A Zero Point Calvinist

Calvinism believes that once one has eternal life, it can not be lost.  A “zero point Calvinist” is someone who believes that eternal life can not be lost but does not hold to any of the "five points" of Calvinism (named after the Reformer John Calvin who gets credit for these points); the five points are represented in the acronym of “TULIP."   Not all Calvinists understand all the points the same way, nor do they all hold to all the five points.   Here are my extremely brief responses to each point represented in the five letters of the TULIP.  I’m not going to list a bunch of Bible references—everyone has  proof-texts.

The “T” stands for “total depravity.”  Calvinism believes that the depravity of man is such that he needs to be “born again” first (or receive something like it) before he can respond positively to God.  I believe in the depravity of man which means that everyone is a sinner before God and needs to receive eternal life. I don’t believe in the “total” depravity of man which suggests that he cannot respond to God apart from regeneration or something like it (but see my comments on “Irresistible Grace” below). I do not believe that spiritual death (that is, the condition of the person who does not have eternal life, being alienated from God ) should be compared to a physically dead person who can not respond to someone talking to them (obviously!).

The “U” is for “Unconditional Election.”  In Calvinism, the idea is that God determines to whom He will give eternal life which is not based on a response from the individual—its entirely God’s choice (election).   I believe eternal life is conditional.   I believe the condition is faith in Christ as Savior from sin--because of what he accomplished by His death for sins.  I believe the distinction in Scripture is between faith in Christ for salvation and one’s own righteousness (such as trying to be good enough)—which can saved no one…ever. 

The “L” stands for “Limited Atonement.” “Limited atonement” says that Christ died only for a limited number of people being the “elect.”     This is one point on which Calvinists will disagree about among themselves.  There may be disagreement over whether this third point speaks of the extent (for everyone or the elect only) or the intent (for everyone or the elect only) of Christ’s death.

I would prefer the words “propitiation” or “satisfaction” for “atonement.”  I believe Christ’s death was a propitiation or satisfaction for all sins for all people for all time.  I believe Jesus provided by His death satisfaction to God for what all our sins required—He bore the penalty (consequence, requirement, etc.) of sin while on the cross.  The reason not everyone is then saved is because this propitiation is not salvation in and of itself, but allows God to justify (declare righteous) and regenerate (born again) all who believe in Christ for salvation. The condition is faith in Christ as Savior. 

The “I” stands for “Irresistible Grace.”   This view is that God will irresistibly draw by grace ( Divine enablement) to faith in Christ for salvation those that God has unconditionally elected.  Reformed folks believe this is the work of “regeneration.”  The moderate Calvinist will say its not regeneration but something like it.  I don’t believe regeneration precedes the faith by which we are justified.  I believe the Bible teaches we are born again when we believe the Gospel, not before we believe.  I believe there is a drawing through the word of God and the corresponding work of the Holy Spirit, but I believe it is according to a Divine principle of “to whomever has, more will be given.”  There is a progressiveness in the responding to certain Divine revelation, because the unsaved person (and even a carnal Christian) isn’t ready to receive certain truth that they are not conditioned to received—but an unsaved person can understand things like the 10 commandments, and that he/ she is a sinner and condemned before God.  A person may respond positively or negatively to Divine revelation.  It depends on many factors in a person life—life’s various hardships and the testimony of faithful Christians are often influential factors.

The “P” stands for “Perseverance of the Saints.”  This point isn’t just about “Once saved Always saved,” but about the perseverance of the believer in the faith and good works.  Though I believe a person can not lose eternal life, I do believe one can fail to persevere in faith and good works.  One may fall away from believing in justification by faith alone—they may be deceived into believing at a later time that one must do more than just believe to be saved, and so fall from grace.   One may not persevere in good works or faith.  There is always the question as to whether someone who falls away was really saved to begin with--maybe they were originally the victims of a works based salvation message or did those decisional-method things that are commonly propagated by Christians like “asking Jesus into their heart" or a repeat-after-me-prayer—which doesn’t really bring salvation, and so they may become disillusioned with this “religion” and abandon it.   Yet there have been Bible scholars and theologians who were effective evangelists and impacted many with the truth and yet later fell away to some degree or another.  These are very troubling to be sure.   But I am not convinced of the indefectibility of faith.   The consequences of failure are great, being disapproved--not being useful for the Lord and the loss of rewards.  God is able to keep you from falling, but take heed lest you fall!

