SAVED versus BEING SAVED

[B21C9L15]

.
.
I found it very interesting that there seemed to be a big distinction between the two. And I find it that these two are being used interchangeably in the discussions.

If the gift is the process of salvation, which is “BEING SAVED,” then it would indeed make sense that faith may not be part of the gift. In this case there is a point to argue about our will, or of human responsibility.

However, the Bible says, “for by grace are ye SAVED,” which meant of the completeness of the salvation, not the mere process. In this case faith is in God’s control, being a part of God’s working in our salvation.

[interrapax]

It is natural to distinguish between the moment/moments of salvation (as i understand it to be: The moment the sinner comes to believe he IS saved by God declaring him righteous, but he is also SAVED the day he stands before God in heaven and is declared righteous/allowed entrance to the kingdom of God (come in full) ) in a sence he IS saved, and will BE saved.

But as there is a time of coming to salvation, before one comes to faith. i belive there is also a time and/or process between the two moments. Witch i understand as being IN salvation.

Paul talks of "completing the race" in Acts 20: 24 and 1 Chorinthians 9: 24. And also talks of maturing as a beliver. I believe this to be the process of being IN salvation. Wich infact IS a process.

i'll be back to this thread because it is something i've thought alot about and i would like to test some thoughts around the subject.

Love Pax (btw i understand that not all will agree with my definition that salvation is Gods declaration of mans total rightousness coram Deo)

[Zguy28]

Baptist Faith and Message - Article IV: Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.

© source where applicable

So in effect, simultaneously you are saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Works for me.

[themuzicman]

.
.
I found it very interesting that there seemed to be a big distinction between the two. And I find it that these two are being used interchangeably in the discussions.

If the gift is the process of salvation, which is “BEING SAVED,” then it would indeed make sense that faith may not be part of the gift. In this case there is a point to argue about our will, or of human responsibility.

However, the Bible says, “for by grace are ye SAVED,” which meant of the completeness of the salvation, not the mere process. In this case faith is in God’s control, being a part of God’s working in our salvation.

If you're going to make that kind of distinction, you need to make your argument from Greek, not from English. The construct in eph 2:8 is what is called a "Periphrastic", which combines a form if "to be" with a participle.

In this case, the "to be" is "you are", and the participle is a passive perfect, "being saved", so the literal translation is "you are being saved" or "you have been saved", with the emphasis on an ongoing action in the past which has present force.

So, your taking this as a simple past tense isn't supported by the Greek.

Michael

[B21C9L15]

It is natural to distinguish between the moment/moments of salvation (as i understand it to be: The moment the sinner comes to believe he IS saved by God declaring him righteous, but he is also SAVED the day he stands before God in heaven and is declared righteous/allowed entrance to the kingdom of God (come in full) ) in a sence he IS saved, and will BE saved.

But as there is a time of coming to salvation, before one comes to faith. i belive there is also a time and/or process between the two moments. Witch i understand as being IN salvation.

Paul talks of "completing the race" in Acts 20: 24 and 1 Chorinthians 9: 24. And also talks of maturing as a beliver. I believe this to be the process of being IN salvation. Wich infact IS a process.

i'll be back to this thread because it is something i've thought alot about and i would like to test some thoughts around the subject.

Love Pax (btw i understand that not all will agree with my definition that salvation is Gods declaration of mans total rightousness coram Deo)

So what completes the salvation is in man’s; by coming to believe? Doesn’t that makes Ephesians 2:8 false, when it says “not of (y)ourselves.” ?

[B21C9L15]

Baptist Faith and Message - Article IV: Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.

© source where applicable

So in effect, simultaneously you are saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Works for me.

I think you're not getting my point. I actually disagree to be both.

The reason I disagree of "being saved," or the "process of salvation" to be the gift is that it meant that God is not in control of our will. And that the completion of the salvation becomes a joint effort of God and man.

If we meant that the whole salvation itself, of us reaching the salvation, as the gift. It does not contradict what Paul meant that our salvation is "not of ourselves."

[B21C9L15]

If you're going to make that kind of distinction, you need to make your argument from Greek, not from English. The construct in eph 2:8 is what is called a "Periphrastic", which combines a form if "to be" with a participle.

In this case, the "to be" is "you are", and the participle is a passive perfect, "being saved", so the literal translation is "you are being saved" or "you have been saved", with the emphasis on an ongoing action in the past which has present force.

So, your taking this as a simple past tense isn't supported by the Greek.

Michael

Perhaps then, explain to me how you would arrive to the stage as SAVED without contradicting what Ephesians 2:8 says that it is "not of ourselves." ?

[timspong]

3 tenses are used in the bible, past, present and future. The past and present are used to demonstrate the certainty of the future event. The actual declaration, in the final judgement has yet to take place.

This does not represent very much of a problem for those of a calvinist persuasion. But untenable for an OVT arminian.

Also, don't forget the parable of the sower. Those in the rocky places would certainly be called "saved" in a TBN type church, when in fact, they are actually far from it.

