Logistics of accepting Jesus

[e.r.m.]

So what are you saying by wholly sufficient? Are you saying something else is required? I believe it is like a computer that has been manufactured. It is a computer, so the only question is if I want it or not.

Wanting it won't make it appear in your home. You have to go pick it up, or do the due diligence to have it delivered. If nothing but Jesus's blood was required, then everyone on earth since the time of His death would have instantly been saved, whether they wanted to or not.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hello everyone!

I recently came across an article that I thought was very interesting: Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count?

The part that stuck with me was the original question:

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

This is something I’ve never thought about, but found interesting. I understand what she is saying, and have never heard that perspective before.

I’m not ashamed to admit that the answer she was given went over my head, so I just thought I’d post it here to see if anyone wanted to analyze and dissect the answer that was given, or if anyone wanted to try to answer it themselves!

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

Because the alternative to accepting Jesus is rejecting him, assuming one has been presented with the offer.

The term Christ alone likely comes from
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

But it only says salvation is in no one else; by no other name, and it was in response to the question
Acts 4:7 When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?"

It never addresses a person's responsibility in getting saved after what God has done through Jesus.
It addresses only from "who". As opposed to getting salvation from any"body" else. The Christ Alone term is a modern catchphase. There's no scripture that says Christ saved everyone unconditionally without their consent.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe the whole statement would be: "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior."

That depends. The "Biblical" phrase is Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have "received Christ Jesus the Lord", so walk in Him,

The evangelical phrase is "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior."
There is no such method in the Bible.

It's time for that to go away.

 

[e.r.m.]

... "Accepting Jesus" as what? Until we clarify the question, the answer will remain enigmatic.

Accepting Jesus as Lord as in Colossians 2:6, and I think in general accepting God's offer of salvation

 

[e.r.m.]

You may not be aware of the Same Faith Debates area where you can specify you want to debate with Christians. Same Faith Debates You can even specify Protestant Christians, and then maybe you will get answers that you find more relevant to your questions.

There is also a problem with your post in that it presumes everyone who reads the biblical canon walks away with a particular version of protestant Christianity. That is not what happens. Instead it raises questions, and there are various conclusions and different people have different interpretations. The article linked in the OP doesn't merely go over your head. Its unsupported. In other words they have utterly failed to support their argument. A good argument can at least be followed even if you disagree with it. That one can't. It is a failure.

My opinion is that to treat the subject from the biblical canon would require tossing the article and starting over.

I agree. The article said "Second, we are saved by faith alone, but that faith is always followed by works.", and it did substantiate it.

 

[Muffled]

Wanting it won't make it appear in your home. You have to go pick it up, or do the due diligence to have it delivered. If nothing but Jesus's blood was required, then everyone on earth since the time of His death would have instantly been saved, whether they wanted to or not.

I believe with the blood there is nothing to pick up nor to be delivered. If you want it it is yours.

I believe a person who does not want it will not have it so there is no way for everyone to have it.

 

[Muffled]

That depends. The "Biblical" phrase is Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have "received Christ Jesus the Lord", so walk in Him,

The evangelical phrase is "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior."
There is no such method in the Bible.

It's time for that to go away.

I believe it does not matter. It is a package deal. Receive Him as Lord and He is Savior also. I believe saying it that way just reminds the person doing it that He is both. A legalist has to do everything exactly the way the word says but in so doing loses the living word of God in my opinion.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe with the blood there is nothing to pick up nor to be delivered. If you want it it is yours.

I believe a person who does not want it will not have it so there is no way for everyone to have it.

But either "nothing" but Jesus's blood is required or not, that includes one's acceptance. Nothing is nothing.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe it does not matter. It is a package deal. Receive Him as Lord and He is Savior also. I believe saying it that way just reminds the person doing it that He is both.

No, that's just finding anyway to force the scriptures to agree with a preconceived idea. That is called assimilation when a learner encounters a new idea (Colossians 2:6), and must 'fit' that idea into what they already know (the recent "accepting Jesus as savior" method of getting saved). We need to start first with the word of God and figure out what they meant.

A legalist has to do everything exactly the way the word says but in so doing loses the living word of God in my opinion.

2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, [21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

John 12:48-50 He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. [49] For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. [50] I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

Take your chances by considering that following God's word as written is legalistic, and suggesting that an alternative to following the Actual word of God is better. The "living" word of God as you put it, is decided by whatever the person deciding wants it to be. Every in between the lines teaching differs from every other in between the lines teaching.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. The only doctrine we were ever taught was penal substitution, a product of the Reformation and the latest of the theories of salvation.

Until a few years ago, I had never been exposed to older and more traditional theories of salvation in Christianity.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello everyone!

I recently came across an article that I thought was very interesting: Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count?