The chair analogy for faith

It has been said that the faith by which we are saved is like believing a chair will support you, and that faith is not complete until you sit in the chair.  It’s not enough to believe the chair will support you, but you have to sit in the chair, or your faith or belief is incomplete. 

    

I find this analogy problematic when it is used for the faith by which we are saved, because it adds another step to faith, before it is considered faith.

If a person believes a chair will hold them, then what if they do not sit in it? Do they believe it will hold them or not? The sitting in the chair is an extra step beyond simply believing it will hold you. What would correspond to the sitting in the chair when it comes to the faith by which we are saved? Would it be some good work like feeding and clothing the poor or getting baptized?

If salvation (justification, regeneration) happens at a point in time--and I believe it does--and that point in time is when a person believes certain divine truth, then whenever that divine truth is believed, salvation has taken place. 

Whatever a person may know and believe up to that point of believing the truth that results in salvation can be preliminary.  This could be true with reference to the chair analogy, because before a person believes a chair will support him, he will have reasons to come to that belief, such as the history of the chair being used by others and maybe the appearance of the chair.  If the chair has not supported others, or it appears broken, then he does not have reason to believe it will support him, but if others have sat in it, and it appears to be in fine shape, then he has reason to believe it will support him.   Either he believes it will support him or it will not. Or he may be uncertain, but uncertainty is a lack of persuasion. There's also the fact that the chair is not God, and things like chairs do not carry the kind of certainty that the character and word of God does.

If the chair analogy did not include the extra step of sitting, it could be a fine analogy.  That is to believe the chair supports you is an analogy of the faith in that divine truth by which you are saved.

But it seems that those who use the analogy want to add another step.   Why is that? 

The issue here is not the preliminary knowledge and faith.  

Does salvation happen at a point in time when certain Divine truth is believed or does it not? 

Is salvation put on hold until one acts in some manner consistent with that faith, such as feeding and clothing the poor or getting baptized? 

 

What act must one do, if he has believed the revelation by which salvation comes?

The analogy is seeking to say that the belief that a chair will support you is incomplete until you actually sit in the chair.  This analogy concerns me, because  it adds another step.   The real issue is whether you believe.

Salvation takes place at a point in time when a person believes that divine revelation which results in salvation.  No further step is needed.  Either you believe that revelation or you don’t. (What that revelation is is another issue.) Therefore, I don't use the chair analogy for faith or believing, unless we are only comparing the faith that a chair will hold you with the faith by which we are saved, not including another step to complete it.

Ephesians 2:8-9: Salvation is not of us in that it is not of works

Ephesians 2.8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith,

and that not of yourselves;

it is the gift of God,

not of works,

lest anyone should boast.

Salvation is not from ourselves.

This means that salvation is not by our works of righteousness as in keeping the Law (such as the Ten Commandments).

*Salvation is by grace through faith.

*Salvation is not from ourselves.

*Salvation is the gift of God.

*Salvation is not of works, lest anyone should boast.

When the Apostle Paul says that salvation is not of us, he is saying that it is not of works.

But what about faith?

Paul is saying that faith is instrumental in our salvation.

Faith is in contrast to works.

Salvation is "through faith."

If one does not believe (in the right thing), they are not saved.

The right thing is Jesus Christ as Scripture says,

whoever believes in Him [Jesus] should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3.15)

This is because Jesus bore the penalty of sin, being death, for everyone on the cross.

This death is separation from God, which is the opposite of everlasting life.

When one believes in Jesus for salvation, they are saved.

How can faith be instrumental in salvation, if salvation is not of us?

Because faith is not works.

Faith and works are very different.

We are saved by the faith that believes the Word of God concerning salvation through Jesus.

We are not saved by our works of righteousness.

By faith in Jesus, God credits righteousness to us (called "justification"), while "works" is our own righteousness in which we try to stand accepted by God.

Faith is believing the Word of God concerning the way of salvation by which salvation results, but by works, one seeks to stand in one's own righteousness for salvation.

Faith is instrumental in our salvation.

