What must I do to be saved

[Ralph-]

Loaded question.

Your answer will help me explain why you are, to put it succinctly, being a contentious jerk.

Someone pointing out your contradictory statements is "contentious"?

Your contentiousness itself is unreasonable. That's why I suspect Aspergur's.

The parable of the tares does not indicate who is the sower.

We know that. But we know it's not the devil as mailman tried to (unknowingly?) suggest.

I know you want the sower to be God because you keep insisting that the sower is God. However, Scripture is silent as to the identity of the sower. Matthew, Mark, Luke, holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit, did not identify the sower in the record.

It's not the devil. That's the point. But ultimately it's surely God. You don't need to keep defending yourself to me. Go home. You have no horse in this race.

 

[Ralph-]

FWIW, there can only be one sower - man. Faith comes by hearing the word of GOD, whether spoken, or written, by men.

God does the sowing in that he gives the seed to the sower and sends him out. But surely, the seed is literally sown through the spoken words of God's servants, not the enemy's.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You're being unnecessarily contentious.

Pointing out your contradictory statements is not "contentious".

Whether it be through this person or that, when the good word is sown it is God doing the sowing.

Please provide Scripture reference which indicates God is the sower in the parable of the soils.

And I brought it up to defuse mailman's use of Jesus' statement about plants being pulled up to somehow show that soil#2 is unsaved soil. You really don't need to defend yourself here. It's not about you.

If anyone is defending self, it would be you. Just own up to the fact that Scripture does not tell us who the sower is.

For you to insist God is the sower when God does not tell us that, you are placing your opinion above the Word of God. What chutzpah.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

God gives the increase to what is sown. The parable of the tares does not indicate who is the sower.

I know you want the sower to be God because you keep insisting that the sower is God. However, Scripture is silent as to the identity of the sower. Matthew, Mark, Luke, holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit, did not identify the sower in the record.

Correction - should be parable of the soils.

Apologies ...

 

[reneweddaybyday]

FWIW, there can only be one sower - man. Faith comes by hearing the word of GOD, whether spoken, or written, by men.

Yes. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. That is why it is so important for us to preach Scripture. God brings increase to His Word planted in the heart of those to whom we speak. We are encouraged to be wise masterbuilders in our laboring together with God. God will not increase my faulty reasoning.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Your answer will help me explain why you are, to put it succinctly, being a contentious jerk.

The "contentious jerk" would be the one who keeps insisting he is right even though he is shown in Scripture that what he says is not Scripturally supported, has agreed with Scripture, then turns right around and goes back to his error.

Your contentiousness itself is unreasonable.

Romans 2:1.

That's why I suspect Aspergur's.

Your fallacy is unsupported.

We know that.

"We know that" Scripture does not reveal who the sower is in the parable of the soils. In agreement.

But we know it's not the devil as mailman tried to (unknowingly?) suggest.

I believe you were the one who first suggested anything about the devil sowing seed in your post #447. You say things in error then infer that others were the ones who said it. You did the same to me and I called you on it (yet I'm the one who's "contentious" )

It's not the devil. That's the point. But ultimately it's surely God. You don't need to keep defending yourself to me. Go home. You have no horse in this race.

Apparently your defense of your statement fails but rather than admit you were wrong about Scripture (which, may I remind you, is God's Word and should be handled as such), you continue to insist something that is wholly unsupportable in Scripture.

Rather than paint me as "contentious", or suffering from some malady of your own imagination, or "defending myself", why don't you just let Scripture say what God intended? You just might be blessed by God.

There is a lesson here. I wonder if you'll "get it"?

 

[Jewel5712]

What must one do to be saved.

I believe God decides who will be saved and who won't.

There are many scriptures which support the view that we don't decide to believe in Christ, but faith in Christ is a gift that God gives only to His elect.

Most folks don't agree with the doctrine of predestination/election, because many other scriptures say things like you must obey and remain faithful to the end etc...

These two opposing views have been debated for centuries, so today we have the benefit of many good good books on the subject but have we arrived at a consensus in the Church.

I would love to see the Church unite and resolve this dividing issue. But I fear that it will continue to be an enigma for the Church. Why can't we let the Bible be the final authority and accept what it really says and unite in the truth.

Hot topic and gutsy to start the continued contreversy on here..lol..i dont believe in the elected ones..God KNOWS who will ultimately recieve Him but He doesnt manipulate or coherse us..we have freedom of will like with other things in our lives.

So..youre kinda like saying God only died on the cross etc for only the ELECTED ones?

