Order of Salvation

[Anothen]

Greetings Everyone,

As a new member, I hope to expand my understanding of your views in light of your theology. What I am looking for is an open, kind, friendly, factual, exchange of ideas concerning what you see and WHY? It is not good enough to say this is what I believe but why, X means Y because of Z. I am a Baptist and I don't know what everyone here believes, but in the category of "Baptist" there is a wide view of God's word. Baptist is a large and varied group of believers. As to my personal view I am not a Calvinist or Arminian but I identify more with Jacob Arminius and hardly at all with John Calvin. I prefer to see myself as a Christian. I do believe in once saved always saved and it is not an issue with me when others do not see it as I do on this point of doctrine. I am a dispensationalist too. I understand fully the Amillennial view having held that in the past. Now that you know me a little I hope that our conversation is respectful and fruitful. What I have to say is not to convert you or change your mind but to exchange ideas and views. I would like for you, whoever you are, to intellectually defend your view, not knock my view. You can count on my doing this regardless, having full respect and admiration for any brother or sister in Christ regardless of our likes or differences.

I see the order of salvation as follows

1. God seeks to save the lost that are dead in sins and trespasses
2. God takes the dead sinner and with pre-saving grace opens the eyes thus restoring the heart to a position where he then must reject or accept God's grace.
3. New birth never precedes faith. In other words faith is always first and regeneration is always second (Luke 7:50 and Titus 3:5).
4. Justification, positional sanctification, and being sealed in Christ all take place at the same moment of conversion/salvation/anothen/regeneration.

My God Richly Bless Everyone
Anothen/Born From Above

 

[Danus]

Nice to meet you Anothen. We pretty much believe the same thing, but I probably have a little stronger lean towards Calvin. I don't like the term "Calvinist". I understand it, but I find such terms regarding anyone's view to be a bit derogatory in that the use of such terms are designed to pre-package another persons beliefs into box labeled false.

Like you, I have a mix of ideals and belief structures regarding my Christianity. And, I'm sure I even hold to two or more ideas on a few things that Ive yet to commit to. Could not say what they totally are at the moment.

Most of my belief structure solidified within the Presbyterian church. (EPC) currently I am attending a non-denom. It's base is Baptist and Pentecostal. An interesting mix.

 

[Anothen]

Nice to meet you Anothen. We pretty much believe the same thing, but I probably have a little stronger lean towards Calvin. I don't like the term "Calvinist". I understand it, but I find such terms regarding anyone's view to be a bit derogatory in that the use of such terms are designed to pre-package another persons beliefs into box labeled false.

Like you, I have a mix of ideals and belief structures regarding my Christianity. And, I'm sure I even hold to two or more ideas on a few things that Ive yet to commit to. Could not say what they totally are at the moment.

Most of my belief structure solidified within the Presbyterian church. (EPC) currently I am attending a non-denom. It's base is Baptist and Pentecostal. An interesting mix.

Hi Danus,

Here are some more of my rambling thoughts:


Baptist is a large mix. I have never been able to wrap my mind around special elections. Some talk about "middle" knowledge which I understand in my words as God's "Absolute Knowledge".


The two prominent passages using "foreknowledge"

Acts 2:23
This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

1 Peter 1:2
Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

The Acts passage addresses Christ being handed over to wicked men. It was God's purpose that Christ die for our sin. This he knew in advance and this was agreed upon by the God-head and Jesus was chosen (elected) to die for our sin. However, what does "foreknowledge" cover? The simple answer is everything regardless of why? The complicated answer is all the reasons contain in "why". One side seems to indicate that every minute happening is set in stone and absent from any contingency and the other believes that there are limited freedoms within the decree of God regarding all things. I embrace the later, because of verses that indicated that God is seeking to save all mankind not just a select few that were predetermined prior to creation.

If atonement was universal and if repentance is commanded universally then what purpose is there to command a condemned many to repent or even die for them if it were not possible for them to make a free choice (Acts 17 and I John 2:2).

This of course leads to the issue of man's state as a sinner, dead in sins and trespasses. How do I solve this? For me the view of Pre-Saving Grace fits the total picture verse Post Saving Grace.

A few passages that are, to me, contrary to the Reform view are Luke 7:50 and Titus 3:5.
Luke 7:50 states, "woman your faith has saved you†Jesus is God and the words are clear. The woman's faith saved her. It was her faith. Faith always takes an object. The object is Jesus and His message. How she was able to come to believe deals with the previous thought, either pre-saving grace or post saving grace. If I press the post saving grace into this verse it will not fit because as I understand it faith follows regeneration in this model but the verse clearly states that faith is before regeneration. So if I am going to believe God and Jesus is God then I must discard the notion posited by Reform Theology that faith follows Salvation or is given at the point of regeneration.
I know that "Saved" is the same as "regeneration" because of Titus 3:5 so I have two clear verses that contradict the Reform position and the wording of this verse does not leave any room for different outcomes.

