meaning of Belief in salvation

[BavarianWheels]

You tell me what happened to him, Bav. I don't see Hell mentioned anywhere in that passage.

See Matthew 25:30

And yes, my entire post IS John 3:16, FULL STOP.

I didn't say post...I said Scripture.
.
.

[B. W.]

Which brings me to your last point - the idea that in order to saved you must be dedicated to God is deeply terrifying because it amounts to an absolute denial of the Gospel. We are saved by faith, Gabe, not our works. No amount of dedication or love on our part can merit our salvation. Such a statement cheapens God's gift immeasurably. How can anyone think that if they only loved God enough and gave their entire lives to Him that they would in any way have paid the price for their salvation!? Imagine going to a real estate agent and offering $20 for a mansion. You would be laughed out of the office - and were the agent to take it, what would that say about the agent's view of the worth of the house?....

Think about the implications of FREE, Gabe. It means you can't require anything in exchange for it - not even loving God. I realize most Christians hate that concept. They are trying to be pious and spiritual . . . but the Gospel is the Gospel. It is FREE or it is no gospel at all. The question is only this: do you believe Jesus, that everyone who believes has eternal life, or do you now call Him a liar, and assert that those who believe and do other things as well are the ones who are saved?

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, defines faith / believing and its root meaning denoted faithfulness that comes from what one places faith in. Verbrugge goes on to show how the Hebrew word for believe -faith stressed reliability, remaining true, dependability. So Faith in God in the Hebrew sense meant to be fully persuaded in God's reliability, remaining true, dependability that it changes the course of one's personal life to likewise be reliable, true, dependable towards God.

Abraham believed God it was account to him righteousness Romans 4:3. What did that do to Abraham? Was he passive or active? Did he live according to what he Believed?

Are we called to be conformed into the image of Christ or remain comfortably numb sitting on our blessed assurances?

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Verbrugge, Points this out:

“Pistis as faith in God stood for a theoretical conviction. But stress was laid on the belief that life was constituted in accordance with this conviction.”

Dictionary of New Testament Theology goes on to show how Neo-Platonism came and gave Faith a new definition:

“Neo-Platonism had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

Jac, you appear to hold dear to the Neo-Platonic concept of faith.

What Gab and others here are saying is one: simple believing in Christ / God's reliability, his remaining true, his dependability, his loyal fidelity in what he accomplished ALONE saves, within this, this then affects ones course of life to learn how to be likewise loyal, dependable, reliable, true to God.

In fact the New Testament teaches this: Gal 4:19 -- Romans 8:29 -- John 17:19, 23, 26 -- 1 Corinthians 15:49 — 2 Corinthians 3:18 — Eph 1:4 — Eph 4:24 — Col 3:10 — Romans 13:14 — 1 John 2:29 in fact read all of 1 John for more details.

This is not terrifying Jac, but the process and walk of the Christian life that the bible proclaims. Simple believing is but the start. True believing / faith is a journey of transformation. These are not works that keep one saved but rather what God himself predestined us who believe to be conformed into (Rom 8:29). What I hear you say is this: the journey of transformation is uselessly unimportant to God, just believe and become comfortably numb is the only thing acceptable to God.

Your view of believing, faith is in line with strict tradition that according to the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, points out is based solely on… “Neo-Platonism (that) had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

That is what you appear to be in essence teaching — the Neo-Platonic view of faith, not the life altering kind of faith the bible teaches.

Is that true? Are you totally against faith that changes ones direction and course of life? Why is that so terrifying?

Remember, we are not saying nor teaching salvation by works but rather that true heartfelt faith will change one's life during each person's Omnipersonal journey with the Lord. Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Matthew, Peter, Paul, Luke, Phoebe, Timothy, etc & etc…Like the New Testament reveals, we are not afraid to proclaim it for fear of being misunderstood. We know that He who Began a good work in a person will complete it - that's faith!

Faith that does not alter one's life is not true conviction in what the Lord has done…alone…

Philippians 1:6
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

See Matthew 25:30

I see darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. I don't see Hell. What makes you think Jesus is talking about Hell there?