The Apostle Paul says:

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Galatians 2.16)

Justification is not "by" works but "by" faith.

Consider the account in the book of Acts concerning the Italian Centurion Cornelius.

An angel instructs Cornelius to send for the Apostle Peter,

who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved. (Acts 11.14)

Peter says to Cornelius,

The word which [God] sent to the children of Israel,

preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all-- that word you know,

which was proclaimed throughout all Judea,...

[this Jesus] whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly.

(Acts 10.36-39)

And then Peter says,

To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

(Acts 10.43)

And then...

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

(Acts 10.44)

Salvation took place when Cornelius and those with him heard these words from Peter:

whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

It is clear that salvation comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ for salvation.

[by Jason]

Mercy from God not according to our terms

Romans9.15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then [it] [is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

In Romans 9, the Apostle is concerned about the salvation of his “countrymen according to the flesh” (vs. 3).  Paul does not used the word “salvation,” in the beginning part of the chapter, but salvation is in view when he talks about who are the children of God and that those who attain to righteousness do so by faith.  Paul does say at the beginning of chapter 10 that his “heart’s desire and prayer for Israel is that they may be saved.”

But several things said in chapter 9, such as God showing mercy and compassion according to His choice and not by the one’s will or desire or strenuous effort, has emboldened the view that the reason some are saved and some are lost is because it is by God’s choice alone, apart from any response of a person.  If there is a criteria in God’s choice, only He knows, being a mystery-assuming it’s not just an arbitrary choice like some Divine flipping of the coin…heads you’re saved and tails you stay lost.

The understanding of the chapters of Romans 9 through 11, I believe must take into account that the Nation of Israel is in view as to what is going on with her.  Paul says some things that are difficult to sort out.  What He says concerns Israel as a people.  God has chosen Israel for a purpose as a people of God, but to be part of that people is through a particular promise and faith.   That particular people at present has been removed and replaced by a new and different people for a time—that includes Jews who are believers along with Gentiles.  God was working in a way to save Jews now to be a part of the present people of God (Paul spoke of provoking them to jealousy through the salvation of Gentiles), but He is also enduring with and using non-believing Jews and Gentiles, especially in the last days, to bring about the salvation of Israel—not just of individuals, because that can happen now, but the nation as a nation.   But this future salvation will be a nation, as the people of God.  It will not be every individual Jew—as Paul said: “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”  It will be the Nation as a people, but only according to God’s criterial, not according to theirs or man’s criteria or desire and will.  God’s criteria is according to promise and faith.  If “they do not continue in unbelief … God is able to graft them in AGAIN” (Romans 11.23).  The word “again” just adds support that its talking nationally and not individually.

The criteria of God as to whom He shows mercy does not have to be understood as some mystery or an arbitrary choice.  It is clear in Romans 9 through 11 that the issue is faith.   The problem with Israel was their unbelief.  They had zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, for they were ignorant of God’s righteousness.  That righteousness was the righteousness that God gives by faith in Christ, being justification.  Israel was broken off and replaced as a people of God with a new people of God, primarily made up of Gentiles.  But the day is coming when the nation will be restored as a people, but only through faith in Christ.  “…blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  26  And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:  "The Deliverer will come out of Zion,  And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;  27  For this [is] My covenant with them,  When I take away their sins.”  Romans 11.25-27

Salt and Light

Jesus said...You are the salt of the Earth...you are the light of the world...if the salt loses its flavor...it is good for nothing but to be thrown out...nor do they light lamp and put it under a basket...  Matthew 5.13-16

 Just a simple observation...

I believe these words apply to the people of God, both in a corporate sense, like national Israel or a church, and individually, being believers. 

In a corporate sense like the nation of Israel, there were unsaved people among them that would have assisted in their moral and spiritual failure.  But the nation as the people of God were to have an affect on the nations around her.  

She was to be salt and light, but if she became ineffective or failed in her purpose, then what good was she?  

This can apply to individuals too, but I would think in that case, only saved people.  Unsaved people could never be salt and light.  A believer can fail to be effective for the Lord, like the salt that becomes saturated with impurities and becomes useless.

