Evidence for God from Science

aa118816, I think it may be that I and others may have not comunicated our beliefs the way they could / should be.

What I beleive is as follows:

(1) We are saved by Grace.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

(2) We need to have faith in order to be saved.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(3) We need to prove our faith by professing our faith in Jesus and that God the Father sent His only begotten Son to die for us on the cross.

We should show our faith by blessing others ethier monatarily and or by deeds helping the poor ect...(works).

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. (our works bear witness to our faith).

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.


I do not believe everyone that calls on Him shall be saved.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Faith without works is dead, works without faith in Christ is in vain.

I hope this clears things up on my end. God Bless!

Amen and I totally agree with you. I am not sure where you might think that I disagree.

Regards
Dan

hmmm, I totally disagree with your first question. Ofcourse we are in a state of constant sin as we are all stained with sin. I cannot understand how you can say that Christians do not sin. This not only sounds gnostic, but anti-realist.

My verbage was apparently too strong. If you note, I went on to say that "When [a Christian] does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does."

As a Christian, I can, and do, sin. However, the the New Man does not sin. Indeed, he cannot. When I sin, it is not Christ within me who does it, but the Old Man. When I am resurrected, this body will be left and I will be given a new, incorruptible body that has no sin nature. Thus, I will finally and truly be freed. Again, see Romans 7.

I will get back to you on pistus as I learned from a teacher from Gordon College (PhD in hermeunetics) that this is in fact a verb and implies action. I am having lunch with him tomorrow-so if I am wrong, the so be it.

As I'm sure your prof will tell you, the verb pisteuo means "I believe." That would be what is called the active voice. In the passive voice, the word is pisteuomen, and it means "I am being believed." The only "action" involved here is simple grammar. It is absolutely no different from me saying, "I believe you." You could just as well say, "I am being believed by Jac." That's the difference in an active and passive voice. Against this, the word pistos is a noun that means "belief", roughly. There's not anything deeper to the word. It does not mean "whole hearted commitment." It just means trust or belief.

On point 2, I do not understand what you are saying. I understand that we are separated from God, therefore we need to be saved. I do not see any distinction between being dead in our sins and in a constant state of sin. To me, this is 6 of one and a half dozen of another. If I am missing something, please let me know-but your point is completely unclear.

This is going to be a pointless discussion for us to have. You believe that it is sin that damns a person to hell. It's a common teaching, and a common misconception. It's just not true. Sin is the indirect cause, but the direct cause is our deadness. "Dead" simply means "separate from." The moment we sin, we die to God. The moment we are born again, we die to sin. The question is simple: are you "in Christ" or "in sin"? If you die in sin, you die in deadness to God. Thus, you are separated from God for all of eternity.

But, you don't believe that. You think a person goes to hell because their sins have not been forgiven. That's just not found in Scripture. Put simply, I believe that propitiation removes wrath, while forgiveness restores the broken relationship. Neither of these are salvic in the eschatological sense. Christ died for sin (propitiation) that God's wrath against it was satisfied. That doesn't save man, though. He is still separated from God, just no longer under wrath. Once we trust Christ, we are born again, becoming for the first time children of God. If we, as children, sin, our relationship with Him is broken, but that does not negate the status of "child." We repent and have that particular sin forgiven, and we find our relationship restored. But, that doesn't relate to final salvation. Final salvation is related to one thing and one thing only: faith alone in Christ alone.

Of course, you don't believe any of that. You're system tells you that sin condemns a man to hell, so you and I have nothing to agree on here. I'd just challenge you to show me a passage of Scripture that plainly says that.

Point 3 is pretty clear to me, you either follow Christ and attempt to live through the model he made for us, or you openly walk down your own road. If you openly advocate that Christ did not rise from the dead, you are not a follower of Christ (Spong and many liberal "Christians"). If you advocate homosexual marriage, then you are not a follower of Christ since he created the two flesh of man and woman becoming one. If you deny Christ's miracles, you are not a follower of Christ. I actually do not really understand your point here either. Read John 1 2:4 and we see that "One who says, "I know him," and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn't in him" WEB.