[BavarianWheels]

Which brings me to your last point - the idea that in order to saved you must be dedicated to God is deeply terrifying because it amounts to an absolute denial of the Gospel. We are saved by faith, Gabe, not our works. No amount of dedication or love on our part can merit our salvation. Such a statement cheapens God's gift immeasurably. How can anyone think that if they only loved God enough and gave their entire lives to Him that they would in any way have paid the price for their salvation!? Imagine going to a real estate agent and offering $20 for a mansion. You would be laughed out of the office - and were the agent to take it, what would that say about the agent's view of the worth of the house?....

Think about the implications of FREE, Gabe. It means you can't require anything in exchange for it - not even loving God. I realize most Christians hate that concept. They are trying to be pious and spiritual . . . but the Gospel is the Gospel. It is FREE or it is no gospel at all. The question is only this: do you believe Jesus, that everyone who believes has eternal life, or do you now call Him a liar, and assert that those who believe and do other things as well are the ones who are saved?

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, defines faith / believing and its root meaning denoted faithfulness that comes from what one places faith in. Verbrugge goes on to show how the Hebrew word for believe -faith stressed reliability, remaining true, dependability. So Faith in God in the Hebrew sense meant to be fully persuaded in God's reliability, remaining true, dependability that it changes the course of one's personal life to likewise be reliable, true, dependable towards God.

Abraham believed God it was account to him righteousness Romans 4:3. What did that do to Abraham? Was he passive or active? Did he live according to what he Believed?

Are we called to be conformed into the image of Christ or remain comfortably numb sitting on our blessed assurances?

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Verbrugge, Points this out:

“Pistis as faith in God stood for a theoretical conviction. But stress was laid on the belief that life was constituted in accordance with this conviction.”

Dictionary of New Testament Theology goes on to show how Neo-Platonism came and gave Faith a new definition:

“Neo-Platonism had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

Jac, you appear to hold dear to the Neo-Platonic concept of faith.

What Gab and others here are saying is one: simple believing in Christ / God's reliability, his remaining true, his dependability, his loyal fidelity in what he accomplished ALONE saves, within this, this then affects ones course of life to learn how to be likewise loyal, dependable, reliable, true to God.

In fact the New Testament teaches this: Gal 4:19 -- Romans 8:29 -- John 17:19, 23, 26 -- 1 Corinthians 15:49 — 2 Corinthians 3:18 — Eph 1:4 — Eph 4:24 — Col 3:10 — Romans 13:14 — 1 John 2:29 in fact read all of 1 John for more details.

This is not terrifying Jac, but the process and walk of the Christian life that the bible proclaims. Simple believing is but the start. True believing / faith is a journey of transformation. These are not works that keep one saved but rather what God himself predestined us who believe to be conformed into (Rom 8:29). What I hear you say is this: the journey of transformation is uselessly unimportant to God, just believe and become comfortably numb is the only thing acceptable to God.

Your view of believing, faith is in line with strict tradition that according to the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, points out is based solely on… “Neo-Platonism (that) had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

That is what you appear to be in essence teaching — the Neo-Platonic view of faith, not the life altering kind of faith the bible teaches.

Is that true? Are you totally against faith that changes ones direction and course of life? Why is that so terrifying?

Remember, we are not saying nor teaching salvation by works but rather that true heartfelt faith will change one's life during each person's Omnipersonal journey with the Lord. Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Matthew, Peter, Paul, Luke, Phoebe, Timothy, etc & etc…Like the New Testament reveals, we are not afraid to proclaim it for fear of being misunderstood. We know that He who Began a good work in a person will complete it - that's faith!

Faith that does not alter one's life is not true conviction in what the Lord has done…alone…

Philippians 1:6

Holy...have I said anything different to this?? I'm in agreement here. Sheesh.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

See Matthew 25:30

I see darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. I don't see Hell. What makes you think Jesus is talking about Hell there?

In context...as you like to promote, see Matthew 24:1-3. After this, then keep reading past Matthew 25:30 and see how the END is whole theme.