A corporate entity like Israel was the people of God and to be salt and light, and it included unsaved people, who were surely instrumental in her failure, but her failure corporately led to a corporate judgment, being removed from the place of privilege and blessing and from being a witness for God.  An ineffective church can come under judgment as well--Revelation 2.5 warns of the church of Ephesus having her lampstand removed.

The simple negative point of the illustration is that if you become ineffective, you're of no good use and will suffer the consequences.

He who endures to the end

Matthew 10.22 and 24.13 both have this promise that he who endures to the end will be saved.  It is stated in a context of persecution, and both contexts could refer to the days leading up to the coming of Christ, but especially the Matthew 24 context.

10.22 reads, 22 “And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.”

24.9-13 reads,  9“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.  10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.  11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.  13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

What is this salvation being promised?

It is common for Christians to apply this to eternal salvation:  you must endure to the end of your life in faith or you were never really saved to begin with or you lose your salvation.

Those who don’t agree with either view just referenced--usually those who believe salvation is by faith alone, and such faith is not indefectible—believe this salvation is a physical one and in reference to those final days of the great tribulation that lead up to the coming of Christ: those who endure in faith to the end will be physically delivered.

And in keeping with the idea of physical salvation are the words of Revelation 13.10: “ He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. “ (NKJV)  These words may actually suggest otherwise, but the last part about the patience of the saints could fit with the promise.  There’s actually different manuscript readings of this verse that might seem more fitting,  “If anyone is meant for captivity into captivity he will go.  If anyone is to be killed by the sword, then by the sword he must be killed.  This requires steadfast endurance and faith from the saints.” (NET Bible)  The NET Bible agrees with a similar statement in Jeremiah 15.2, while the NKJV agrees with what Christ said in the Garden.  Maybe both are represented in Revelation 13.  Matthew 26.52: “But Jesus said to him, "Put your  sword  in its place, for all who take the  sword  will perish by the  sword.” Jeremiah 15.2 reads: “2  "And it shall be, if they say to you, `Where should we go?' then you shall tell them, `Thus says the Lord:  "Such as [are] for death, to death;  And such as [are] for the  sword , to the  sword ;  And such as [are] for the famine, to the famine;  And such as [are] for the captivity, to the captivity."  But we know from Revelation believers will be martyred, and the reference above would indicate that if you are appointed to death or captivity, then it will happen.

I think the promise could really be a spiritual one.  Jesus said in Luke 21.16-19, “  16  "You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put [some] of you to death.  17  "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake.  18  "But not a hair of  your  head shall be lost.  19  "By  your  patience  possess   your   souls.”  The context here I believe is the persecution of the early church, but it is similar to and spoken about in connection with the days leading up to the coming of Christ.  When Jesus said not a hair of the head will be lost, he didn’t mean physical hair.  He also spoke of possessing their souls by patience.  I believe both of these have a spiritual significance. 

I think it could be a spiritual kind of salvation.  I think it is similar to other statements by Jesus about Losing and saving one’s life or soul—the word “psuche” is translated “life” and “soul.”   If one’s life is bound up in the temporal things of life, he will lose his life and those things—he may try to save his life by holding on to those things, but he will die and all that will be lost.  But if one sacrifices the temporal for the eternal, he will preserve, find, and save his life, even in death, because those things remain and to the extent they become part of his life, his life will remain in death with those things—not a “hair…lost” would metaphorically mean the preservation of those things.  Jesus is recorded using the words “save,” “find” and “preserve,” for the life that is “lost” for him.

Reference in made to Lot’s Wife in a second coming context, connected with that saying about saving and losing one’s life, Luke 17.33.  She looked back.   Yes, she lost her life physically, but maybe there is more to it—her life was back there in Sodom.  She lingered behind, kept looking back.  She wanted to save it, but she lost her life, physically, but maybe even more than that, much of who she was, her soul-life.  

The saving/ losing of life is used in Mathew 10.39, which is a discipleship context that speaks of the difficulties of that commitment throughout Matthew 10.  Matthew 10 is similar to the great tribulation difficulties of Mathew 24.  Both Matthew 10 and 24 use the statement about enduring to the end.  The “end” must be the end of the period of persecution.

All these connections about discipleship, saving/ losing one’s life, remembering Lot’s wife, and the tribulation of those days could explain the salvation that is in view.