You are confusing discipleship with salvation. "To know" in the Greek, or the Hebrew, for that matter, doesn't mean "to be saved." It means to be in an intimate relationship with. If I, as a Christian, walk in sin, then I don't "know" God. I have a broken relationship with him. If you read the opening verses of 1 John, the purpose of the epistle is clearly laid out -- that the reader may have fellowship with God.

Now, look how far you've gone. According to you, if I advocate homosexual marriage (which I don't), I can't be saved. How far does that go? How much of the Bible has to be believed? What if I believe in a literal six day creation? Can I be saved? What if I believe in a day-age creation? What about then? Or what if I advocate a woman's right to choose? Or suppose I reject Papal Authority? Suppose I reject the necessity of Mass? Suppose I believe that women can be pastors? Perhaps I believe that most of the Gospel are fabricated, except for the idea that Jesus resurrected. But He definitely didn't walk on the water. Am I saved?

There is only ONE issue that relates to final salvation, and that is faith alone in Christ alone. My works do not prove I have or do not have faith. Works are totally unrelated to salvation, as per Romans 4 and Ephesians 2. Now, works are very important, and the are absolutely essential to other doctrines, but they have absolutely NO bearing on salvation.

Point 5, ofcourse you have to be completely forgiven of sins. What is it that you believe. You must repent and then proclaim your faith in Christ. WE see this throughout the Bible. Perhaps the thief on the cross did repent and believed then was promised paradise. This is not recorded in the Bible, but you have to look other applicable passages. For instance, John the Baptiste would only baptise after people repented and he demanded that Jews needed to repent as well as Gentiles. Just because they were sons of Abraham did not exclude them from the necessity of repentence.

I think I've outlined my ideas above. Show me one verse in the Bible that says that you must repent of your sins to be justified or declared righteous.

As for John the Baptist, and Jesus for that matter, they preached the repentance of the Old Testament. It was the repentance for the Jews, the turning back to God, so that the Kingdom of God could be established. We are still waiting on that.

Secondly, I totally agree, as noted above, that repentance results in the forgiveness of sins, but, as you will again note, I reject the idea that forgiveness of sins is the necessary condition of receiving eternal life. Are you aware that the Gospel of John, which is the only book of the Bible written for the specific purpose of bringing a person to saving faith in Christ, NEVER ONCE uses the word "repent"?

Rev 20, Clearly everyone is judged and all face judgement. If you have faith, you will still be judged and you will receive your punishments and your rewards. If you have no faith, you will be thrown into the lake of fire. This is pretty straight forward stuff??? What am I missing???

The question was "What are people condemned for"? The text clearly says that those not in the Book are those condemned. Period. Now, this is the passage of the Bible that explains the final judgment. Condemnation is based on ONE thing and ONE thing only: not being born again. How are we born again? By believing in Jesus. Faith alone in Christ alone. These people are not condemned for their sins. They are condemned for not being in the Book.

John 1 2:2 is pretty straight forward too. Christ died for the whole world and we are to fulfill the great commision. He did not just die for the Jews, but the Gentiles too. That is why you have to read the next few verses and you see under 2:4, my point is validated about james. We can see those who are liars by the works that we do. God gave us the ability to deductively reason-so we are to use our skills to discern between true and false teachers.

Are you aware of what a "propitation" is? It is a sacrifice of appeasement. It is a sacrifice by which wrath is removed. This is not a potential sacrifice in this verse. Christ didn't die so that God's wrath could be removed from those who believe in Him. Christ died so that God's wrath WOULD be removed from the whole world. This is not a contingent or conditional statement. John makes that very clear. Just as Christ is the Christian's propitiation, He is also the non-Christian's propitiation. For the record, John wasn't writing to Jewish believers. His audience was a mixture, and probably mostly Gentile.

Now, if the wrath of God has been removed against Sin in general, then EVERY sin has been removed of both the believer and the non-believer. The world has been reconciled to God. In other words, God is no longer its enemy. All men are now savable if they only accept the promise of Jesus Christ in John 6:47.

God bless

aa118816 wrote:Amen and I totally agree with you. I am not sure where you might think that I disagree.