See also Matthew 13:37-43 and Matthew 13:49,50
.
.

[Jac3510]

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, defines faith / believing and its root meaning denoted faithfulness that comes from what one places faith in. Verbrugge goes on to show how the Hebrew word for believe -faith stressed reliability, remaining true, dependability. So Faith in God in the Hebrew sense meant to be fully persuaded in God's reliability, remaining true, dependability that it changes the course of one's personal life to likewise be reliable, true, dependable towards God.

Do you really want to get into a source war?

In any case, Verbrugge is wrong. There is a difference in the word "faith" and the word "faithful" or "faithfulness." Pisteuo, the verb form of the noun for "faith" means "to believe" or "to put trust in." It does not mean "to be faithful." The fact that a cognate word means "faithfulness" doesn't mean pisteuo means "to be faithful." That would be a fallacy called illegitimate totality transfer, humorously illustrated with this part of the old joke, "The Hermeneutics of a Stop Sign":

• A seminary-educated evangelical preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something that prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: When you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

With reference to the Hebrew, Verbrugge is right insofar as the meaning of aman. The root idea is certainty. Abraham, in Gen 15:6, was certain that God could do what He promised, and therefore, God saved him. That has nothing to do with whether or not Abraham, though, would become dependable. Abraham declared God dependable; God did not declare Abraham dependable. It is very dangerous to say that we are saved when we declare ourselves dependable, which is what your interpretation of "faith" would mean here.

Abraham believed God it was account to him righteousness Romans 4:3. What did that do to Abraham? Was he passive or active? Did he live according to what he Believed?

Yes, he did. Look at your own words, BW. He lived ACCORDING TO what he believed. That statement presupposes belief. It is, however, just as possible that he could have not lived ACCORDING TO what he believed. Lot is just one such example. He didn't live according to his faith (look how he ended up!). But he is listed in Hebrews as being righteous . . .

How we live, BW, has nothing to do with whether or not we really believed. Many will say on that day, "Lord, Lord", we did lots of things for You . . .

Are we called to be conformed into the image of Christ or remain comfortably numb sitting on our blessed assurances?

We are absolutely called to be conformed to the image of Christ. Are you suggesting that if we do not allow ourselves to be conformed, then we go to Hell?

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Verbrugge, Points this out:

“Pistis as faith in God stood for a theoretical conviction. But stress was laid on the belief that life was constituted in accordance with this conviction.”

Dictionary of New Testament Theology goes on to show how Neo-Platonism came and gave Faith a new definition:

“Neo-Platonism had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

Jac, you appear to hold dear to the Neo-Platonic concept of faith.

Actually, I hold to an Aristotelian view of faith, but that's another story. Whether Aristotelian or Neo-Platonic or whatever means nothing. The question is whether or not it is biblical. As I already discussed with TM, the basic meaning of pisteuo is "to trust."

And, for what it is worth, the Bible disproves your definition of faith as commitment. John 12:42 has men who John expressly says believed, and yet they didn't have a "life constituted in accordance with this conviction."

What Gab and others here are saying is one: simple believing in Christ / God's reliability, his remaining true, his dependability, his loyal fidelity in what he accomplished ALONE saves, within this, this then affects ones course of life to learn how to be likewise loyal, dependable, reliable, true to God.

If Gabe is saying you can lose your salvation, he is saying a lot more than that. Certainly, believing in Jesus makes you a new man, which allows you to live differently. Only then can you walk according to the Spirit. But believing the Gospel doesn't mean you WILL walk according to the Spirit, and refusing to walk according to the Spirit, contrary to Gabe, does NOT mean that you will lose your salvation. John 3:16 guarantees that.

In fact the New Testament teaches this: Gal 4:19 -- Romans 8:29 -- John 17:19, 23, 26 -- 1 Corinthians 15:49 -- 2 Corinthians 3:18 —- Eph 1:4 —- Eph 4:24 —- Col 3:10 —- Romans 13:14 -— 1 John 2:29 in fact read all of 1 John for more details.