I could see how physical life can be in view, but I think it is more of a spiritual kind of life in view--a value/ purpose of life thing. 

Luke 12.23 says that life is more than food and the body more than clothing.   Lot’s wife must have been looking back, wanting to hold on to the temporal.  If your life is bound up in the temporal, you will lose it, physically, but its who you are.  In committed discipleship, your life is more than the temporal—it is of value to God, for time and eternity.  Its your identity that will remain and have reward in heaven.  If you lose your life for Christ’s sake and the gospel, you will save it (Mark 8.34-37) or find it (Mat10.39, or preserve it (Luke 17.33).   You will be saved.

Addendum

Jesus: "For what  profit  is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16.26

 An absurd idea to make a point.  What would it profit a person if he gained the whole world but lost himself or his life?   If you were given everything this world had to offer and then died, what good would it be?  Or, if you were given everything this world had to offer but lost yourself in the sense of self-worth, identity, hating who you have become.  What good is it?

Salvation and It’s Tenses

Salvation, or being “saved,” is presented in Scripture in three tenses, past, present, and future; and all three are designated by the same word “saved” or “salvation,” but context must decide the tense.   (A tense is when an action happens.)  There is also the obvious sense in which the word is used for a physical kind of salvation, and it can be that the physical salvation is connected to one of the tenses:  those who are in a spiritual sense saved will be physically saved.

Understanding the three tenses are importance, so that one does not conclude that salvation ultimately depends on your own righteousness or ability to endure to the end of your life.  The first tense, being “justification” and “regeneration” happen at a point in time when one believes in Jesus for salvation,  and this makes the second tense possible, of which one can become the kind of person God has called you to be, and it secures the third tense when the believer is resurrected and in the kingdom of God.  The second tense does have an impact on the experience of the third tense, that is, what we do in this life that is of eternal value will carry over into that final tense of salvation.

A person is "saved" when they believe the promise of God of salvation through believing in Jesus for it.
This is the first tense of salvation.  This salvation is "justification" and "regeneration."

There is another use of "save[d]" that it is used concerning those who are already believers and so it has to be used in another sense.

The second tense of salvation is with reference to the conduct expected in the life of the believer, a life transformed in alignment with God’s word.  This kind of life is approved by God and useful--and fulfilling.

First Timothy 4.15-16  has Paul telling Timothy that by continuing in the doctrine, he will  "save" himself and those that hear him.

James 1.21  says one is saved through receiving the implanted word  (cp. 1 Pet2.1-2; 1.23-25).  That implanted word is what saved one in the first tense, but needs renewed in the mind.

1 Timothy 2:15 speaks of a woman being saved through childbearing—is this the woman’s fulfillment through impacting her children spiritually?

1 Peter 1.9 speaks of receiving the end of faith, the salvation of souls.  This could be the outcome on a believer who stays the course in persecution and the blessing and impact it brings.

Hebrews 7.25 says that Jesus can save to uttermost those who come to God through him.  This is probably the enablement to stay the course under trials and difficulties and experience God's working and blessing in your life.

Matthew 16.24-26 has Jesus saying that whoever loses/ destroys his life for Christ's sake will find it,  but  if they seek to save it, they will lose/ destroy it.    To truly save/ find your life is to lose/ destroy it for Christ’s sake.   To save, find, or preserve your life is in sacrifice for the Lord.     

There is a third tense of salvation which Scripture speaks concerning, and that is the final state of the believer in the resurrection and in the kingdom of God.

Luke 13.23-30:  “Lord, are there few who are saved?”  I believe the first and third tense are indicated in this text.  The question looks to the third tense, while the answer concerns what one must do to get there.  The kingdom of God is pictured as a city with a wall and gate.  One must strive to enter that gate.  That gate is described as narrow, and though many will seek to enter, only a few will manage to do so.   The “many” here probably refer to those in Israel who did not believe in him during his earthly ministry.  Matthew 8.11-12 speaks of the “sons of the kingdom” being cast out, and if this is “a Semitic expression for those who belong or by privilege should belong to the kingdom” (Gundry), then they are the many who seek to enter in contrast to the few who believed.  But it could apply to all those who think they should enter by what they think qualifies them.