Regards
Dan

Dan, I re-read your post and my response, I must have misread what you said. Sorry, sometimes I type in my sleep heh

Wow, I will get back to you OBWAN. I do recommend that you consider taking a course in communication as your points are very unclear. Also, you are tremendously condescending.

I can only assume that was directed at me. If so, my sincerest apologies. I didn't intend any of that to be condescending, although I can see how you would have taken it that way.

One of the things I've realized, and I'm continuing to conclude on almost a daily basis, is that there are some very, very basic things Christians disagree on. As long as those are not taken care of, there can be very little meaningful dialogue. That's why I said it was pointless for us to discuss certain things, because we see some basic things very differently. As a result, your beliefs have taken you to a place that I would consider to be extreme. I suspect you'd say the same for me as well.

Anyway, if you see my discussion with Byblos in this thread, you'll see my primary interests here. *shrug*

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:I can only assume that was directed at me. If so, my sincerest apologies. I didn't intend any of that to be condescending, although I can see how you would have taken it that way.

One of the things I've realized, and I'm continuing to conclude on almost a daily basis, is that there are some very, very basic things Christians disagree on. As long as those are not taken care of, there can be very little meaningful dialogue. That's why I said it was pointless for us to discuss certain things, because we see some basic things very differently. As a result, your beliefs have taken you to a place that I would consider to be extreme. I suspect you'd say the same for me as well.

Anyway, if you see my discussion with Byblos in this thread, you'll see my primary interests here. *shrug*

God bless

Hi Jac, Dan,

Sorry I haven't been around lately but I simply haven't had the time. I've been so consumed with work but I did manage to keep up with this and other threads though, and with respect to this one, I can see that it has gone down many different rabbit trails.

Jac,
I am having trouble distinguishing where you disagree with Dan on this last issue of sin. It seems to me you're both saying almost the same thing. Does it really make a difference what condemns us to hell, whether it is our deadness to God or the cause of it, i.e. sin? I can agree with you that is our being 'in sin' that causes us to be dead in Jesus and I can agree with Dan that sin is what causes us to be dead with Jesus. Am I reading it wrong?

Also, I do agree with you that, as Christians, we disagree on some basic issues. But at the same time, I truly believe that those issue are not so fundamental that they make us totally diverge from the essence of our faith. To me, the essence of our faith is this: God sent his only son, who was crucified and was resurrected for our eternal salvation. Period, no more and no less. If we agree on this one, the rest is moot.

God bless,

Byblos

Byblos, I do see it as very important. The question goes to the heart of the extent of the atonement. Although, for the record, that's really imprecise theology. "Atonement" doesn't appear in the NT at all . . . but, that's what the debate has been labeled.

Now, our view of the extent and nature of this atonement directly effects our understanding of such doctrines as justification and assurance. If it is sin that sends us to hell (better, the lake of fire), then it logicall follows that final salvation is directly related to the forgiveness of sins. Thus, in that system, my view of atonement would naturally lead to universalism. Because we know this is not true, if we hold that sin is the basis of condemnation, then we have to believe that Jesus' sacrifice was only effective for those who believed. Secondly, this also affects our understanding of belief in general, because the Bible makes it clear that forgiveness of sins is dependant on many things, not the least of which is faith! Thus, we come to a genuine salvation by faith plus.

So, we then find ourselves faced squarely with the question: how is a person saved? If sin has been completely removed--ALL sin--then it follows that the only thing separating Man from God is the fact that Man is dead to God. He must be regenerated. The entire human race, those in Adam, are dead, because Adam is dead. Jesus Christ is alive, and thus, to be with God for eternity, we must be in Christ. So, for me, salvation is based on only one thing: being in Christ. How is one found in Christ? By being born again.

And here is the primary question: how is one born again?

By faith alone in Christ alone. Jesus made a very specific promise in John 6:47. He who believes HAS everlasting life. To say that works or repentance is necessary is to reject that promise. To say that we are not sure of our everlasting life is to reject that promise. Salvation--belief--is nothing more than taking Christ at His word. Do you believe Christ has given it to you freely? Do you believe that you have it, because He gives it? If so, then you are saved. Why? Because Christ said so. And He said so because He is able to based on His work on the Cross.

