JeremyG - 10 March 2010 01:50 PM

Aaron - 02 March 2010 09:34 AM

I read an article today by Greg Koukl, host of the Stand to Reason radio show that addresses whether there are other ways to be saved than being in Christ.  Here’s the article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=9105

It reminded me of discussions going on on another forum between Adventists and formers.  There, and in my personal life dealing with Adventist family and friends, I’m having a hard time finding anyone willing to say, in effect, that Christ is the only way to salvation.  They’ll say it’s because of Christ that these non-Christians will go to heaven but they don’t have to actually have faith in Christ to qualify.  As long as you are “living up to the light you have” then this will somehow count at the end reckoning.  It seems, perhaps, another indication that Adventism has become more and more liberal in its theology.  Jeremy

Hi Jeremy

You say some interesting things here; which I intend to reply to soon. But for now; I can prove you wrong by saying :Jesus Is The ONLY Way To Salvation!” John 15:5, 14:6

Take care and take prayer, my friends in Christ. You are all in my prayers today - and I don’t pray that you will “change” to some way I think you should be, but I pray that you may each know the Comfort and the Knowledge of Jesus Christ in whatever struggles you may have right now. It is important to pray for others - but I don’t want to tell God what to do in my prayer. I just pray that you will be blessed by our Lord!

Judah - 19 June 2010 09:27 AM

Are you stating here that sins are “blotted out” that have not yet been committed? If so, what Bible reference would you refer people to for this?

Perhaps before answering your question it will be useful for you to answer mine: Did Jesus die for sins not yet been committed? If so, what Bible reference would you refer people to for this?

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 19 June 2010 02:32 PM

Judah - 19 June 2010 09:27 AM

Are you stating here that sins are “blotted out” that have not yet been committed? If so, what Bible reference would you refer people to for this?

Perhaps before answering your question it will be useful for you to answer mine: Did Jesus die for sins not yet been committed? If so, what Bible reference would you refer people to for this?

Gabriel

Romans 3:25 would be my initial answer to your question here Gabriel. Now you can answer my question?

I am adding this last sentence; and made a correction of the scripture reference. Originally I put Romans 3:23, this was a typo, and the corrected one is Romans 3:25.

But I wanted to also include the KJV of this text:

Rom 3:25, KJV Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Hebrews 10:12-14, Colossians 2:13,14 ; Romans 8:1, 30-39

Psalm 32:1-2, Psalm 103:10-12, Psalm 130:8 (just a couple more of the many)

Well folks, Romans 3:25 is quite specific, it says “for sins past.” (as in “former sins"), meaning that yes, blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; but it doesn’t say future sins he has not yet committed; and neither do any of the other texts you supplied. They could all easily fall under the guidelines of Romans 3:25. I am afraid you will have to provide more explanation before I can understand what you mean here on this point.

Judah - 20 June 2010 09:13 PM

Well folks, Romans 3:25 is quite specific, it says “for sins past.” (as in “former sins"), meaning that yes, blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; but it doesn’t say future sins he has not yet committed; and neither do any of the other texts you supplied. They could all easily fall under the guidelines of Romans 3:25. I am afraid you will have to provide more explanation before I can understand what you mean here on this point.

Sorry, Romans 3:25 doesn’t say what you think it says.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26

There is a contrast between “former sins” or as KJV put as “sins past” and “the present time”. The contrast is between the time before the cross and after the cross, it’s about history of redemption and not personal application of this redemption. It’s about God manifesting his justice in such a way that he may be just when he justifies the ungodly. The necessity for Christ’s propitiation comes from the fact that God cannot pronounce somebody to be just who’s not actually just without becoming himself unjust with the exception that he executes justice by punishing sins in Christ. In order to be just when he justifies the ungodly, God, while in the past manifested forbearance for the sins of people, does not become unjust in forgetting to punish them, but through Christ’s propitiation had manifested in the present his justice in doing what he did in the past.

God’s mercy doesn’t act apart from his holiness and his justice. God patience in not punishing sins for thousands of years raised the question of his righteousness, and the necessity for God to manifest it, which he did in Christ’s death.