BW, you're a nice guy, but listing a ton of verses doesn't do anything to help you. If you think any of those disproves my argument, then explain how. I'm not going to offer an exegesis of each one of those, line by line, hoping to try to see your point in there somewhere. Obviously, I believe everyone of those verses.

I find it telling that in all the verses you mention, you don't deal with the points I've already made about John 3:16.

This is not terrifying Jac, but the process and walk of the Christian life that the bible proclaims. Simple believing is but the start. True believing / faith is a journey of transformation. These are not works that keep one saved but rather what God himself predestined us who believe to be conformed into Rom 8:29). What I hear you say is this: the journey of transformation is uselessly unimportant to God, just believe and become comfortably numb is the only thing acceptable to God.

Can you show me ANYWHERE in Scripture where the word "true" is used to describe "faith"? Or where "false" or "spurious" is use to describe faith? Hint: the Bible doesn't do that. You theologians do.

What is terrifying is not the Christian walk. What is terrifying is the idea that so many Christians put forward that in order to be saved, you must live the Christian life. If that is true, then NONE OF US ARE SAVED. Do you always live the Christian life, BW? Are you living it fully enough? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard is nothing short of Jesus Himself. Can you say you meet that standard? Can you HONESTLY say you are living the Christian life?

Please. It's the height of arrogance to say you are. None of us are. That, my friend, is the grace of God - the grace upon grace.

Your view of believing, faith is in line with strict tradition that according to the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, by Verbrugge, points out is based solely on… “Neo-Platonism (that) had a materialized concept of faith that called for a definite, intellectualistic conviction, which was conditioned by tradition…”

That is what you appear to be in essence teaching — the Neo-Platonic view of faith, not the life altering kind of faith the bible teaches.

Already dealt with this . . .

Is that true? Are you totally against faith that changes ones direction and course of life? Why is that so terrifying?

UNTIL I GET AN APOLOGY FOR THIS LINE, YOU AND I WILL HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT. I am HIGHLY offended at this. Where did I once say or imply that I am against living the Christian life? WHERE?

I didn't. This is nothing more than a dirty debate tactic. It's despicable.

What I am against is saying that if you DON'T change you life, then you haven't believed.

Remember, we are not saying nor teaching salvation by works but rather that true heartfelt faith will change one's life during each person's Omnipersonal journey with the Lord. Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Matthew, Peter, Paul, Luke, Phoebe, Timothy, etc & etc…Like the New Testament reveals, we are not afraid to proclaim it for fear of being misunderstood. We know that He who Began a good work in a person will complete it - that's faith!

Faith that does not alter one's life is not true conviction in what the Lord has done…alone…

Philippians 1:6
-
-
-

What makes you think the good work in Phil 1:6 is personal salvation? Did you notice that the "you" was plural? Did you notice that Paul was talking about their fellowship in the Gospel with him - referring to their financial support of him? Did you notice that the good work that God was doing, He would continue to do until Jesus comes back? I don't think any of those Philippian saints are still alive to be growing in Christ, do you?

The good work is not their salvation or sanctification, BW. You're a smart guy. I'll let you figure it out.

Now, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to everyone: until you are willing to put down your pride and accept that the ONLY thing you can do is just trust Jesus to save you, with COMPLETE DISREGARD TO ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE OR WILL EVER DO--just faith, that is trust, alone, BW--until you do that, you can't say you believe the Gospel.

[Jac3510]

See Matthew 25:30

I see darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. I don't see Hell. What makes you think Jesus is talking about Hell there?

In context...as you like to promote, see Matthew 24:1-3. After this, then keep reading past Matthew 25:30 and see how the END is whole theme.

See also Matthew 13:37-43 and Matthew 13:49,50
.
.

Then explain it. Saying "in context" doesn't make it so. Why should I accept your bald assertion that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" refers to Hell, Bav?

To be honest, I don't expect an answer. You've not even given me the courtesy of looking at John 3:16. You just want to move past it and look at other verses you think support your view. It's typical.

[BavarianWheels]

See Matthew 25:30

I see darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. I don't see Hell. What makes you think Jesus is talking about Hell there?