But, again, if it is SIN that condemns, and not deadness, then we have an entirely different picture. We must have our sins forgiven, and to do that, we must do a variety of things . . . i.e., forgive others! In other words, faith doesn't become mere belief, but it becomes "a faith that works." In other words, belief is synonomous with a commitment of the whole self to Christ. I'm sure you can see that is a very different picture. There are, in fact, two totally different Gospels.

So, while we all agree that Christ is the only way to salvation, what we disagree on is how that salvation is obtained. Is it obtained by merely accepting the facts as Jesus presented them, that He has given you eternal life if you only believe? Or is it the full giving of the self over to Him? Is it by the imputation of His life? Or is it by the removal of your sins?

All this from a simple disagreement as to the nature of condemnation . . .

No problem jac, but you gotta chill. Just because people do not disagree with you, they are not threatening you. The Bible is inerrantly inspired by God, but we are like the apostles. Sometimes things seem very clear to us and we get into a theological corner defending our interpretation and we completely miss the meaning of the passage. Your interpretation may be correct and I may be wrong. My job is to listen to your arguments and make my best evalution.

For instance, throughout the NT, we see a formula where you have to repent before you are forgiven then you are saved. For instance, we see in Luke 3:8, John the Baptist says, Therefore bring forth the fruits in keeping with repentence...you know the rest. We see a similar formula when Jesus says to the woman at the well that her sins were forgiven, but go forward and sin no more. You may discount this, but this is common throughout the NT. Your job is to repent and you will be forgiven. The key is whom do you repent to...that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Before Jesus had announced his ministry, we saw that even the Jews had to repent to Yahweh.

I honestly do not have more time to go through this tonight, but repentance is part of the formula. This is why faith without works is dead.

Dan

Dan,

I agree that forgiveness from sin is based on repentance. But, it so happens in my understanding of Scripture that we are not condemned for sin, but for deadness. Repentance does not lead to regeneration, which is the cure for deadness. As I see it, faith alone in Christ alone (John 6:37) cures that. Thus, we have John 3 and the original "Nic and Night" (stolen from Bob Wilkin).

BTW, what is the RCC interpretation of Eph 2 and Rom 4? I had totally forgotten about this thread, so I didn't even think about looking it up. I'll probably do that tomorrow . . .

Actually, it's funny, because I just read of a pastor who doesn't preach John 3:16 because its "too difficult." Why? Because it presents faith as the only condition for salvation, and this guy believes that repentance and commitment of life are necessary. So, on one hand, he has his beliefs, but on the other, he doesn't want to read into that verse what isn't there! It is a bit ironic that the simplest statement in the Bible concerning the whole story of salvation is so difficult.

Hi Jac,

Thanks for the note and I appreciate your tone. By the way, I am not a RC. I am an Evangelical Christian married to a Messianic Jew.

I honestly do not understand the deadness issue. If I am to evaluate your position, I need to understand the difference between deadness and sin. I have never heard this reference other than being dead in your sins. That means that sins cause your deadness.

I did not mean to insult you before and if I did I apologize, but I am a very specific guy and I need very specific language to understand positions. I am not dumb, I am actually a CEO, manage hundreds of millions of dollars and I am getting my Master's in Apologetics from Biola-so it is not an issue of being simple minded-I just do not understand your position.

Dan

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos, I do see it as very important. The question goes to the heart of the extent of the atonement. Although, for the record, that's really imprecise theology. "Atonement" doesn't appear in the NT at all . . . but, that's what the debate has been labeled.

Now, our view of the extent and nature of this atonement directly effects our understanding of such doctrines as justification and assurance. If it is sin that sends us to hell (better, the lake of fire), then it logicall follows that final salvation is directly related to the forgiveness of sins. Thus, in that system, my view of atonement would naturally lead to universalism. Because we know this is not true, if we hold that sin is the basis of condemnation, then we have to believe that Jesus' sacrifice was only effective for those who believed. Secondly, this also affects our understanding of belief in general, because the Bible makes it clear that forgiveness of sins is dependant on many things, not the least of which is faith! Thus, we come to a genuine salvation by faith plus.

