The Popular Teaching About Salvation

[David Koot]

The predominant teaching about salvation, in all the Christian communions and other religions which I have been exposed to, is that a person may continue to sin, and still be saved. While there are varied formulations of the teaching, that is still the bottom-line. Here is a partial list of those communions:

• * General Baptist

  *Southern Baptist

  *Freewill Baptist

  *Methodist

  *A.M.E. Methodist

  *Lutheran (Missouri Synod, E.L.A.

  *Episcopalian (liberal and conservative)

  *Presbyterian

  *Covenant

  *United Brethren

  *Reformed Church

  *Roman Catholic

  *AOG

  *Pentecostal Holiness

  *Calvary Chapel

  *Church of Christ

  *Various Nondemon. Churches

  *BSF

  *Sunni Muslim

  *Sufi Muslim

  *Hindu

  *Sikh

  *Buddhist

  *New Age

I would be interested to know if anyone has any information to the contrary about this. BTW the purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss the merits of the question--whether or not one may continue to sin and still be saved. That discussion could be interminable. Nor is the issue here, Christian maturity, or rewards. Simply, does anyone have any information to the contrary, in regard to the commonly-held belief about salvation?

David Koot

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

After posting such such a derogatory statement you no longer have any credibility with me.

---

Derogatory statement? It is simply a statement of fact. While it would probably be simple enough to get documentation for the entire list, it would be time-consuming. I have held personal, in-depth discussion with individuals from many of the groups listed, and am quite certain of the teachings. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means present it.

Quote:

---

You have already been told that you are wrong and yet you persist.

---

I will kindly suggest that if someone said such a thing, he or she may not have had exposure or personal familiarity with what is in fact taught and believed. It is one thing to listen to a television evangelist, or to sit in church and hear someone preach. It is quite another thing to really dig and get to the bottom of things. I have done both.

[Nicodema]

I think the way this is phrased is entirely misleading and intellectually dishonest (perhaps inadvertently so, but still). It is phrased in such a way as to conjure the image that one who considers himself "saved" does acts deemed "sin" because he desires and intends to do such things and take advantage of his salvific standing as some sort of "legal loophole" to "get away with it." This is a false representation of the notion that IF, after accepting salvation, one happens to do a wrong act, forgiveness is available for the asking and the presence of a struggle taking place over a period of time with thought and behavior patterns that one would rather no longer have -- which struggle is itself inclusive of occasions of "missing the mark" -- is NOT in itself either (a) indicative of a condition of never having embraced salvation or ( sufficient to "undo" the experience of having received salvation.

I object to the way this question/interpretation of teachings/challenge is phrased in the first place upon this basis. Unless this is rephrased so as not to present a misleading picture of what the "teaching" in question actually consists, I will not participate in any further discussion of it here.

Sorry. This one's a trap, like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

It is phrased in such a way as to conjure the image that one who considers himself "saved" does acts deemed "sin" because he desires and intends to do such things and take advantage of his salvific standing as some sort of "legal loophole" to "get away with it."

---

I reread the initial post, after reading your post. I didn't see that in the wording of the post. I also know what I intended. Such was not my intention. I made a very general statement, for a reason. It would not be possible to make more specific statements, because of the wide variation between different beliefs. Yes, the bottom line is that a person may continue sinning, and still be saved. That does not address the issue of intent or motive. There is simply too much variation in regard to those issues.

[Gregory Matthews]

David, the reality is that you are simply wrong.

You may be wrong due to ingnorance. You may be wrong due to honest misunderstanding.

In any case, it does not matter. The perception is that no one is likely to be able to have a conversation with you on this subject that will be worthwhile. So, it is unlikely that many people here will discuss this with you.

[David Koot]

Some of the different ideas in regard to this topic are quite interesting. In the course of studying with a Sunni Muslim, he told me what he was taught. First, apparently it is possible for a devout Muslim to go straight to heaven (for example, if he dies in jihad.) If not, then after he dies, he will spend time in a place of punishment (similar to Purgatory.) After awhile, the prophet Mohammed will speak to God in behalf. He will say, according to my friend, "These people are mine. I ask you for them." And God will grant Mohammed's request and bring them to heaven.

Some features of that story sound kinda like the Roman Catholic teaching. If a person is baptized as a Roman Catholic, then upon death, he will spend time in Purgatory, but later, will go to heaven. I recently read a card handed out in the local cathedral, which had the Bishop's approval, and which promised the bearer that if he or she would say, as I recall, ten Our Father's, Ten Glory Be's and Ten Hail Mary's, each day for three years, then upon death, he will go straight to heaven, AND the family members for whom he prays will immediately be freed from Purgatory and go to heaven.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

David, the reality is that you are simply wrong.

