The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lefillegal1
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
lefillegal1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 254 times Debate No: 59593
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

linate

Pro

required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic.

the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements.
i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things?

what or where exactly is the threshhold?

if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise.

what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc.

ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time.

some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary.
some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory.

and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play?

so what's the magical formula?
lefillegal1

Con

A279;Faith IS the threshold. You either have faith or you dont. Lets examine Romans.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God { which } { is } by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

If all fall short, how can you conclude, that a "certain" amount of faith, must be included, to be saved? This verse emphasises that there is no "amount" certain, since all "amounts" fall short.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 4:7 { Saying, } Blessed { are } they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 4:8 Blessed { is } the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 4:9 { Cometh } this blessedness then upon the circumcision { only, } or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which { he } { had } { yet } being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which { he } { had } being { yet } uncircumcised. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, { was } not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 4:14 For if they which are of the law { be } heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, { there } { is } no transgression. 4:16 Therefore { it } { is } of faith, that { it } { might } { be } by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, { even } God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah 's womb: 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 4:25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.
5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 5:11 And not only { so, } but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam 's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 5:15 But not as the offense, so also { is } the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, { which } { is } by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 5:16 And not as { it } { was } by one that sinned, { so } { is } the gift: for the judgment { was } by one to condemnation, but the free gift { is } of many offenses unto justification. 5:17 For if by one man 's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one { judgment } { came } upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one { the } { free } { gift } { came } upon all men unto justification of life. 5:19 For as by one man 's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

I hope it became clear that faith is, action, based on belief and confidence in Gods word. You either ACT on faith or you dont. There is no inbetween. Even as enemies of God we are reconciled if we believe. Jesus' one death atones for ALL sins, past, future, and present. As stated in Romans, God's righteousness is of faith. Man's has no righteousness, but some believe it can be attained by following the law. Before a man decides to follow the law or not, some type of faith is required. He either believes the law or doesnt. This "belief" will determine the "action" he decides to take. This "action" based on belief, is Faith.

Im not dodging your questions but most are answered above. While you may get different answers from different Christians it matters little. Ask any sports fan why their team is the best, and I guarantee their answers will vary also. Yet that doesnt add to or take away from the actual team's performance does it?
Nor does a veterans understanding of the game, interferere with a rookies. It is the rookie who looks to the vet for understanding.
Let me ask you, where in the Bible is faith not rewarded, or considered too miniscule to save someone? Even those with little faith were saved and accomplished much, so again where is it stated that those with faith, however small or big, shall perish? Upon answering this it should become clear that there is no threshold concerning faith.
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

demons have faith in God as the bible says, and they are not saved.

some people have a minimal faith but still are not saved, as con suggests any amount of faith is sufficient.... "not all who say to me Lord Lord" (will be saved) "have we not prophesied in your name...." etc etc
lefillegal1

Con

"demons have faith in God as the bible says, and they are not saved."

Wrong. Demons had "proof". The Bible never states they had faith. Demons cant be saved, their judgement is already passed. "Saving" faith only involves mankind, not any other creation. The demons "know" they are doomed, hence their trembling. So while demons, do "believe" they are in trouble, the Bible never states that they have faith or can be saved.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed { are } they that have not seen, and { yet } have believed.

Demons saw God and Jesus.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Demons cant be saved.

I Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

We judge demons.

"Some people have a minimal faith but still are not saved, as con suggests any amount of faith is sufficient.... "not all who say to me Lord Lord" (will be saved) "have we not prophesied in your name...." etc etc"

Where does it state that any of these examples had "faith"? They gave examples of their "works". Yet, it was obviously the wrong work. They did not do the one work required, which was to DO the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father, what work is this? Quick answer, have "faith". Lets see if scripture agrees

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

con has not really rebutted that the two examples i gave didn't have faith. the sure seemed to me to have faith.

what about each one of these indivindually that i listed earlier?
"that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc."

so if someone believes that Jesus was incarnated, and that's it, that persoh has faith and will be saved? if someone believes they are saved with faith and that's it is that enough? they have faith that they are a sinner and that's it?

the verse that con gave at the end is starting to show what kind of faith saves... believing in him who God sent. but what about all hte other things listed above? what combnatios of those are sufficient? "believe in" itself is pretty vague, shouldn't it be more like 'trust in' or 'rely on'? and once we get this hashed out for what it should be, what is the minimum for someone who doesn't match it to a T?

con is looking for a quick and easy answer but all probing of his answer doesn't do justice to what it really means to be saved.
con hasn't really given an adequate answer
lefillegal1

Con

"con has not really rebutted that the two examples i gave didn't have faith. they sure seemed to me to have faith."

