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

"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?