The Three Legged Stool of Salvation

Antinomianism and the New Covenant ^ | 1/25/2011 | Gart O'toole

[Benchim]

Salvation has three legs supporting the entire doctrine. Leg 1: The first Leg on the Stool is Belief in Christ. Belief means to steadfastly trust in the fact-- that Jesus is the Son of God. The Greek word is pistevo. "For God so greatly loved the world that He gave up His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

You will find nothing in the definition requiring "obedience" or "sinless" conduct . This is the foundation of antinomianism. John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

LEG 2: The second leg is that Christ died and was resurrected to atone for your sins. This in imputed righteousness. Otherwise Christs suffering meant nothing. LEG 3: The third leg which stands the stool is Savlation is a gift- by the grace of God and not as a result of anything you do i.e. "works" except your belief in Christ as the son of God . Ephesians 2 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

[GeronL]

I’m just hoping I read it wrong.

[caww]

You said.... “Too bad for you.”

[metmom]

No.

One can believe that once saved always saved and that does not by default imply that they think it gives them a license to sin.

God does not tolerate sin in His people. Sinning won’t cost you your salvation, since salvation isn’t based on works to begin with, but unrepentant sin WILL have its consequences.

[metmom]

Anyone who says "Once saved, Always saved" makes that case.

FWIW, I've never heard anyone who really believes that use that argument for personal sin in their lives.

The only time I hear that people believe it, is from those who oppose it, those bent on discrediting the concept.

[GeronL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism from wiki (I know, I know) Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), is a belief or tendency in most religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves.[1] The term originated in the context of a minority Protestant view that since faith itself alone is sufficient to attain salvation, adherence to religious law is not necessary,[2] and religious laws themselves are set aside or "abrogated" as inessential. While the concept is related to the foundational Protestant belief of Sola Fide where justification is through faith alone in Christ; it is taken to an extreme. It is seen by some as the opposite of the notion that obedience to a code of religious law earns salvation: legalism or works righteousness. An antinomian theology does not necessarily imply the embrace of ethical permissiveness; rather it usually implies emphasis on the inner working of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of ethical guidance.[3] While there is wide agreement within Christianity that "antinomianism" is heresy, what constitutes antinomianism is often in disagreement. The term "antinomian" emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.[3] For example, Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone, but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539). Few groups or sects, outside of Christian anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves "antinomian". While the term originated in early controversies of Protestant doctrine, and has its roots in debates over the Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline Epistles and the issue of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and the Biblical Greek terms anomia and anomos which are generally translated lawlessness and lawless respectively, it can be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition.[4] ...... basically: They are anti-social. lol

[CynicalBear]

>>‘working out my salvation in fear and trembling’<<

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29

[caww]

You just proved my statement your were baiting....otherwise you would not have gone ahead and attempt to change the subject from the salvation of the thief, which salvation is what the thread is about. I mentioned nothing about heaven nor Paradise. It's getting pretty easy to tell ones church just by the tactics used.

[metmom]

I will have to mull that over and answer tomorrow.

It’s too late for me to compose a coherent reply.

[1010RD]

3857. paradeisos – an ancient Persian word meaning “enclosure, garden, park.”

See: http://bible.cc/revelation/2-7.htm

See: http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/12-4.htm

See: http://bible.cc/luke/23-43.htm

The usages are specific and clear. Paradise isn’t Heaven. Heaven is a different word.

Now, ask yourself what did Jesus say exactly?

Luke 23:43

New Living Translation (©2007)
And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

He didn’t go to Heaven that day. Jesus didn’t go to Heaven until after the Resurrection.

John 20:17

New Living Translation (©2007)
“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

The abode of our Father is Heaven. Hence our Heavenly Father. Jesus hadn’t been there yet. Is he a liar? No, you’ve simply misinterpreted scripture.

It’s a common error when doctrine dictates. Let the Bible dictate. The truth of it will set you free.

[1010RD]

Who is “they”?

[CynicalBear]

>>Jesus told the thief He would be with Him that very day.....and since it’s written we are immediately in the presence of the Lord at death, of course then so was the thief...and it did not require anything on his part but belief. He acknowleded Christ’s sinlessness...acknowledged his own sinful condition....and then looked to Jesus....simple yes...beautiful..without question.<<

Amen and Amen. Don’t you wish that all would understand the simple word of grace? When the apostles preached and declared that those that heard were saved I wonder if they forgot to tell us that those people also had spent years learning the theology of some denomination somewhere. They must have forgotten to tell us all that too.

[CynicalBear]

>>Who is “they”?<<

The apostles.

[1010RD]

I mentioned nothing about heaven nor Paradise.

I know you skipped it, but Jesus didn't. He knew what he was talking about.

Have you ever heard or read the Apostle's Creed?

Here's the Traditional English Version:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

[metmom]

Why are you making it about WHERE the thief went instead of HOW the thief went?

You’re changing the topic of the thread.

The thief was initially mocking Jesus but had a change of heart. He had no opportunity to any thing more about it than repent and believe.

That was what Jesus acknowledged was enough for the thief to be with Him.

[caww]

Oh man are you on a roll here....please do not respond further...you’re seeking a platform only. I’m not interested in your teachings/preaching.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Christians are most certainly called to obey "religious" laws, i.e. the Ten Commandments.

Christians are exempt from the "ceremonial" laws -- no priesthood of men; no sin offerings; no fasting or dietary laws, etc.

[1010RD]

Wrong.

[1010RD]

Don’t you wish that all would understand the simple word of grace?

I'd be happy if people would just understand the Bible they base their doctrine on.

[metmom]

This site explains it somewhat better.

http://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

“People may wonder, “If I am saved by grace and all my sins are forgiven, why not sin all I want?” That thinking is not the result of true conversion because true conversion yields a greater desire to obey, not a lesser one. God’s desire—and our desire when we are regenerated by His Spirit—is that we strive to not sin, out of gratitude for His grace and forgiveness.”

[caww]

Don’t you wish that all would understand the simple word of grace?

Some haven't a clue...and they can't understand. They have their ladder up against the Vatican wall...and will keep climbing the steps they are told to climb.

Further, because they have invested so much time and labor learning the "catholic way" way of salvation they need somewhere to dump the knowledge they believe they have so all can see their catholic wisdom.

I had a customer who was a catholic nun. She could recite pages of catholic doctrine concernign every aspect of sin and works..etc. But she knew so very little of the scriptures. When I used scripture in response she knew only catholic doctrine. It was heartbreaking to see her struggle so....and we see the same type of communication on the religious threads. So much is head knowledge.