1 Peter1.3-5 speaks of the “salvation ready to be revealed.”   This final tense/ aspect of our salvation will be affected by how we live now, our present tense of being saved through/ during this life of faith.  In light of that approaching Day, we should live godly/ holy lives, see Hebrews 10.22-35, 35-39; 2Pet3.10-13.

The Rich Man and Moses and the Prophets

Jesus told the story of two men who had died,

an unnamed rich man and a poor man named Lazarus.

The two are separated by a great chasm that can't be crossed.

The rich man found himself on the side of torment,

while Lazarus was with Abraham in comfort. Luke 16.19-31

The rich man is able to see and speak across the chasm to Abraham.

He begs Abraham to send Lazarus from the beyond the grave...

“'send him to my father's house,

for I have five brothers,

that he may testify to them,

lest they also come

to this place of torment.’

Abraham said to him,

‘They have Moses and the prophets;

let them hear them.’

And he said,

‘No, father Abraham;

but if one goes to them from the dead,

they will *repent.’

But he said to him,

‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets,

neither will they be *persuaded

though one rise from the dead.’

Notice the parallel uses of "repent" and "persuaded."

Repent can mean "to think differently," and persuaded is "to believe something.”

The concern of the rich man is that family members don't end up where he's at. And the clear means of avoiding the place of torment is through a repentance or by being persuaded. This is consistent with Scripture that salvation is by believing in Christ alone—”that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3.14-18

Cornelius Account: by “words saved”

The Cornelius account in Acts 10 is one example that salvation is by faith in particular words from God.

In Acts 11.12-14, Peter defends his recent association with Gentiles, that he was sent by God to the house of the Italian Cornelius, who was divinely instructed to send for Peter, who will ‘tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”

The account is showing that non-Jews could be saved--be right with God--without becoming Jews first. This was something the Jewish Christians had to learn, but it also shows that salvation is by faith alone. 

Peter is shown in a vision, Acts 10.9-17, that God allows contact with other nations: they are not to be considered unclean: Acts 10.24-28.  The other Jewish believers did not know this: Acts 11.1-3.   After hearing Peter’s account, they have a change of mind: Acts 11.15-18.  

When Peter speaks to Cornelius, he indicates that Cornelius knew some things about Jesus:  Acts 10.36-42.

Cornelius was one who feared God.   What all he knew and believed before Peter came is not certain, but the account reveals that salvation is in connection with faith in particular words from God.   The salvation of Cornelius and those with him was evident by the obvious manifestation of the Holy Spirit through them.  This salvation took place when certain words were spoken and believed.  Those words are in Acts 10.43:  "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

We know the words Cornelius and his group heard and believed.  What do these words tell us?  There is Divine authority these words.  There is reference to Jesus, believing in Him, and the promise of remission of sins to be received.

Saving faith obviously involves knowledge, but it is believing the Divine promise of remission of sins through faith in Jesus.  This “remission of sins” is salvation, because the “words” were by which they would be “saved,” Acts 11.2-14, and the manifestation of the Spirit was evidence of this.   This Divine promise is what they needed to know and believe.

Whatever a person may know and believe up to this point is not salvation until they believe this more particular promise of God. 

Believing is being persuaded.   These individuals didn’t need much persuasion because they had already responded positively to God up to that point.  They just needed this further revelation from God through Peter.   Their positive response prior to this event made them receptive and certain to believe.  This prior response may be represented in the words of the Jewish Christians who speak of the Gentiles  as being granted by God ”repentance to Life.” Acts 11.18  The repentance was a resolved to get right with God, which isn’t complete until one believes the words by which they are saved, 11.14.

Inerrancy

I have thought that inerrancy signifies that the Scriptures are without error in their original writings. The original writings would be the final written product intended by the author, even if done through another writer—after proofread and approved by the author.

It seems that some want inerrancy to allow for a non-literal interpretation of an historical account when it is either contradicted by the apparent evidence or just too hard to believe. Even though the historical account may be written in a manner that seems meant to be taken at face value and not meant as a parable or tall tale of sorts, but if the evidence is lacking, then it must not be a true historical account, and inerrancy must allow for that interpretation. If two accounts appear to contradict themselves, then inerrancy must accommodate such.