Church unity would e great but the church is made up of imperfect people in an imperfect world..nice thought though...

 

[Jewel5712]

Yes there is, most so called Christians hold to his false doctrine. It's nothing less than the doctrine of Demons

Didnt know there was such thing as a doctorine of demons...witchcraft..voodoo..yes..

 

[Ralph-]

The "contentious jerk" would be the one who keeps insisting he is right even though he is shown in Scripture that what he says is not Scripturally supported, has agreed with Scripture, then turns right around and goes back to his error.





Romans 2:1.





Your fallacy is unsupported.





"We know that" Scripture does not reveal who the sower is in the parable of the soils. In agreement.





I believe you were the one who first suggested anything about the devil sowing seed in your post #447. You say things in error then infer that others were the ones who said it. You did the same to me and I called you on it (yet I'm the one who's "contentious" )





Apparently your defense of your statement fails but rather than admit you were wrong about Scripture (which, may I remind you, is God's Word and should be handled as such), you continue to insist something that is wholly unsupportable in Scripture.

Rather than paint me as "contentious", or suffering from some malady of your own imagination, or "defending myself", why don't you just let Scripture say what God intended? You just might be blessed by God.

There is a lesson here. I wonder if you'll "get it"?

You completely messed up what we were talking about. And now you won't listen when I try to get you down to what mailmandan was saying. He tried to use another use of the planting metaphor to suggest the 2nd type of soil was not planted by the Father (because what grew got uprooted) and therefore represents an unsaved person. And now you want to argue about the passage not saying exactly who sowed the seed in the Parable of the Sower. Good grief, man. You really messed this one up big time.

 

[Ralph-]

Didnt know there was such thing as a doctorine of demons...witchcraft..voodoo..yes..

It seems that the argument is the security of salvation comes from being one of God's elect (meaning you were purposely created to be a believer and there's nothing you can do to change that) and not from accessing the salvation that is secure by trusting in Jesus.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You completely messed up what we were talking about. And now you won't listen when I try to get you down to what mailmandan was saying. He tried to use another use of the planting metaphor to suggest the 2nd type of soil was not planted by the Father (because what grew got uprooted) and therefore represents an unsaved person. And now you want to argue about the passage not saying exactly who sowed the seed in the Parable of the Sower. Good grief, man. You really messed this one up big time.

Quit acting like a drama queen. I didn't mess up anything. You can't convince mailmandan of something you believe and mailmandan cannot convince you of something he believes. That does not equate to me having "messed this one up big time". sheesh!

 

[LW97]

Quit acting like a drama queen. I didn't mess up anything. You can't convince mailmandan of something you believe and mailmandan cannot convince you of something he believes. That does not equate to me having "messed this one up big time". sheesh!

 

[Ralph-]

Quit acting like a drama queen. I didn't mess up anything. You can't convince mailmandan of something you believe and mailmandan cannot convince you of something he believes. That does not equate to me having "messed this one up big time". sheesh!

It's a Parable. This is God sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower through whatever unnamed way or person he is doing that. You're being needlessly contentious in every negative sense of the word.

Why is it important that you insist the Parable does not say specifically that this is God or one of his servants doing the sowing? You will see that you can not answer that question without showing how needlessly contentious you're being. And I suspect you are doing that simply because I do not believe in your sacred doctrine of 'once saved always saved'.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

It's a Parable. This is God sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower through whatever unnamed way or person he is doing that. You're being needlessly contentious in every negative sense of the word.

Please provide chapter and verse which indicates God sows the seed in the parable of the sower.

Thank you.

Why is it important that you insist the Parable does not say specifically that this is God or one of his servants doing the sowing? You will see that you can not answer that question without showing how needlessly contentious you're being. And I suspect you are doing that simply because I do not believe in your sacred doctrine of 'once saved always saved'.

It is important to me because God's Word is important to God. What is important to God is important to me (and to you if you'd ever admit it).

We cry foul when someone misrepresents our oh so mighty words and opinions.

And then we have the audacity to insist that God's Word is changeable because we want God to say something He never said???

Like I said earlier: There is a lesson to be learned here. I wonder if you’ll "get it"?

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

We are laborers together with God ... God Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. We are to be wise masterbuilders. How wise is it to change Scripture?

Do you "get it" now???

 

[LW97]

Please provide chapter and verse which indicates God sows the seed in the parable of the sower.

Thank you.




It is important to me because God's Word is important to God. What is important to God is important to me (and to you if you'd ever admit it).

