Regarding Christ's Deity

[Homer]

Seems to me we must be careful not to lay burdens upon people that our Lord and apostles never thought of. The question is not what might be good to believe, or better to believe, or best to believe, but what must be believed in order to be saved - that which if not believed will prevent a person from being saved at all.

Consider Jesus' words:

Mark 16:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)

15. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus says that the person who does not believe can not be saved. He who believes will be saved. But what must be believed? That which is preached: the gospel.

And John gives further information:

John 20:30-31
New King James Version (NKJV)

30. And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31. but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

And here John informs us that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. The same idea Peter expressed in his confession, which was approved by Jesus. Jesus did not say that Peter must explain the nature of the trinity.

And Paul informs us further:

Romans 10:8-10
New King James Version (NKJV)

8. But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9. that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

That God raised Jesus from the dead serves to confirm that Jesus was who He claimed to be; God would not raise an imposter from the dead. And Peter, consistent with Paul, declared on the day of Pentecost that Jesus had been raised by God from the dead and that He was the Lord and Messiah.

We find no evidence in the conversion narratives in Acts and statements of the Apostles that anything more than a simple faith was required. If this is not so, then the gospel does not provide salvation for all people, for are not able to grasp the deeper things that theologians argue over.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I agree, Homer, that we must not put burdens on people that are more than necessary. But it seems to me, after learning about the title "Son of Man" that Jesus was declaring His divinity all along. He even expects Phillip to know that He was the representation of God in human form. After reading John 8, it seems that Jesus is making the distinction of His deity as essential to be saved in 8:24 and 8:58.


Also, in addition to what you wrote, the Apostle John told us in his first epistle that believing Jesus came in the flesh is also a requirement for salvation (1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7).

Further, it seems that acknowledging that one is a sinner and confessing that state to God is also a requirement to be justified (1 John 1:8-9; Luke 18:14).

Believing these facts also have to flow into our lifestyle since no one can be saved without submitting to Jesus as Lord.

[RICHinCHRIST]

And here John informs us that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. The same idea Peter expressed in his confession, which was approved by Jesus. Jesus did not say that Peter must explain the nature of the trinity.

I agree that Jesus didn't say he had to explain the trinity. However, it seems that the disciples never fully understood why Jesus always spoke of Himself as the "Son of Man". They always call him the Son of God or the Christ (and they expected after His resurrection that He would fulfill a nationalistic zealot role). If you read that article I posted, the author describes the differences between these two terms. The former (Son of God/Messiah) was spoken of by the Jews of the day in regard to a nationalistic zealot Messiah. Jesus always forbade people from using that term for Him, and He often used "Son of Man" instead. The 1st century Jewish understanding of "Son of Man" was in reference to a deified pre-existent heavenly being. It seems that Jesus always meant for people to understand Him as God in the flesh.

Now this does not mean that one must necessarily understand the Trinity. I guess there is freedom to not see the Spirit as God yet still be saved, for I don't see any passage that makes that necessary. It just seems to me that reading John 8 might classify this as an essential issue.