In context...as you like to promote, see Matthew 24:1-3. After this, then keep reading past Matthew 25:30 and see how the END is whole theme.

See also Matthew 13:37-43 and Matthew 13:49,50
.
.

Then explain it. Saying "in context" doesn't make it so. Why should I accept your bald assertion that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" refers to Hell, Bav?

To be honest, I don't expect an answer. You've not even given me the courtesy of looking at John 3:16. You just want to move past it and look at other verses you think support your view. It's typical.

Not only have I looked at it, I know it by heart. The context and meaning is given by the scripture I've listed for you to see and read.

Will you "look" at it?
.
.

[cslewislover]

The good work is not their salvation or sanctification, BW. You're a smart guy. I'll let you figure it out.

Now, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to everyone: until you are willing to put down your pride and accept that the ONLY thing you can do is just trust Jesus to save you, with COMPLETE DISREGARD TO ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE OR WILL EVER DO--just faith, that is trust, alone, BW--until you do that, you can't say you believe the Gospel.

Jac, you are way out of line. We all believe in the gospel here. You should know that there are many instances in the bible that say something, but they mean more. "Believe" has different meanings, and there are all kinds of issues. People are discussing them. This is a DISCUSSION board. The bible is also clear about "repenting." If a person is saved, they will show some willingness, at least, to repent. It's important for people to be able to discuss basic doctrine of the faith without being told they don't believe in the gospel. You are judging more than anyone here, as far as I can see. I don't see the love of Christ in all this argument. This is not some kind of Christian boxing ring (hello oxymoron). And for sources . . . that's uncalled for too. I use sources written by theologians, yet they don't seem good enough . . . yes, *cough.*

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
LOL...

In any case, Verbrugge is wrong.

This is Jac at his most humble.
.
.

[Jac3510]

Not only have I looked at it, I know it by heart. The context and meaning is given by the scripture I've listed for you to see and read.

Will you "look" at it?

Hey look, the non-answer I predicted.

Jac, you are way out of line.

And will you be calling BW out on being out of line for expressly misrepresenting what I believe, and, in fact, for representing what I believe as something that I have expressly repudiated countless times on this board and in this thread?

We all believe in the gospel here.

That's the issue under discussion, isn't it, csll? If the Gospel is to be understood as I am explaining it, then many here DON'T believe it. Everyone here, for the most part, considers themselves Christians. But then again, so do Mormons and JWs. Remember Matt 7:21ff. Not everyone who claims the name Christian believes the Gospel.

You should know that there are many instances in the bible that say something, but they mean more. "Believe" has different meanings, and there are all kinds of issues. People are discussing them. This is a DISCUSSION board.

Which is why we are discussing the meaning of the word and the ramifications of its meaning. If pisteuo simply means 'to trust,' as I am arguing, the ramifications are HUGE. Either way, the words CANNOT mean simple trust and commitment of life at the same time in the same way. One of us is wrong. I'll put it bluntly: if you are right, I don't believe the Gospel. Can you admit the same?

The bible is also clear about "repenting." If a person is saved, they will show some willingness, at least, to repent.

Are you sure the Bible teaches that, csll? Tell me, how much repenting do I have to do if I'm "really saved"? How many sins do I have to repent of? One of them? All of them? When have I repented enough?

There's no way to know. Beyond that, the Bible just doesn't say anywhere that if a person is really saved, they will really repent. That's something theologians have invented to satisfy their pride. It's not biblical.

It's important for people to be able to discuss basic doctrine of the faith without being told they don't believe in the gospel.

Like Paul discussed with the Galatians their misunderstanding of the Gospel . . . oh wait . . .

I understand what you are saying, csll. I do. I just respectfully disagree. You are holding up a double standard here. You are perfectly willing to tell Mormons and JWs that they don't really believe the Gospel. You tell Muslims that, despite how sincere they are in their religion, they are sincerely wrong for not believing the Gospel. You expect them to not be offended because it isn't personal . . . it's a simple matter of what the Gospel is, as you read Scripture, and whether or not they believe it. And yet when someone asks the same of you, somehow, it is different.