It seems such an approach would restrict inerrancy in that it can not with certainty include historical data in Scripture—how could one ever be certain?   But doesn’t the theological depend on the historical account?  What happens to Christianity if we question the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ? 

But what about other events connected to the death and resurrection of Christ? The great Temple veil tore in two. Graves were opened and many came to life again. Rocks were split. These are things that some questioned really happened. The evidence is lacking or they are just too hard to believe. But weren't these meant to be confirming signs—this man who was crucified was not just another condemned man put to death?

How far should inerrancy be pushed? I think it must be that all that was written as Scripture is without error in the final product--the final written product as intended by its author.  These writings are Divinely authoritative and trustworthy, and their teachings are unified and coherent.  Though the Scriptures are of a specific and limited history of world events, and they are not a science textbook, the things it states are true.  Scripture is not without difficulties, and there are things clearly not meant to be taken literally.

If accounts that appear historical in their accounting were just tall tales, then what impact do they really have? If the fall of Jericho was not as described, then why even record such an event as historical? Is it that something happened, but we don’t really know what happened? How does it inspire its readers about the working of God, if it really didn’t happen?

How would the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of the world of Noah, or of the Canaanites by the Hebrews have any impact on future readers if the accounts are not true or historically accurate? The second coming of Christ is compared to the world scene in the days before the flood—but if the flood didn’t happen, what impact can the account have? Someone might protest and say the flood happened, but not to the extent some think the text suggests—and so the protest against inerrancy is that it requires a certain interpretation of Scripture.

But I think inerrancy is just requiring that the text is without error, not that one has to interpret it a certain way, unless the text requires that interpretation, being historically accurate or hyperbole or a parable.  But just because the account does not have present verification by archaeology or seems too hard to believe should it be passed off as  a parable or tall tale.   It wasn’t until the 1800s that the name of the last king of Babylon, Belshazzar in Daniel, was discovered to be the son of the last king of Babylon and reigning in his father’s stead—and why Daniel was offered to be the third in the kingdom since Belshazzar was obviously the second in the kingdom to his father (remember Pharaoh offered Joseph to be second in his kingdom).  Critics claimed Daniel was in error until archaeology proved Daniel was correct.

 * Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7–8) and from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. Though he is referred to in the Book of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian inscriptions indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris, who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.  -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Heart faith or head faith?

In an attempt to explain how someone can once believe something and then depart from that belief, the concept of “head” faith is put forth as the explanation. Head faith is to be seen in contrast to “heart” faith. Head faith is defective, not real faith, or a mere assenting to facts. Heart faith is real and will persevere, and it is not a mere assenting to facts. This is an approach some take to explain the theological problem of how someone can be a believer in Christ for eternal life, and have accomplished many things as a believer, and yet fall away from the faith later. The explanation is that they only had head faith and not heart faith. This view is required because of the belief that salvation can not be lost, and the faith by which salvation is received can not be departed from.

Would we apply head faith verses heart faith to all situations where someone departed from what they once believed?

People are often persuaded of something that at a later time they no longer believe. This is true in theology all the time: what one was convinced of for a period of time, possibly many years, can later be persuaded differently.

For some reason, the faith by which we are saved is treated differently than all other faiths (in things). Because of this, those Scriptures that talk about a falling away from the faith or apostasy are said to be about those who didn’t really believe. They must of only had head faith or merely assented to some facts.

It could be that some who fall away from a form of Christianity were never saved. Not everyone who identifies with and practices some form of Christianity are really saved. This is because salvation is not a result of joining a church, moral reformation, saying a repeat-after-me-prayer, or “asking Jesus into your heart.”

It’s also possible that the content of information one believed that some who associate with head belief or intellectual assent is not that content of information that results in salvation when you believe it.

It seems that those who speak of head and heart faith are often speaking of two different contents of information.

The content sometimes ascribed to head belief or intellectual assent doesn’t even speak of salvation. Reference may be made to James 2:19 concerning the demons believing in one God—and they’re obviously not saved. But does Scripture say that believing in one God saves you? Islam believes in one God. Is it only head belief or intellectual assent for the demons and Muslims—and that’s why they aren’t saved?