The part that stuck with me was the original question:

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

This is something I’ve never thought about, but found interesting. I understand what she is saying, and have never heard that perspective before.

I’m not ashamed to admit that the answer she was given went over my head, so I just thought I’d post it here to see if anyone wanted to analyze and dissect the answer that was given, or if anyone wanted to try to answer it themselves!

We don't need to. If one follows christ and believes he is saved in and of itself, I'm not sure why it would need to be written in history for it to have value in a person's life.

Thought I comment before you guys move it. Shrugs. The article makes sense.

 

[e.r.m.]

I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. The only doctrine we were ever taught was penal substitution, a product of the Reformation and the latest of the theories of salvation.

Until a few years ago, I had never been exposed to older and more traditional theories of salvation in Christianity.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Hawkins]

Hello everyone!

I recently came across an article that I thought was very interesting: Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count?

The part that stuck with me was the original question:

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

This is something I’ve never thought about, but found interesting. I understand what she is saying, and have never heard that perspective before.

I’m not ashamed to admit that the answer she was given went over my head, so I just thought I’d post it here to see if anyone wanted to analyze and dissect the answer that was given, or if anyone wanted to try to answer it themselves!

Law is for the angels to have a choice, 1/3 of them will side with Satan
Covenants are for humans to have a choice, less than 1/3 of them will be saved, thus through the narrow gate.

Jesus' death is for the justification that covenants are used instead of Law. It's all for humans to have a choice. Under Law all humans are dead, they don't have a choice under Law.

It's analogue to an election. Under Law, 1/3 angels will vote for Satan. Under the same Law, humans don't have a choice but under the captivity of Satan. Thus Jesus is the justification to neglect the Law to use covenants instead under which humans have the right to vote either for God or not.

 

[Muffled]

But either "nothing" but Jesus's blood is required or not, that includes one's acceptance. Nothing is nothing.

I believe then you can explain t me how the blood is of any affect if it is not accepted. If acceptance is something can you pick me up one at the store?

 

[osgart]

It hinges on God granting free will to all, and then there being more than sufficient evidence that Jesus's salvation is the truth.

So us who are damned because we see no such truth are considered liars. Because God made it so easy to accept Jesus, anyone can be saved.

I believe those are the Christian goggles on the reality of our situation.

It's a lot of rubbish!

 

[Muffled]

It hinges on God granting free will to all, and then there being more than sufficient evidence that Jesus's salvation is the truth.

So us who are damned because we see no such truth are considered liars. Because God made it so easy to accept Jesus, anyone can be saved.

I believe those are the Christian goggles on the reality of our situation.

It's a lot of rubbish!

I believe if one does not have salvation then one gets hell. You don't have to believe in it.because it will work that way whether you do or not.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe then you can explain t me how the blood is of any affect if it is not accepted. If acceptance is something can you pick me up one at the store?

I'm not saying it's effective without scceptance, but you are when you say "nothing but". That's what "nothing but" means. Unless you wish to recant that it's not "nothing but"...

 

[Muffled]

I'm not saying it's effective without scceptance, but you are when you say "nothing but". That's what "nothing but" means. Unless you wish to recant that it's not "nothing but"...

I am not sure what you ae referring to but if it is what can take away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus, then it is not just what we will accept but it is also what God will accept. If a person thinks to wash away his sin any other way. God will not accept it.

 

[sojourner]

Hello everyone!

I recently came across an article that I thought was very interesting: Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count?

The part that stuck with me was the original question:

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

This is something I’ve never thought about, but found interesting. I understand what she is saying, and have never heard that perspective before.

I’m not ashamed to admit that the answer she was given went over my head, so I just thought I’d post it here to see if anyone wanted to analyze and dissect the answer that was given, or if anyone wanted to try to answer it themselves!

Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. if anyone hears me and opens, I will come in.” He didn’t say, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If no one answers, I will beat it down with an axe and come in anyway.”

This isn’t about some cosmological formula that has to be played out in some particular way. This is about building right relationship. Jesus embodied right relationship with God and with fellow human beings. To “accept Jesus” is to accept what he taught and exemplified with regard to relationships. He said, “Love God and love your neighbor. Everything else depends upon these two.”

There are any number of ways to love your perception of “God.” There are any number of ways to build right relationship. This isn’t about some Christian creed, or about being baptized, or even about “your personal savior.” This is about embracing and living out right relationship. Salvation has been effected for humanity. Now it’s up to us to begin to live into that model of a humanity that is, at heart, one family.

 

[e.r.m.]

I am not sure what you ae referring to but if it is what can take away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus, then it is not just what we will accept but it is also what God will accept. If a person thinks to wash away his sin any other way. God will not accept it.

As long as man(kind) needs to do his part to accept the blood of Jesus, then it's not nothing but. As far as I have read, God does not force salvation upon us. We have the freedom to accept or reject, and face the consequences thereof.