What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Worthynews.com ^ | July 11th, 1875 | D. L. Moody

[fortheDeclaration]

Please disregard my earlier post to you.

I have been admonished for sending it.

[jkl1122]

That doesn't explain what "calling on the name of the Lord" actually means. Where, in Scripture, is this defined?

Here is a hint: it is defined in two places, both in Acts.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks, I will check it out.

[opus86]

It is not my right or responsibility to know the ultimate ends of God's final plan for redemption, is it?

Perhaps not. I merely sought clarification of your position given the language you used. I sometimes see a mixed message among Calvinists, wherein a wolf is excoriated for misleading sheep. If I understand TULIP correctly, that wouldn't seem possible.

[fortheDeclaration]

actually it is a reference to an old testament passage (Joel 2:32) repeated in Acts.2.

Paul often uses Old Testament passages and puts them in a NT context.

[fortheDeclaration]

actually it is a reference to an old testament passage (Joel 2:32) repeated in Acts.2.

Paul often uses Old Testament passages and puts them in a NT context.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen.

Very well written and reasoned

[jkl1122]

Acts 2:21 - "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved".

Acts 2:38 - "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In verse 21, Peter says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. In verse 38, after being asked what they should do, Peter tells the crowd to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. It is obvious he is telling them this is how they are to be saved. Therefore, repenting and being baptized for remission of sins and calling on the name of the Lord are equal.

Acts 22:16 - "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

In this verse, Ananias equates being baptized, to wash away sins, with calling on the name of the Lord.

Here we have 2 examples of calling on the name of the Lord being used as a parallel to being baptized for the remission of sins.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This is from Rnmomof7's earlier post.

Arminian Five Points of the Remonstrance of 1610
with contrasting Five Points of Calvinism

1) Election is conditioned upon man's response or foreseen faith (conditional "election")

The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, teaches that election is unconditional.

2) Universal Atonement (According to Arminians Christ has already atoned and propitiated for the sins of all humanity. Christ purchased redemption not only for those who would believe but for all men, yet only those who believe go to heaven).

The Reformed Tradition asks, if this is the case, why aren't all men saved if all their sins are atoned for? Unbelief is also a sin. By contrast, we believe the Bible teaches that the redemptive blessings of the atonement were intended only for those who would believe, the elect (particular redemption). Christ died in a way for the elect that He did not for the non-elect.

3) "Unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God's will" (thus eliminating the categorization of either "Pelagian" or "Semi-Pelagian." The latter holds that the first steps are originated by the human will rather than by the Holy Spirit)

This doctrine is similar to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, with some important differences.

4) Grace is not irresistible (Thus faith is itself a principle or capacity in autonomous natural man standing ultimately independent of God's action of grace)

The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, teaches that God can make His grace efficacious

5) Possibility of falling away from grace (This is the supposition that our sin as believers can result in God's judicial displeasure.) Many Arminians teach that our judicial standing before God must be maintained by holy living. Justification, in other words can be gained and lost.

The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, maintains the biblical teaching that our judicial standing before God is through Christ's blood, which alone is sufficient to maintain our justification. Holy living and perseverance springs from our new nature received in regeneration which now delights in God's law, and will not fall away.

These Five Points of the Remonstrance of 1610 are virtually identical (prima facie) with Catholic Molinism.

COUNTER

REFORMATION

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, in context, both are still dealing with the Old Testament Kingdom Gospel.

That Gospel changed after the offer of the Kingdom of God was removed from the Jews and for a time, the Kingdom of heaven, put on hold ( Acts 7,Rom.9-11)

The Gospel of Grace is found starting in Acts 8 and now the issue is the death, burial, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins.

Acts 2 is speaking of Christ as the Son of David, and not dying for anyone's sins.

Acts 22:16 Ananias is not aware of the change of Dispensations and gives Paul the Kingdom message.

Note in Acts 19 where those baptized with this old message need to be baptized in the name of Christ.

Apollos was not even aware of it (acts 18)

Now in Rom 10 we have the NT gospel, Lord Jesus being raised from the dead (Lord standing for His Deity).

I would not use Rom.10:13 by itself but with 1Cor.15:3-5 among others.

[jkl1122]

You are putting your preconceived doctrinal beliefs into the Scripture. There is one Gospel. And you are seriously trying to tell me that Ananias, who was sent to Paul by God, gave the wrong speech to Paul? That would mean that God messed up, which is blasphemy. Step away from your preconceived ideas and read the Scriptures for what they are, the true Word of the living God.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

XZINS: Arminius always claimed the name calvinist.

FTD: Any references on that?

XZINS: Yes. His article, "on predestination."

Wrong.

Nowhere in that poorly written work of misdirection is the word Calvinist or Calvin written.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

While Arminius spent most of his time refuting Supralapsarian, it is also clear that Arminius rejected INFRAlapsarianism as well. He simply concluded that INFRAlapsarianism was ultimately the same thing as SUPRAlapsarianism.

And he denounced them both, thus limiting God to men's ability to open doors.

[RnMomof7]

You are putting your preconceived doctrinal beliefs into the Scripture. There is one Gospel. And you are seriously trying to tell me that Ananias, who was sent to Paul by God, gave the wrong speech to Paul? That would mean that God messed up, which is blasphemy. Step away from your preconceived ideas and read the Scriptures for what they are, the true Word of the living God.

Well lets put the words of Jesus into this ok?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

No emphasis on the need of Baptism .... he did not say that he that believeth not and is not baptized will be damned.. the only certain prerequisite is believing

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

"....for the remission of sins; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ;"( Gill)

Note that Peter never preached that again. All through the rest of Acts what is preached is repent and believe

[Quix]

I still think a lot of prostitutes will make it and a lot of religious leaders won't.

[xzins]

The same comment I had to Rn.

He didn't write them since he was already dead, even staunch reformed scholars of today realize that the remonstraters didn't replicate Arminius' own ideas, their claim wasn't against the reformation but for acceptance of theology that had been acceptable under earlier confessions, and Molinist conspiracy theory ignores Arminius' detestation of the papacy due to the murder of his family by the King of Spain's minions.

Let me ask you this simple historical question: "During this era, why did the King of Spain invade the Netherlands?"

[GLENNS]

If I understand TULIP correctly, that wouldn't seem possible.

Yes, your understanding is incomplete.

[xzins]

Here's a link to it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1320030/posts

[fortheDeclaration]

I still think a lot of prostitutes will make it and a lot of religious leaders won't.

It is easier to convince someone immoral that they need a savior then those who think they are good enough. (Lk.18)

[HarleyD]

Am I'm to understand X that you are a Calvinistic Methodist rather that a Wesley Methodist?

Calvinistic Methodist