If your interpretation of these texts would be correct, it will left us with Christ dying only for the sins commited in the times of the Old Testament, and we would be lost. That’s why I asked you if Christ died for sins not yet commited when he died, in order to establish the extent of atonement. If we can’t agree that Christ’s atonement dealt with future sins, sins that were not yet committed at his death, there is no reason to proceed further.

Regarding your question about more information, I’m not feeling myself under the obligation to answer your question in detail because you also didn’t answer my question in detail. As you just put a text without an explanation, I put some texts without explanations. Still, since you asked me for the biblical reference for my belief about this, I think I answered your question. You didn’t ask for a commentary or interpretation of the texts, and I answered accordingly.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 20 June 2010 10:34 PM

Regarding your question about more information, I’m not feeling myself under the obligation to answer your question in detail because you also didn’t answer my question in detail. As you just put a text without an explanation, I put some texts without explanations. Gabriel

That’s quite alright Gabriel. I’m not worried about it at all. I don’t mean to put undue pressure on you. The way I post may miff some people I guess, I tend to just say what comes to mind, and I can’t keep track of all that is said by myself or others on this forum.  Whatever you are comfortable with is fine with me. I am sure I can still learn some good things.

Judah - 21 June 2010 08:16 PM

That’s quite alright Gabriel. I’m not worried about it at all. I don’t mean to put undue pressure on you. The way I post may miff some people I guess, I tend to just say what comes to mind, and I can’t keep track of all that is said by myself or others on this forum.  Whatever you are comfortable with is fine with me. I am sure I can still learn some good things.

Maybe you missed Gabriel’s point? Without putting words in his mouth, I believe he said that you never answered his question. Here’s his question: when Christ died on the cross, was He dealing with sins that had not yet been committed?

There is no need at this point for you to offer a proof text of your Adventist understanding of the Gospel. We’re all quite aware of how Adventism has handled the Gospel. Gabriel was asking the question (I believe) in order to establish some common ground so that the conversation could progress. So, at this point, just a simple “yes” or “no” to Gabriel’s question would suffice.

Nate

Soli Deo Gloria - 21 June 2010 08:50 PM

There is no need at this point for you to offer a proof text of your Adventist understanding of the Gospel. We’re all quite aware of how Adventism has handled the Gospel. Gabriel was asking the question (I believe) in order to establish some common ground so that the conversation could progress.

Nate is right. Beside the common ground for this particular point, I had an additional goal. I want more fairness in our conversation than I saw in the past between former and current adventists. One aspect is the level of engagement: if I’m expecting to give thorough answers and back up my position with solid biblical proofs while the other is not going to do the same in the same proportion, or if I’m engaging the adventist arguments and show why I disagree with the position and the adventist is not engaging my arguments and move on without meaningful interaction, I don’t know why we are having the conversation.

Gabriel

Soli Deo Gloria - 21 June 2010 08:50 PM

There is no need at this point for you to offer a proof text of your Adventist understanding of the Gospel. We’re all quite aware of how Adventism has handled the Gospel. Gabriel was asking the question (I believe) in order to establish some common ground so that the conversation could progress. So, at this point, just a simple “yes” or “no” to Gabriel’s question would suffice.

Nate

I wasn’t going to offer a “proof text,” but I will say, I don’t think you are very well aware of “how Adventists have handled the gospel.”

“Yes” and “no” answers by anti-Adventists are ALWAYS leading questions, not intended to establish common ground but to trap their prey. How bout you answer the question and “tell me” such as you have been doing all along here anyway?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 22 June 2010 11:15 AM

Nate is right. Beside the common ground for this particular point, I had an additional goal. I want more fairness in our conversation than I saw in the past between former and current Adventists. One aspect is the level of engagement: if I’m expecting to give thorough answers and back up my position with solid biblical proofs while the other is not going to do the same in the same proportion, or if I’m engaging the adventist arguments and show why I disagree with the position and the adventist is not engaging my arguments and move on without meaningful interaction, I don’t know why we are having the conversation. Gabriel

Gabriel; you have a very obvious agenda to “show” how every Adventist that comes here is somehow “dishonest” or not willing to engage in meaningful discussion, or any other number of similar charges.  Not everything that an Adventist says is “wrong” but you seem to feel otherwise. It’s too bad, for much more could be possible by discussions with this ministry and Adventist Christians.

Let me just end this post by saying Jesus is the only way to be saved. John 15:5