---

Well, let's get the information out in the open, and see what is what.

[Bravus]

As I understand it, that characterisation could be equally well applied to what Seventh-day Adventists believe about salvation. Salvation is an unmerited act of God's grace that blots out our sins with the blood of Jesus. The Spirit teaches us to grow in spiritual maturity and we sin less over time, but also become more aware of our remaining sins and sinfulness. We never reach perfection - in the sense of not sinning by commission or omission - this side of glorification, but God continues to love, forgive and save us.

I seem to have got into the detail of the position, but basically just to say that I think SDAs fit fairly neatly along with all of the other denominations listed in our understanding of salvation. (That is, the mainstream general conference understanding. There certainly exist perfectionist offshoots.)

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

As I understand it, that characterisation could be equally well applied to what Seventh-day Adventists believe about salvation . . . I think SDAs fit fairly neatly along with all of the other denominations listed in our understanding of salvation.

---

Gregory, is that correct?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

The Spirit teaches us to grow in spiritual maturity and we sin less over time, but also become more aware of our remaining sins and sinfulness. We never reach perfection - in the sense of not sinning by commission or omission - this side of glorification, but God continues to love, forgive and save us.

---

I wish to add that the statement which Bravus made, seems to be pretty much the teaching of every Christian church with which I have had contact. The primary points of variance have to do with the MECHANISM by which God deals with the sin issue. IOW yes, we will continue to sin, but God will take care of it in one way or another.

I am curious, however, as to whether or not Gregory would characterize what Bravus said, as the teaching of the SDA church as well.

[Parade Orange]

I find it interesting that the muslem(sunni) religion and the catholic religion are similar in that way.

Satan is brilliant to spin this tale. Satan knows very well that JESUS CHRIST went to purgetory(HELL- second death without the Father) first. The only one ever. Nobody has died the second death except JESUS. Amen. The contrast is amazing. And Mohammed pleading to Allah on behalf of his friend. Powerful!

Satan conterfitting all of it. Jesus doing more for us and done more already inspires us.

Praise God

Gay4JESUS

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Salvation is an unmerited act of God's grace that blots out our sins with the blood of Jesus. The Spirit teaches us to grow in spiritual maturity and we sin less over time, but also become more aware of our remaining sins and sinfulness.

We never reach perfection

- in the sense of not sinning by commission or omission - this side of glorification, but God continues to love, forgive and save us.

---

Well said!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

The primary points of variance have to do with the MECHANISM by which God deals with the sin issue. IOW yes, we will continue to sin, but God will take care of it in one way or another.

---

How quickly one forgets...Dave, remember that post on "self-seeking"? [No worries, Nico, I'm not starting on that again] Anyway, you lost that debate...so please don't start this "I'm not sinning stuff"!

EGW has many, many statements that show that we are in a state of sin. Yes we grow, but ultimately we are still sinners saved by what Christ did 2000 years ago. And yes I have all her quotes, but I won't go there because it would just embarrass your theology.

Chill,

Rob

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

please don't start this "I'm not sinning stuff"!

---

Robert, I quote here from the initial post which started this thread:

"BTW the purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss the merits of the question--whether or not one may continue to sin and still be saved. That discussion could be interminable. Nor is the issue here, Christian maturity, or rewards. Simply, does anyone have any information to the contrary, in regard to the commonly-held belief about salvation?"

This thread is not about what you mentioned. Please do not sidetrack or derail it. If you have information about the TEACHINGS of the various other religious groups, other than SDA, well and good. If, however, you wish to debate the merits of whether or not a person may continue sinning, and still be saved, this thread is not the place to do it. Thank-you for your anticipated cooperation.

[benherndon]

Ben

[David Koot]

I would like to take a look at other mechanisms which various churches propound, to deal with the problem of continuing sin. I have had many interesting and pleasant exchanges with Baptist ministers over the years. There are, as we know, a number of Baptist groups, including Southern, General, Conservative, Freewill, Missionary, Primitive, and still others. Some years ago, a Southern Baptist pastor was explaining the doctrine of eternal security to me. He told me that even if he were to murder someone and never repent, he still would be saved in the kingdom of God. Interesting. Recently, a Baptist pastor who received his training at Golden Gate Theological Seminary pointed out to me that God surely was not going to keep him out of heaven just because he chose not to keep the Sabbath. Still another pastor (I think he was Baptist but can't remember for sure now) explained it this way to me:

'I am married. I have a piece of paper, a marriage certificate, that says I am married. Even if I am unfaithful to my wife, I still am married.'

Interesting, indeed. So, then, 'eternal security' is a mechanism for dealing with sin. Even though a person keeps on sinning, he is still 'saved.' God somehow takes care of it, and saves the believer. Different than the RC theory about Purgatory. For the Baptist, no purgatory. You go straight to heaven, and God somehow takes care of the sin issue.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

...God somehow takes care of the sin issue.