"Seemed to have" is not the same as "to have". By your own admission, YOU are not clear what "faith" is, why should we trust your judgement? What was Jesus' judgment? Lets examine closer. If "faith" is all that is required, then your two examples should be saved. They werent. Now we must decide why they werent saved. Logically one must say they either 1. They had no faith or 2 not enough faith. Pro has chosen option 2 but has yet to prove they had any faith. They only "seemed" to have faith. I contend they had no faith because they werent saved. Pro offers no proof they did. He offers up the same evidence his examples used. He seems not to understand that these are evidence of "works" not "faith". Scripture tells us even the anti-Christ can perform miracles. So it would "seem" like he has faith but we know he doesn't. Scripture records Saul being present at Stephans stoning. It may have seemed like Paul had no faith, but we know he did. Which brings another point. Saul had no faith in Jesus Christ, until they met. From that point forward, Paul was very clear about believing in Jesus Christ and his resurrection. He understood what the resurrection meant.

"what about each one of these indivindually that i listed earlier?"

Ok lets address each one.

"that he is your savior, that you are a sinner,"

I'll tackle these two together. To "believe" he is your saviour, is also to "know" you need to be saved/are a sinner. If you "believe" jesus is your saviour, you will be saved. You have no evidence Jesus can save you, yet you "believe" he will. Thats "faith" in Jesus. If you only "know" you are a sinner, but dont believe Jesus is your savior, then he wont save you. You have no "faith" in him to do so anyway.

"that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God,"

What is the purpose of these descriptions? They all point to the highest of authorities. The real question thus becomes, Does Jesus have the authority he claims? Does he really have the authority to save us? These descriptions lend to his authority. Now you can see the point is, do you "believe/have faith" in his authority? If yes you will be saved. If no, then you wont be saved, you dont "believe/have faith" in his authority.

"that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved),"

All Christians SHOULD say this IF they believe Jesus and his authority. Please understand that isnt the same as saying " everyone who believes they are saved are, in fact, saved." The difference is those who believe Christ can "know" theyre saved because they believe/have faith in his authority. The others can only "claim" to be saved, yet are uncertain, because they dont know who holds the authority to save them. If you dont believe Jesus has the authority, and power to save you then your not going to believe you are saved, If, on the other hand, you believe you are saved, outside of Jesus, you are in actuality, not saved.

"substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc."

Concerning "faith", these two views are alike. BOTH teach have faith in Christ. So I dont understand your point.
"so if someone believes that Jesus was incarnated, and that's it, that persoh has faith and will be saved?"

There is no "and thats it". Does that someone ALSO know why Jesus was incarnated? If they understand the significance of Jesus incarnation, then they are indeed saved. As pointed out earlier, demons know, but arent saved. But they werent meant to be. Man was meant to be saved. What does Jesus incarnation represent? What was "its" purpose? Scripture says, Emmanuel, God with us, shall save us. If we have faith that Jesus is indeed, God with us, then we should, by default, have faith that he is also our saviour. One would have no reason to care that Jesus is God without its associated meaning. Nor would they have reason to acknowledge so. Why acknowledge Jesus is God if you dont believe he can save you? The demons acknowledged him because they believed the time of their torment had now arrived. Again I ask, what reason would man have, to acknowledge his incarnation?

"if someone believes they are saved with faith and that's it is that enough? they have faith that they are a sinner and that's it?"

Adressed in earlier argument.

"the verse that con gave at the end is starting to show what kind of faith saves... believing in him who God sent. but what about all hte other things listed above? what combnatios of those are sufficient?"

I believe the answer can be determined from above arguments.

"believe in" itself is pretty vague, shouldn't it be more like 'trust in' or 'rely on'? and once we get this hashed out for what it should be, what is the minimum for someone who doesn't match it to a T?"

You, yourself dont appear to be confused. Easily substituting "believe in" with "trust in" and "rely on". Thats really nothing to hash out. Also, it IS how it SHOULD be, even if it doesnt fit your preference. As far as a minimum, my premise still stands as you cant disprove it
X: Salvation requires faith(no thresh)
Y: Pro's examples "claim" to have faith
Z: Pro's example was not saved
Therefore it can be said pro's examples had no faith.

"con is looking for a quick and easy answer but all probing of his answer doesn't do justice to what it really means to be saved."
The resolution is how much faith, not what it really means to be saved, vote con.

"con hasn't really given an adequate answer"

To which question are you referring, threshold of faith, or what it really means to be saved?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
linatelefillegal1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con destroyed Pro points. Con cited the Bible.