So, we then find ourselves faced squarely with the question: how is a person saved? If sin has been completely removed--ALL sin--then it follows that the only thing separating Man from God is the fact that Man is dead to God. He must be regenerated. The entire human race, those in Adam, are dead, because Adam is dead. Jesus Christ is alive, and thus, to be with God for eternity, we must be in Christ. So, for me, salvation is based on only one thing: being in Christ. How is one found in Christ? By being born again.

And here is the primary question: how is one born again?

By faith alone in Christ alone. Jesus made a very specific promise in John 6:47. He who believes HAS everlasting life. To say that works or repentance is necessary is to reject that promise. To say that we are not sure of our everlasting life is to reject that promise. Salvation--belief--is nothing more than taking Christ at His word. Do you believe Christ has given it to you freely? Do you believe that you have it, because He gives it? If so, then you are saved. Why? Because Christ said so. And He said so because He is able to based on His work on the Cross.

But, again, if it is SIN that condemns, and not deadness, then we have an entirely different picture. We must have our sins forgiven, and to do that, we must do a variety of things . . . i.e., forgive others! In other words, faith doesn't become mere belief, but it becomes "a faith that works." In other words, belief is synonomous with a commitment of the whole self to Christ. I'm sure you can see that is a very different picture. There are, in fact, two totally different Gospels.

So, while we all agree that Christ is the only way to salvation, what we disagree on is how that salvation is obtained. Is it obtained by merely accepting the facts as Jesus presented them, that He has given you eternal life if you only believe? Or is it the full giving of the self over to Him? Is it by the imputation of His life? Or is it by the removal of your sins?

All this from a simple disagreement as to the nature of condemnation . . .

I disagree that this leads to salvation by faith plus. This is probably the crux of the misunderstanding between the RCC and the reformation. The RCC is mistakenly believed to advocate salvation by faith and works. That is totally wrong. Pope John Paul II himself unequivocally stated in the second council that salvation is by grace alone, which is a free gift from God; nothing a person can do to earn it. This teaching is unmistakable and I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Where we differ in opinion as well as understanding of scripture is in the process of salvation itself. You believe that salvation is a one-time event that occurs the moment a person is born again. I'm not sure where you stand on Once saved, always saved but I tend to think you agree with it wholeheartedly.

Catholics, on the other hand, we believe that salvation is not a one-time process but a continuous one. It starts with baptism, then confirmation, all the way through the 7 sacraments. It does not stop until death and even after. God bestowed upon us his grace of salvation freely through Jesus Christ. But that gift must be MAINTAINED, otherwise we can fall out of grace. Like any other gift, it is given free but what the person does with it is up to them. They can nurture it, cherish it, make it grow and blossom. Or they can neglect it or toss it in the garbage.

That's where we differ Jac; we believe works are necessary to maintain salvation, not to obtain it. That is why free will is such an important thing for me as a Catholic, because it gives me the choice to reject God's free gift, the consequences be damned (literally).

Truth of the matter is that there's ample evidence in scripture to support this point of view. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. It reconciles judgement based on works with salvation by grace alone. It makes me look at scripture in its totality, rather than try to defend bits and pieces that conform to a certain ideology. That is why in the beginning of this thread I asked the question regarding judgment. You adequately answered your point of view by arguing the different types of judgement and the fact that one must consider the audience when reading scripture and trying to interpret who is going to be judged, when, and based on what. You see to me, that line of thinking simply makes no sense. If we are to interpret scripture related to judgement solely based on who the audience was then we must interpret all scripture that way as well. I'm sure you know the consequences of doing so.

No, when scripture says all will be judged then I take it to mean all will be judged. Whosoever heard those words a couple of millennia ago, would not have stopped to look around and see who's listening, to determine if what he's hearing applies to him or not. It applied to all then and it applies to all now.


Always in Christ,

Byblos.

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


God Bless

IRQ Conflict wrote:Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


God Bless

Exactly my point, IRQ. Need I really quote the other side of scripture that clearly shows works? Ok, here we go. Since you quoted 5, I could quote 10. Then you'll probably come back with 20, at which time I will respond with 40. And so on it goes. What will we have proven in the end? Is it that the bible is contradictory? Of course not. Like I said, it only means that scripture needs to be taken in its totality, rather than pick and choose what supports a particular point of view versus another.