We cry foul when someone misrepresents our oh so mighty words and opinions.

And then we have the audacity to insist that God's Word is changeable because we want God to say something He never said???

Like I said earlier: There is a lesson to be learned here. I wonder if you’ll "get it"?

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

We are laborers together with God ... God Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. We are to be wise masterbuilders. How wise is it to change Scripture?

Do you "get it" now???

amen

 

[Jewel5712]

It's a Parable. This is God sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower through whatever unnamed way or person he is doing that. You're being needlessly contentious in every negative sense of the word.

Why is it important that you insist the Parable does not say specifically that this is God or one of his servants doing the sowing? You will see that you can not answer that question without showing how needlessly contentious you're being. And I suspect you are doing that simply because I do not believe in your sacred doctrine of 'once saved always saved'.

I believe once saved always saved...we dont earn our salvation so theres no amount of works we can do that God would take the precious GIFT of salvation away... Heres an example..

Christian is justified. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). To justify is to declare righteous. All those who receive Jesus as Savior are “declared righteous” by God. For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and “un-declare” what He had previously declared. Those absolved of guilt would have to be tried again and found guilty. God would have to reverse the sentence handed down from the divine bench....

Etc.

 

[fredoheaven]

The danger being that someone who started out in genuine saving faith can slip into a deceitful works-less head knowledge faith which can not save them.

You must continue to believe to the very end to be saved in the very end. Ultimately, your life shows whether or not you are continuing to believe.

Not again Ralp, you just inserted "contiinue to believe" where the scriptures says "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16:31 Romans 1:16 is not about continuing to believe for salvation. John 1:12 says "believe" and scores of scritures that does say believe, trust, receive, faith in Christ alone.

 

[Ralph-]

Not again Ralp, you just inserted "contiinue to believe" where the scriptures says "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16:31 Romans 1:16 is not about continuing to believe for salvation.

You continue to believe by always presently believing. The promises are for those who believe (present tense), not for those who used to believe. The word has to remain in you for you to remain in Christ and the Father. The condition for remaining in the Son is that the word remain in you:

24 "As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father."-1 John 2:24

John 1:12 says "believe" and scores of scritures that does say believe, trust, receive, faith in Christ alone.

And how is present believing not 'faith in Christ alone'?

 

[Ralph-]

I believe once saved always saved...we dont earn our salvation so theres no amount of works we can do that God would take the precious GIFT of salvation away... Heres an example..

Christian is justified. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). To justify is to declare righteous. All those who receive Jesus as Savior are “declared righteous” by God. For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to go back on His Word and “un-declare” what He had previously declared. Those absolved of guilt would have to be tried again and found guilty. God would have to reverse the sentence handed down from the divine bench....

Etc.

Right, we don't earn our justification/salvation through righteous works. We access the grace of God for justification/salvation through our believing, not our works--our present tense believing. Not past believing. Not believing that has ended.

We maintain access to Christ's continuing ministry in heaven (Hebrews 7:25) by our continued believing. Christ's ministry ever before the Father in heaven does not intercede for the person who does not believe/trust in him, even if they used to trust in him. He is there to represent and justify/save believers, not unbelievers, not ex-believers.

 

[Ralph-]

Please provide chapter and verse which indicates God sows the seed in the parable of the sower.

Thank you.

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th soils have the word of God in them. Everyone who has the word of God in them is a believer. They have God's testimony in them:

"the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He (God) has testified concerning His Son. 10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself"-1 John 5:9-10

Get it now?


Just because the testimony of God comes through a servant laboring in the building and field of God doesn't make it so it's not God sowing the word of his testimony through them. Your contention is not only meaningless to this discussion, it is also baseless.

I suspect that you will continue to be contentious about this so read the whole passage and see how John is contrasting the testimony of men with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of God.

It is important to me because God's Word is important to God. What is important to God is important to me (and to you if you'd ever admit it).

We cry foul when someone misrepresents our oh so mighty words and opinions.

And then we have the audacity to insist that God's Word is changeable because we want God to say something He never said???

Like I said earlier: There is a lesson to be learned here. I wonder if you’ll "get it"?

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

We are laborers together with God ... God Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. We are to be wise masterbuilders. How wise is it to change Scripture?

Do you "get it" now???

I knew you would not be able to relate your contention to what we were talking about. I get very clearly that your contention has nothing to do with what mailmandan and I were talking about. Loud and clear. You're being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And I suspect what provoked your contention is you can't stand that I don't agree with your sacred 'once saved always saved' doctrine.