern example of some gentiles which were ordained, fix, set in order, or "tasso" to eternal life. but unfortunately, they never received it and went straight to Hell instead: when the September 11 hijackers flew those planes into the Pennsylvania field, the Pentagon, and the WTC, they committed suicide fully expecting to meet "Allah" on the other side. They, didn't have Jesus so they went to Hell, but their lives were fully set, fixed, established, ordered and "tasso" to the paradise they expected.

[heartstrings]

OK, one more example:

Why did the Egyptians, most notably the Pharaohs, spend staggering amounts of their fortunes over decades, just to build their own tombs? Because they, too, were gentiles which ordered their lives toward the afterlife, fully expecting their "ka" to meet "ra". Hey..that rhymed/

 I know that was a bunch or rigamarole. My point is, the Gentiles in Acts 13 simply had their hearts set and fixed on living forever after they died and when they heard the Gospel preached, the ones who wanted eternal life, gladly believed. God did not ordain them, they were disposed to it of their own free will. Just like the sinner in Chaucer's 14th century tale had addicted himself to his own lust and became "ordained" to concupiscence, they had "ordained" themselves to the attaining the afterlife.

[MountainChristian]

To be clear the drawing of the Spirit is not a mystical thing. The Spirit draws all men by the hearing of His spoken word through the preaching of saved people and their biblical witnessing materials (His word transmitted in print and comprehended as speech in the mind of the reader). If you hear the word and have faith because of them then you are "elected and ordained" by God to be saved. (John 6:63, Romans 10:13-15.)........cut...................

​Amen. Even Charles H Spurgeon who was a Calvinist said the same think in his book "All of Grace".  

[DaveW]

Sprugeon was a schizophrenic calvinist - he taught that man absolutely had a free will AS WELL as Calvin's 5 fantasy points.

I wish people would note that when they call him a calvinist - it is not as straightforward as that.

[Alimantado]

I've had a read through both John Y's posts and I still don't think I understand quite what is being said. John has this entreaty in his first post:

"What I learned as a young man is that while information, knowledge, physical actions, etc can help me better understand Christ redemptive work and to grow in faith and wisdom, there are no steps, no process, no 'things' I can do to pre-approve myself mentally or verbally."

And then later he says:

"To be clear the drawing of the Spirit is not a mystical thing. The Spirit draws all men by the hearing of His spoken word through the preaching of saved people and their biblical witnessing materials (His word transmitted in print and comprehended as speech in the mind of the reader)."

The best way I can tie those two statements together is to surmise that John is proposing that while we can identify some tangible components of the process of a person's salvation, we don't need to labour on the details, i.e. does the person know this, have they been taught that. Rather, the Holy Spirit can take care of all that and what doesn't happen before salvation will happen during sanctification. Is that a fair summary, John?

And I see Heartstrings also affirms that there are no 'steps' to be taken to be saved:

"I reiterate that there are no 'steps' to take to get saved. Jesus took all the necessary steps and all we are required to do is to believe on him, trusting Him to save us from our sin. Some people cannot physically 'call' on Him or 'confess' him audibly. But it's the heart God is interested in and one cannot, nor will not 'call' upon God in faith until the heart has already truly repented/turned to Jesus."

On the one hand I agree in that salvation isn't like a magic spell: say this, then do that, then touch your toes, etc. etc. However, I also think that, while there are some groups who are either pretty woolly on what's needed for salvation, or deny any essential difference between being saved and being sanctified, Baptists haven't traditionally been among those, and it's Baptists who have it right.

From what little I know of other groups, they seem to downplay or deny any set of criteria for being 'born again' in the following ways:

1. Pentecostals and Charismatics emphasise the leading of the Holy Spirit to the extent that it's *all* about the Holy Spirit and everything else is minor. The Holy Spirit draws a person and if that person desires a loving 'personal relationship' with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit then does everything else: makes them believe in the right stuff, brings them to a state of repentence etc. Because the Holy Spirit is doing all of that, nobody needs to worry about what that stuff actually is.

2. Roman Catholics roll salvation and sanctification into one. They say that God will have mercy on anyone who is honestly seeking and that some will end up a good way towards full sanctification on earth--they'll be fully paid up members of the Catholic Church etc.--while others will end up doing a good portion of their journey to sanctification in purgatory. Because there is no 'moment' when a person goes from being unsaved to saved, there are no prerequisites other than that a person is an 'honest seeker'.

3. Calvinists say that although God has means and those means involve people preaching and other people listening and responding, it's all predetermined to play out successfully, so no-one need worry too much about getting the details right.

Contrary to all the above, and laying aside questions about babies and the unborn and the mentally ill for now, I've always understood that for a person to be saved there are a set of pretty definite 'facts' that a person needs to understand in order to comprehend their state as a sinner before God, to be able to believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and to go on to respond to the call to repent. That sounds like a 'mental step' to me, so when John says there are no mental steps needed I get a bit nervous!

[heartstrings]

I've had a read through both John Y's posts and I still don't think I understand quite what is being said. John has this entreaty in his first post:

"What I learned as a young man is that while information, knowledge, physical actions, etc can help me better understand Christ redemptive work and to grow in faith and wisdom, there are no steps, no process, no 'things' I can do to pre-approve myself mentally or verbally."

And then later he says:

"To be clear the drawing of the Spirit is not a mystical thing. The Spirit draws all men by the hearing of His spoken word through the preaching of saved people and their biblical witnessing materials (His word transmitted in print and comprehended as speech in the mind of the reader)."