1 Peter 1:2
“Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.â€
The foreknowledge verse in 1 Peter 1:2 tells me that “election†is according to foreknowledge.

One thing is solid or sure and that is that “election is according to foreknowledge†and it cannot be said that it is on the basis of something other than God’s foreknowledge.

I see God as, infallible in all his beliefs, as it has been coined, yet this is man’s attempt to understand God’s absolute knowledge, here seen as infallible in all his beliefs. Logic and philosophy for me restrict God and argue what can and cannot be on the bases of human reasoning, which we cannot otherwise avoid so it seems, or can we. If I say anything it is human reasoning, but can I has a human think outside this “box†and let God be God in spite of myself? It seems an endless cycle of trying to figure out God and man.

Here is my feeble attempt to make sense of this: God has absolute knowledge of all – meaning he knows all real outcomes and possible outcomes of free choices of mankind.

Because God knows the real outcome the outcome is going to take place, but this does not of itself, mean that man did not, within time and space, freely do what He did.

This is different from God determining that man would turn right not left and is different from God placing a road block on the left and as such the man either turns back or right unless God place a road block to prevent turning back. While this seems as if it is forced in some sense of the word and I would agree it is not the kind of forcing that has no road blocks and the man is programmed to turn right regardless. There is a big difference. In this we have represented three possibilities.

I accept two of the three. I reject that man is a robot programmed to do this or that. I accept that God does place in many path alternatives and some alternatives are not possible because of our human limitations. If the road to the left is blocked does not mean that we will travel the road to the right. The option to remain in one place has not been addressed. If one cannot remain in one place and must take the path to the right and does not have the choice to sit in one spot then he ceases to have freedom of choice even though the choice is going to have adverse effects, if that is the case which it seems in this illustration. In another illustration remaining in one place may not mean something bad. However, so often we do not have road blocks and it seems that we do have freedom to go left or right or retreat or just stay in one spot.

Last night I was engaged in a project to hold a shoe molding in place for 15 minutes to allow for it to seal. I failed because of physical limitations. Was I free to do this or not? I think so but my physical limitations, my environment and my limitations cause me not to get accomplished what I freely intended to do. The road blocks I had was my physical ability to complete the task. I did however, freely, use a creative process and figure out how to get the job done because the first attempt was not successful – I drilled pilot holes and used finishing nails, how noval. In such an illustration this could in some cases represent what God does to influence what we do, having planned this influence in eternity because he had absolute knowledge of all conditions, possibilities and outcomes and potential outcomes. So God has a plan to get something done for his reasons. He ordains all the characters based upon his absolute knowledge of their willingness to do his will and with these and those that do not willingly do his will he uses to accomplish his plan. Regardless of whether we have free will or not God is in total control and he orchestrates all affairs of this universe, the question is do we have limited free will or not and I say we do.

 

[Michae1]

"Order of Salvation" is a new one to me. Never heard of it before.

In a nutshell, I thought it was as simple as accepting the fact that you are a sinner, and accepting Jesus and what he did for you.

But I guess you could over analyzed anything and I would be like "What?" Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Anothen]

"Order of Salvation" is a new one to me. Never heard of it before.

In a nutshell, I thought it was as simple as accepting the fact that you are a sinner, and accepting Jesus and what he did for you.

But I guess you could over analyzed anything and I would be like "What?" Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Some see salvation before faith and others believe one must believe to be saved.

 

[Drew]

I see the order of salvation as follows

1. God seeks to save the lost that are dead in sins and trespasses
2. God takes the dead sinner and with pre-saving grace opens the eyes thus restoring the heart to a position where he then must reject or accept God's grace.
3. New birth never precedes faith. In other words faith is always first and regeneration is always second (Luke 7:50 and Titus 3:5).
4. Justification, positional sanctification, and being sealed in Christ all take place at the same moment of conversion/salvation/anothen/regeneration.

I agree with 1 with no qualifications. And I think I agree with 2 and 3.

4 is another story. While I am not prepared to make the actual case in this post, I assert that we need to see both justification and salvation (these concepts are related, yet distinct) as having both future and present manifestations.

There are places where Paul refers to justification as a "present" reality and there are also places where Paul places justification in the future. Same deal with salvation.

I suggest we need to take Paul at his word and abandon the concept that salvation and justification are "one-time" events.

Hopefully, I can elaborate later.

 

[A New Dawn]

I believe that there are three tenses to salvation.

Past tense = Justification - we were saved from the penalty of sin

Present tense = Sanctification - we are being saved from the power of sin

Future tense = Glorification - we will be saved from the presence of sin


As far as the order of salvation (the Ordo Salutis) goes, I believe it goes in this order (I believe in the Doctrines of Grace, and would probably be a 4.5 point Calvinist)

election
regeneration
effectual calling
faith
justification and adoption
sanctification (progressive)
glorification

Were you looking for scripture references to support this, is that what you meant?