I would maintain that the issue is content and not the mode of believing, being head belief or intellectual assent verses heart belief. The faith by which we are saved is the same as any other belief, but the difference is in the content. It is by certain words—certain divine content--that one is saved, see Acts 11.13-15.

Appearance Vs. The Heart

"Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Man looking on the outward appearance seems to be given as a negative thing, as compared to God looking at the heart.  That suggests to me that it's a difference of criteria, not simply a contrast of ability between what we can see (our inability) and what God can see.

 It's what we are looking for, not our inability to see what God can see.

Obviously we can't see the heart as God can.   But the criteria can be different how man chooses and God chooses.. 

Man's guide lines (such as someone's physical features--as in the case of Saul) are not God's guide lines (such as someone who understands the faithfulness of God--as in the case of David, seen in his confident actions as a shepherd or taking on Goliath). 

God gives guidelines in what to require for certain roles.

Man may determine adequacy by physical attributes and abilities, but these are not what God seeks.

God gives qualities for appointing an overseer that do not involve physical features, but things we can still see related to conduct and character, such as being patient, not violent, husband of one wife, able to teach, sound theology, etc.

Man looking on the outward appearance seems to be given as a negative thing, as compared to God looking at the heart.  That suggests to me that it's a difference of criteria, not simply a contrast of ability between what we can see and what God can see.  It's what we should be looking for, not our inability to see what God does.

Regard him as a gentile and tax collector

"Regard him as a gentile and a tax collector." --Jesus (Matthew 18.17)

What did Jesus mean by this concerning a brother who sins against another and can not be "won back?”

I believe the consequence here is the same as the one Apostle Paul states in 2 places in the New Testament concerning a sinning brother, but the audiences are a little different and the situation is different, but the meaning of the consequence is the same but implied in Jesus' words while Paul's are straight forward.

Jesus says,

"If your brother sins against you, go and confront him while the two of you are alone.

If he listens to you,

you have won back your brother.

But if he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that ‘every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. If he also ignores the congregation,

 regard him as a gentile and a tax collector."

Matt 18.15-17 ISV

Consider that Jesus is speaking to his disciples who are Palestinian Jews.

He instructs on how to deal with a brother--a fellow believer among them--if they sin against them.  The offended party is to privately confront the brother.  If they admit to the deed, they are won back.  Fellowship is restored between them.  But if not, then the offended party takes another believer with him to confront the other.  If that fails, then the congregation (assembly of believers) gets involved.  If that fails, then the offender is to be regarded or "like" (NKJ) "a gentile and tax collector."

Why treat them like a gentile (non-Jew) and tax collector?

 What is the implication of this consequence?

The Jews--especially Palestinian Jews-- did not keep company with Gentiles, and they didn't keep company with tax collectors.  What's wrong with either?  Jesus didn't say regard them as unsaved people or non-believers.  We know in the Gospel accounts that there were both Gentles and Tax collectors who were believers in Christ--even the Matthew who wrote this Gospel was a tax collector.  Jesus was just appealing to the common practice among Palestinian Jews of not keeping company  with these people.

"They [tax collectors] were reviled by the Jews of Jesus' day because of their perceived greed and collaboration with the Roman occupiers." Wikipedia

I believe Apostle Paul says the same thing.  He writes to not keep company with a brother who is committing certain sins.  It isn't to consider them unsaved but don't keep company with them.

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person."

1 Corinthians 5.11

Paul also says,

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.  For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you…”

 "And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

2 Thessalonians 3.6-7, 14-15

Is the brother who does not admit to an offence to the church worse than the brother who is sexually immoral or walks disorderly that he is to be considered unsaved?

Peters words to Cornelius would also support the idea that to treat one as a gentile is to not keep company with them (the consequence Paul gives concerning the disorderly brother):  “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.” Acts 10.28

So I would maintain that Jesus was saying the same thing as Paul.  To a Jewish audience, especially the Palestinian Jew, the gentile and tax collector were those one did not keep company with.  And this is what Paul said to do with a brother who was in a sin.

How is a brother to be regarded/ like a gentile and tax collector? It is by not keeping company with him.  

But the aim in this is that they might be ashamed, admit to their wrong, and be "won back" ( restored to fellowship).