2 edits
So when you have a book called "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches" and you have TWO statements -
1.)
Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), which includes what we must believe in order to be saved: we must believe that the Bible is the complete divine revelation wholly inspired by God;
Somewhere in the book under Beliefs
And
2.)
In order to be saved, one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ. Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth.
Once a person has been saved, he may have both the assurance of salvation and the security of salvation. Once we are saved, we are saved forever.
Under Concerning Salvation I think the place to look for specific teaching on being saved in Concerning Salvation is very important for specifics on Salvation.
@sonship saidFMF and divegeester are so wrapped up with themselves they are unable to have a rational objective discourse except to further the agenda of naysaying anything a Bible believing Christian has to say.
You see Divegeester has tried to make assurance of salvation a mental issue of whether someone agrees with Jack or not.
Notice the phrase "living contact".
You can have disagreements with other Christians about the Trinity yet have a living contact with the living Person of Christ.
So my replies have been cautious and qualified in the spirit of what was writt ...[text shortened]... ongs to hear me say is - "Disagree with sonship ??? You burn in hell."
A strange fancy indeed.
They ignore the clear wording of scripture. They exemplify the proverbial straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Their minds only become truly engaged when asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
... Are you suggesting that a Protestant can't have small disagreements with the phrasing of something about the Trinity and his church?
Why can't you accept the fact that SS has a nuanced view on this, and isn't committed to the position you suggest he is committed to..?
How is this even the basis for a new thread?
@philokalia saidAs for this issue, the piece in the OP suggests that a person's "salvation" is riding on it. You'd say that such a thing is a "small disagreement"?
... Are you suggesting that a Protestant can't have small disagreements with the phrasing of something about the Trinity and his church?
@secondson saidWhat about the content of this thread's OP?
FMF and divegeester are so wrapped up with themselves they are unable to have a rational objective discourse except to further the agenda of naysaying anything a Bible believing Christian has to say.