The best way I can tie those two statements together is to surmise that John is proposing that while we can identify some tangible components of the process of a person's salvation, we don't need to labour on the details, i.e. does the person know this, have they been taught that. Rather, the Holy Spirit can take care of all that and what doesn't happen before salvation will happen during sanctification. Is that a fair summary, John?

And I see Heartstrings also affirms that there are no 'steps' to be taken to be saved:

"I reiterate that there are no 'steps' to take to get saved. Jesus took all the necessary steps and all we are required to do is to believe on him, trusting Him to save us from our sin. Some people cannot physically 'call' on Him or 'confess' him audibly. But it's the heart God is interested in and one cannot, nor will not 'call' upon God in faith until the heart has already truly repented/turned to Jesus."

On the one hand I agree in that salvation isn't like a magic spell: say this, then do that, then touch your toes, etc. etc. However, I also think that, while there are some groups who are either pretty woolly on what's needed for salvation, or deny any essential difference between being saved and being sanctified, Baptists haven't traditionally been among those, and it's Baptists who have it right.

From what little I know of other groups, they seem to downplay or deny any set of criteria for being 'born again' in the following ways:

1. Pentecostals and Charismatics emphasise the leading of the Holy Spirit to the extent that it's *all* about the Holy Spirit and everything else is minor. The Holy Spirit draws a person and if that person desires a loving 'personal relationship' with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit then does everything else: makes them believe in the right stuff, brings them to a state of repentence etc. Because the Holy Spirit is doing all of that, nobody needs to worry about what that stuff actually is.

2. Roman Catholics roll salvation and sanctification into one. They say that God will have mercy on anyone who is honestly seeking and that some will end up a good way towards full sanctification on earth--they'll be fully paid up members of the Catholic Church etc.--while others will end up doing a good portion of their journey to sanctification in purgatory. Because there is no 'moment' when a person goes from being unsaved to saved, there are no prerequisites other than that a person is an 'honest seeker'.

3. Calvinists say that although God has means and those means involve people preaching and other people listening and responding, it's all predetermined to play out successfully, so no-one need worry too much about getting the details right.

Contrary to all the above, and laying aside questions about babies and the unborn and the mentally ill for now, I've always understood that for a person to be saved there are a set of pretty definite 'facts' that a person needs to understand in order to comprehend their state as a sinner before God, to be able to believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and to go on to respond to the call to repent. That sounds like a 'mental step' to me, so when John says there are no mental steps needed I get a bit nervous!

​Yes, like I said, Jesus took all the steps. But there is no step one, step two, check one check two, check three that you have to "do". After the details of the Gospel are presented, all that is required is to believe in your heart; meaning to turn to Jesus from sin and self. One "step"; only believe. That's not "easy believism" either. It's "hard believism". Why? Because people love darkness and Self and the World too much.

[John Young]

What I mean is that if I am activly looking to, believing, and following Christ alone from the heart then I do not need to wonder if I have been saved. Its not the mental understanding of the the saving work that saves but rather the active submition of the believer's will thrugh the Spirit.

Edited April 10, 2015 by John Young

[Alimantado]

But there is no step one, step two, check one check two, check three that you have to "do". After the details of the Gospel are presented, all that is required is to believe in your heart; meaning to turn to Jesus from sin and self. One "step"; only believe. That's not "easy believism" either. It's "hard believism". Why? Because people love darkness and Self and the World too much.

​Ok, but John has been talking in his OP not just about physical steps but mental 'steps':

"Many say some things are needed before true faith can 'become available'. Some say a various level of repentance or sorriness for your past sins is needed before salvation. Another relies on various levels of hearers knowledge or the presenters accurately voicing the truth; they have to understand the events correctly as presented in the correct bible (1611 KJAV Pure Cambridge Edition only for English speakers or it won't work)."

 I've underlined the bits I'm talking about. Now I've heard some pretty extreme examples of what I think John's talking about. I've heard folk say that if your belief in Jesus' crucification doesn't include a correct belief in the exact shape of the cross--maybe you think it's a square cross instead of a rectangular one--then your belief is actually in the "wrong Jesus". Or if someone shares the Gospel with you and you accidentally mishear when they say that Jesus rose on the third day and you think they have said four days, then if you believe you are believing in the "wrong Jesus", not the actual one who died and rose on the third day, and if you turn to that Jesus for your salvation, you'll actually be putting your faith in no-one.

On the other hand, though, I do think that that there is some knowledge needed before one can believe in the Gospel and turn to Jesus for salvation. For example, I don't think you can be saved if you somehow end up believing that Jesus was a giraffe the Romans kept in a zoo near Calvary. Now I guess someone could argue that the Holy Spirit wouldn't let that happen to a seeker, so all we need to do is present the Gospel honestly and rely on the Holy Spirit to bring the person to a correct understanding, sufficient for them to respond, should they choose, to the offer of salvation. Is that one of the points you're making, John?

 

 

[John Young]

What I mean is that if I am activly looking to, believing, and following Christ alone from the heart then I do not need to wonder if I have been saved. Its not the mental understanding of the the saving work that saves but rather the active submition of the believer's will thrugh the Spirit.

Active submiton to Christ happens first and is the point of salvation. Understanding of what things happend or led you to that point can come later and can vary in order or meaningfulness to you. What remains for every true Christian is they looked, believed, and followed Christ.

Edited April 10, 2015 by John Young