---

Yes He did! It's called the gospel -- "in Christ"!

Satan is accusing you, Dave, before God. In turn God is hopefully defending you against Satan's accurate accusations.

Satan says, "Dave's a sinner...you have no LEGAL right to take sinning Dave to heaven. It's not fair."

Now is God on your side or on Satan's? Who is the accuser? If God says, "Yes, you are right Satan...this Dave guy is definitely not measuring up" then He and Satan are on the same team.

Instead God says to Satan, "Yes, you are right...Dave is still a sinner, but if his faith is in My Son I have a legal right to bring him to heaven."

And Satan says, "how so?" And God says, "At the incarnation I put Dave's fallen life into my Son. In doing this I rewrote Dave's history.

When My Son defeated sin Dave defeated sin because Dave was in My Son. When My Son died, Dave died. When My Son was raised with a glorified life, Dave was raised also. So Dave has legally answered the demands of My law in My Son."

Satan says, "yeah, but Dave doesn't believe in you." So God says, "Let me get back with you." He then examines Dave's works, but not to see how good he is... no, God examines the motives behind the good things done in Dave's life (although they fall short).

Works done by Dave, motivated to appease a God out to get him and/or works done in order to gain heaven, will be classified as self-righteous works.

Works done as a result of standing fully in grace will be used to show one's faith. The motive will not stem from worrying about if one is saved or not. Such a believer is standing firm on the rock of Christ his righteousness. He is saved by faith alone.

So then, it is not how good Dave is or how much of the law Dave has kept, but what's the motive behind the good things that Dave has done?

If Dave's works are tainted with "self-righteousness" Christ must let Dave defend himself against Satan's accurate accusations! The result? Dave forfeits life!

Rob

[David Koot]

Robert, I read the first two or three lines of your post, then quit. Once again, you seem to be trying to take this discussion a different direction. This thread is NOT about the issues are raising. Please have the courtesy not to try to derail this thread. If you like, start a new thread. Thank-you.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

you seem to be trying to take this discussion a different direction. This thread is NOT about the issues are raising.

---

Really? You apparently believe in salvation by works....Baptists perhaps believe in once saved always saved. The scenario I gave you was to help you see your error....The judgment is good news, but bad news for legalists!

To be truthful one would be safer in the Baptist's view of salvation then your heresy!

Rob

[David Koot]

I think perhaps the easiest way to deal with this particular issue, in this case, is to use the "Ignore" feature, which I have now activated.

[Robert]

Right...be ignorant!

[David Koot]

The various beliefs about how God deals with sin, and the purification of the individual, are truly fascinating. I studied with a Sikh family awhile back. In addition, I frequently visited a Sikh patient, and got to know his family, while doing a hospital chaplaincy residency.

The Sikhs had, over the centuries, their mission to defend India against the Muslims. Their religion is different from Hinduism, in many respects. They do believe in reincarnation. However, the belief differs from the Hindu belief in this sense: if a person does not live a good life, then he or she must be reincarnated as every existing life form, in succession, before again being a human. That is the way they believe purification takes place. And, of course, we know the Hindu belief about karma and reincarnation--that the life form you take in the next life, depends on how you did during this life.

What I find absolutely fascinating, is a common thread running throughout these various religions. That is, putting off the purification from sins, until AFTER this life. Whether its purgatory for the Catholics, Mormons and Muslims, or reincarnation, or some miraculous act of God for the Baptists--the TIME element is consistent--firstly, the ideal is to live a good life. But, if not, then purification will be accomplished in the next life. The 'left behind' idea is a variation of that belief, IMO, differing in the sense that there is a second chance, still DURING this life, but AFTER the rapture. A common thread, indeed.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

What I find absolutely fascinating, is a common thread running throughout these various religions. That is, putting off the purification from sins, until AFTER this life.

---

Actually all "heathen religions" are based on works:

”The principle that man can save himself by his own works lay at the foundation of every heathen religion….” [DA 35]

The fact is we are saved entirely by Christ's doing and dying. We are "complete in Him"!

On perfection, EGW states the following:

"Our earthly life, however long, honored, or useful it may be, is but childhood, frail, imperfect, and undeveloped. Manhood, with its full, perfect, glorious development, will come, when, freed from the taint of sin, we stand among the redeemed throng. Then we shall enjoy a life which measures with the life of God, and through everlasting ages we shall go on increasing in wisdom and knowledge." [sT 06-09-1881]

"So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained." [AA, 560]

"All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption....Oh, that all may see that everything [:"red"]in obedience[/], in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat." [1SM 344]