[themuzicman]

Perhaps then, explain to me how you would arrive to the stage as SAVED without contradicting what Ephesians 2:8 says that it is "not of ourselves." ?

Ultimately, our salvation comes when we are resurrected to eternal life by God. Clearly we will not be resurrecting ourselves, nor have we done anything to merit being resurrected to eternal life. Rather, God has given favor to those who believe into him, and will save those who remain faithful.

Thus, salvation is not of ourselves, but something done by God for those who believe.

Michael

[themuzicman]

3 tenses are used in the bible, past, present and future. The past and present are used to demonstrate the certainty of the future event. The actual declaration, in the final judgement has yet to take place.

This does not represent very much of a problem for those of a calvinist persuasion. But untenable for an OVT arminian.

Also, don't forget the parable of the sower. Those in the rocky places would certainly be called "saved" in a TBN type church, when in fact, they are actually far from it.

You obviously have not taken any biblical languages classes.

Hebrew only has imperfect and perfect tenses, and have nothing to do with time.

Greek has aorist, imperfect, perfect, present, and future, and have varying degrees with relationship to time and continuity of action, the latter of which is generally more important than the former.

So, before making this kind of statement, you need to get educated about it.

Michael

[timspong]

You obviously have not taken any biblical languages classes.

Hebrew only has imperfect and perfect tenses, and have nothing to do with time.

Greek has aorist, imperfect, perfect, present, and future, and have varying degrees with relationship to time and continuity of action, the latter of which is generally more important than the former.

So, before making this kind of statement, you need to get educated about it.

Michael

English does have these tenses and that is what I was referring to. The translators obviously saw fit to include these tenses and I have no doubt they have far more knowledge of the original languages than you do.

There are a few people on this site that I take original language advice from that I trust implicitly. Most of the rest just know enough to be in dangerous. I certainly do not consider you among the former.

Given your attitude, we would have to appeal to the original languages on just about every issue. This is all very well for the experts in original languages, but for the rest of us, bar those half a dozen, we obviously have to compromise.

[themuzicman]

English does have these tenses and that is what I was referring to. The translators obviously saw fit to include these tenses and I have no doubt they have far more knowledge of the original languages than you do.

There are a few people on this site that I take original language advice from that I trust implicitly. Most of the rest just know enough to be in dangerous. I certainly do not consider you among the former.

Given your attitude, we would have to appeal to the original languages on just about every issue. This is all very well for the experts in original languages, but for the rest of us, bar those half a dozen, we obviously have to compromise.

So, studying Greek and Hebrew in Seminary at a Master's level doesn't count for anything?

Keep in mind that "perfect" in English is a little different than "perfect" in Greek.

Michael

[timspong]

So, studying Greek and Hebrew in Seminary at a Master's level doesn't count for anything?

Keep in mind that "perfect" in English is a little different than "perfect" in Greek.

Michael

When I say expert it obviously excludes those that are still learning. Would you have a heart bypass done by a medical student?

I don't doubt that you have a certain level of knowledge, but do you really think you have enough expertise to be employed by a bible translation committee?

[themuzicman]

When I say expert it obviously excludes those that are still learning. Would you have a heart bypass done by a medical student?

I don't doubt that you have a certain level of knowledge, but do you really think you have enough expertise to be employed by a bible translation committee?

Then why are you debating anything about Christianity at all? Are you the world's leading expert on theology? Why do you even post anything?


To be honest, you don't even have a sufficient level of education to determine whether I agree with the "experts" or not. In fact, not even the experts agree, and there is ongoing discussion on these matters, of which you apparently have no knowledge, either.

in fact, my assertion is based upon the work of Daniel Wallace, the leading koine Greek Grammarian. There are reasons for each to be possible, depending on how you understand periphrastics, but my assertion isn't one that I make alone.

Michael

[timspong]

Then why are you debating anything about Christianity at all? Are you the world's leading expert on theology? Why do you even post anything?

To be honest, you don't even have a sufficient level of education to determine whether I agree with the "experts" or not. In fact, not even the experts agree, and there is ongoing discussion on these matters, of which you apparently have no knowledge, either.

in fact, my assertion is based upon the work of Daniel Wallace, the leading koine Greek Grammarian. There are reasons for each to be possible, depending on how you understand periphrastics, but my assertion isn't one that I make alone.

Michael

Obviously there is more than one side to this argument among the "experts" and citing sources makes for a much more useful post.

Your original post was very polemic and written as though you were giving the final personal proclamation of absolute truth in this matter.

It would have been much better IMO to give the clearer picture that we now have.

I.e. All the English translation experts saw fit to use past present and future tenses with regard to "being saved" although there is contention among certain biblical scholars as to whether this is correct.

Assuming they were correct.................... what could be the possible reasons for the differing tenses?

Assuming they were all wrong .................... I think we have far bigger problems to consider given the implications of incompetent translators.