Now, I'm not saying you are or are not saved, csll. That's for God to judge. Perhaps in your life you DID believe the Gospel at some point. I don't know. I wasn't there. I am not even saying you or Gabe or BW or anyone doesn't believe it now. What I AM saying is only this: if you reject the fact that salvation is by FAITH ALONE--mere trust, with total disregard to any behavior on your part, good or bad--then you reject the Gospel. Do you? I don't know. That's between you and God.

You are judging more than anyone here, as far as I can see.

With all due respect, you don't see very far, then. I've not said any individual person does not believe the Gospel. I've said that IF you deny faith ALONE, then you deny the Gospel. It's a simple logical statement.

Now, yes, I AM making an exclusive truth claim. I am saying that I am right on this and everyone else is wrong. I'm sure that here, of all places, we understand that is the nature of ALL truth claims. It takes a post-modern who wants to be "tolerant" of "all truths" to get offended at truth claims. Perhaps I am wrong, csll. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then those who disagree with me are wrong. If I'm wrong, then I have misdefined the Gospel and therefore do not believe the True Gospel, whatever it is. if I am right, then I have correctly defined the Gospel, and those who disagree do not believe the Gospel.

That's not being judgmental. That's being honest.

I don't see the love of Christ in all this argument. This is not some kind of Christian boxing ring (hello oxymoron). And for sources . . . that's uncalled for too. I use sources written my theologians, yet they don't seem good enough . . . yes *cough.*

How is it anything less than the love of Christ to ask people to believe the Gospel?

[BavarianWheels]

Not only have I looked at it, I know it by heart. The context and meaning is given by the scripture I've listed for you to see and read.

Will you "look" at it?

Hey look, the non-answer I predicted.

Hey look, Jac doesn't even look at the texts given.
.
.

[jlay]

How in the world is Jac out of line?

If someone says, failure to trust in Christ results in condemnation. Is that out of line?

Well, failure to rightly trust in Christ leads to condemnation. I heard Jac say he's saying the same thing he says to everyone.

If it was a Christian boxing ring, Jac would likely take us all to the woodshed. There is little question he is one of the most versed and studied at consistently defending His positions articulately, and scripturely. If Jac is right, then there is more love in His words than you can fathom. What is more loving, to tell someone, everything is OK with the path they are on, not to worry, and pat them on the back, as they blindly are walking towards a 500 ft. cliff. Or to yell warnings at them?

This is a DISCUSSION board. The bible is also clear about "repenting." If a person is saved, they will show some willingness, at least, to repent.

OK, then indulge us. Without referring to a dictionary, or lexicon, what is your understanding/definition of the word repent?

[cslewislover]

BW is a moderator here, Jlay. You can't see how telling a moderator that they don't believe in the gospel is out of line??? The other mods, and the site owner, concur that BW does indeed believe in the gospel.

There's no argument as to how someone is saved here, but one of the arguments is about the results. Everyone knows you are saved by believing Christ. But as has been said a number of times, "belief" has to be defined. And there are other issues that people simply want to discuss.

Do you understand? Yes, we all KNOW that one is saved by belief in Christ as LORD and SAVIOR. Not how Satan believes, and not as a Deist believes. Christ came to clean us of our sins. If you don't accept His work, then you won't be saved.

Simple.

OK, then indulge us. Without referring to a dictionary, or lexicon, what is your understanding/definition of the word repent?

Indulge you? Answer your disrespect? No thank you. I wonder if Christ talks to me that way?

[jlay]

You can't see how telling a moderator that they don't believe in the gospel is out of line???

Can you see how Christ telling the religious authorities of His time that they were in error was out of line?

B.W. has made his statements. His statements should be able to stand up to honest criticism from board members. If you honestly think that his position as moderator protects him in some special way from rightly defending his theology, then I am greatly confused about what is going on here.

How did I talk to you? I asked you do provide your understanding of repent? You said the bible is clear about repenting.

There's no argument as to how someone is saved here, but one of the arguments is about the results.

Can't speak for Jac, but I think there is some disagreement about how someone is saved.