Here are just a few:

Matthew 28:19 wrote:Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

James 5:16 wrote:Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Matthew 19:17 wrote:17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Revelation 14:12 wrote:This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

Acts 2:38 wrote:Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

aa118816 wrote:Hi Jac,

Thanks for the note and I appreciate your tone. By the way, I am not a RC. I am an Evangelical Christian married to a Messianic Jew.

I honestly do not understand the deadness issue. If I am to evaluate your position, I need to understand the difference between deadness and sin. I have never heard this reference other than being dead in your sins. That means that sins cause your deadness.

I did not mean to insult you before and if I did I apologize, but I am a very specific guy and I need very specific language to understand positions. I am not dumb, I am actually a CEO, manage hundreds of millions of dollars and I am getting my Master's in Apologetics from Biola-so it is not an issue of being simple minded-I just do not understand your position.

Dan

No apology needed. I actually just had a conversation with a good friend of mine the other day on figuring out how to present this in a clear, understandable way. I have a tendancy to get argumenative.

Anyway, it's hard to lay out systematically, although I'll try to briefly do so here. That's because I didn't come to these conclusions by someone giving me this type of overview. I was actually at a theology conference where all they did was exound passage after passage, and eventually, I just saw all the connections. The lightbulb came on, so to speak.

It seems to me the most important thing to get at is the extent of the atonement. Calvinists, of course, believe in limited atonement, whereas Arminians believe in unlimited atonement. I reject both. I believe in universal atonement. In other words, the price for all sin of EVERY person, whether regenerate or not, has been paid. This is based primarly on two things. First, 1 John 2:2 tells us that Christ is the (effective) propitiation for our (Christians') sins, but He is also the same propitiation for the sins of the unbelieving world. Sin has been removed as a barrier between man and God. God's wrath has been appeased against it, rendering man savable. The second concept is actually Calvinistic. They make a good point in that if Christ died for someone, and yet that person doesn't accept Him, then that would render Christ's sacrifice ineffective. But, I think we can all agree that His sacrifice was perfect. Something that is perfect can't be ineffective! I see Christ's sacrifice as doing exactly what it was designed to do with no failure whatsoever. Thus, we have only three possibilities. Either Christ died only for the elect, and thus only they can be saved (Calvinism); Christ died for everyone, and thus everyone is saved (Universalism); or Christ died for the sins of all, and thus, the sins of all have been removed (Free Grace).

The first and third are negated by Scripture. We are told that Christ died for all, and we are also told that not all go to Heaven. So, we see only the third option left.

Because of this, I am forced to draw a distinction between propitiation of wrath and forgiveness of sins. The former makes man savable. The latter draws man into fellowship with God. Neither of these result in salvation.

Now, everyone who is born is "in Adam," and everyone who is in Adam is dead. To be dead is to be separate from. We are dead to God, thus, separate from Him. This is true even though God's wrath against our sins has been satisfied. Consider it this way. Suppose a man gets cancer and dies. After death, a surgeon goes in and removes the cancer. If we had the technology, and if death weren't final, there really isn't anything to say that the body should be able to be revived at that point, as everything should be in "working order." But, the point is that, even though the cancer is gone, the consequences are still there. The man is still dead. It would require an extra work to revive him, but that work would be necessarily predicated on the removal of the cause of death. So, again, all "in Adam" are dead, even as they are propitiated.

However, Jesus Christ is alive to God. Upon faith in Him, we are reborn "in Christ." Thus, we are alive to God. Therefore, our salvation is determined by only one thing: are we alive to God or are we dead to God?

The only other important thing that I can think of relates to justification. We commonly accept that it means "to declare not guilty," which is true, but not enough. Actually, the idea means "to declare one righteous." To be righteous is to be in right standing, or thus connected to. In other words, justification is closely related to the concept of regeneration, though these are not exactly the same.

So, if all this is true, then a person is saved based on His life in Christ. From that point, he has to be careful not to sin, to repent of it, etc. Sin breaks fellowship with God, not resulting in the loss of salvation, but in a broken relationship. Repentance results in forgiveness, which results in a restored relationship.

Hope this helps.

God bless