More Questions about Salvation

By Merle Hertzler

Scott,

Continuing our conversation, you had suggested that I had never met the requirements to be born again. Now I was once sure that I was born again, but now I see things differently. In fact, I do not even know what is required to be born again, for I read many contradictory claims. I have been trying to learn what you think is required for salvation. In your previous reply, I had understood that you were saying the requirement is that one must surrender to God. You now inform me that I misunderstood. You write:

I had to be *willing* to surrender to all of his claims on my life... Two issues here, "willing" and "his claims"...There is a *big* difference between surrendering and being willing to surrender.

And somehow you make a big distinction between being willing to surrender and surrendering. What in the heck is the difference? Would not all that are truly willing to surrender actually surrender? But, somehow your words imply that the actual surrender is not necessary for salvation. You now seem to be saying that, somehow, all a person must do is will to surrender without ever making any commitment.  This is very different from what you wrote in your previous reply. Let me remind you of what you had written before:

I was born again when I "unconditionally surrendered" to Him...Ultimately all justification or righteousness is dependent upon willing obedience in a particular context...True saving faith is nothing more or less than unconditional surrender to God on his terms. [emphasis added]

Can you see why your writings leave me so confused? Repeatedly you had insisted one needs to unconditionally surrender for salvation. Now you insist that this is not true, but that one only needs to be willing to surrender. So which way is it?

Let's look at your latest specification of the requirement to be born again, that is, that one must be willing to unconditionally surrender but need not necessarily surrender. Now please show me chapter and verse where this is ever taught in the Bible. You are the one who made the distinction. Please shows us what you base this distinction on.

How long does one need to maintain this willingness-to-unconditionally-surrender? For when one later sins, she is not at that moment willing to surrender all, is she?  Now you say that one does not lose salvation if she sins. So if the next day or the next hour or the next second after salvation a person that had been willing to unconditionally surrender loses that willingness, she does not lose salvation in your view, does she? You seem to be saying that, as long as she had that state of willingness for a moment, nothing else will ever affect her state of salvation.

I find it strange that God would value a moment of willingness-to-unconditionally surrender above a lifetime of commitment to a relationship with him. In a flash of emotion in a religious service, one might find himself in the state you mention, but he might find himself unchanged after he thinks about the decision. Yet somehow your words value that flash-in-the-pan religious experience over a lifetime of commitment to a close walk with God. Can you understand why some would think your God has odd values?

As a parent, I would want my children to live in a daily commitment to a close relationship to me, learning to act responsibly as needed to maintain that relationship. I value this far more than a flash in the night willingness to completely surrender to my claims that lasts for a split-second. Somehow, we learn that your God prefers the flash-in-the-night experience. What an unusual God you serve.

You continue:

I didn't surrender every claim to my life, but I was *willing* to surrender to every claim He has on my life. And, I can tell you as faithfully and as fully as one man can say to another man, Yes absolutely Yes. There was a point in my life when I knew that there was nothing, nothing I wasn't *willing* to surrender to know the truth. At that exact moment, about 2AM, August 31, 1980, I had spiritual life imparted to me and I was born again. There is absolutely no chance, zero, that I didn't mean it because I knew as much as I have ever known anything how desperately I wanted to know the truth about whether he was real of not and I could not have cared less what it cost me.

How can you be absolutely certain that you were willing to surrender to him if you didn't surrender? May I ask why you didn't surrender? Isn't it because you didn't completely want to? Although a big part of you may have wanted to commit, there must have been something inside that didn't want to commit fully. And though your conscious mind wanted to surrender, you tell us you did not do it. So is it possible that part of you did not want to commit? And if part of you resisted, how can you say you were fully willing? Would it not be more accurate to say, you were "very willing"?  Is that the requirement to be born again? Does one need only to be very willing to surrender for a split second?

I find it troubling that you have not yet told us clearly exactly what is required to be born again.

Searching the scriptures, to see if these things are so.

You have also praised the Bereans, who are said to have searched the scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) to see if what Paul said was true. I too think we should search the scriptures to see if what Paul said about the Old Testament is true. And I find that Paul was deceptive in his use of the scriptures.

I have been using as my example Paul's quote of Habakkuk: "The just shall live by faith." I have explained to you twice why I think Habakkuk was not saying that the just are righteous as a result of faith, but rather, was saying, "The just [among us Jews in captivity] should live faithfully [to the Jewish tradition (law)]". You have completely ignored my analysis. Very well. If you continue to ignore my analysis, I will declare victory on this verse and move to the next example

You write:

The Jew obtains righteousness or "justification" by faith in the covenant relationship established with the Jews *at that time*.

Excuse me, but where does the Old Testament ever teach justification by faith? The Old Testament is all about righteousness by following the Jewish law. You tell me you have read all of the Old Testament, so you must surely know that.

Paul goes on to use the exact same principle of justification by faith -- with faith being defined in both cases as believing God relative to the context at hand.

Huh? You have completely ignored my analysis, which says that Habakkuk means something completely different. Once more: Habakkuk is not telling how to be justified. He is talking about how those that are already just should live. Would you go back and read why I think this is Habakkuk's meaning? Why do you completely ignore my analysis, and simply assert that it means what you say it means?

Paul in Romans uses Abraham as an example of a man believing God, before the Law and that was accounted to him as righteousness. The Jews also obtain righteousness by believing God,

Although it is said that Abraham believed the Lord (Hebrew Yahweh) and was accounted righteous, nowhere does the OT say that this righteousness is available to all. (And most likely Genesis was not even teaching Abraham was righteous as a result of faith, but rather, this verse was probably written by Yahweh-worshippers to teach that Yahweh worship is best.) The Old Testament says that righteousness comes from obeying the law. Paul disagreed with Moses.

Matthew 19:16-21

We have also looked at Matthew 19:16-21, which says, "Someone came to Him [Jesus] and said, 'Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?' Note that the man is not asking one of the ways to get to heaven. He is asking what he must do, And Jesus said, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Now do you or do you not agree with Jesus that one must keep the commandments to have eternal life?

You write:

So is Jesus teaching here that the way to eternal life is by obeying the commandments? At one level yes, that is one way to eternal life -- it always has been and always will be.

Excuse me, but where did you get that from? Where did Jesus say anything about "at one level" salvation requires the commandments? He was asked what was required, and he answered that keeping the commandments is required, period. There is nothing there about this being required on one level only.

And it appears to me that your words disagree with Jesus. For your words say keeping the commandments are not required.

So I find the Bible is contradictory regarding salvation. You haven't even presented a clear and consistent statement of the requirements for salvation here yet. And you seem to be relying on Paul, even though he was deceptive in his use of scripture. And you have not adequately addressed the difference of salvation as taught by Jesus and Paul. So you have a long way to go if you want to convince us that the Bible presents a consistent plan of salvation, and that you, but not I, have met that requirement..

Regards,

Merle