Deity of Jesus for salvation?

[Guest]

When asked to defend Jesus’ deity I feel fairly confident in turning to the passages I know to usually give a good defense but where would I turn to prove to someone that they can not be saved if they don’t believe that Jesus is God? So in other words if someone believes in all the tenets of Christianity even salvation through faith in Jesus but that he isn’t God where would I show that person that they can’t go to heaven if that's what they believe?

Erich <><

[Guest]

I think you should ask such a person why they DON'T feel Jesus is God. Usually it'll be because they misunderstand what the doctrine of the trinity is saying.

It really comes down to how you understand the terms. But I don't think we need to demand anything further than what Scripture says:

I think I've seen Steve answer a similar question this way:

We must believe...
1. Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
2. Jesus is who He claimed to be (John 8:24)
3. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (1 John 5:1)
4. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (John 20:31)
5. Jesus claimed to be the Lord (Romans 10:9)
6. Jesus rose from the dead (Romans 10:9)

[Guest]

Dear Erich,

My thoughts on this are very close to Matt's (above). I certainly believe in the Trinity, and am fully convinced that Jesus is God in the flesh, and I think everyone should believe this. It seems impossible to take everything in the Bible seriously without reaching this conclusion.

However, from very early times, there have been Christians who took the Bible seriously, and yet did not see the Trinity and the deity of Christ taught clearly enough to become convinced. These people, I think, were quite mistaken, but I know of no scripture that says that they cannot be saved.

I began in the ministry with the settled conviction that the doctrine of the deity of Christ was the one doctrine, more than any other, which one must believe in order to be saved. Then I began to meet truly humble, committed believers—whose salvation on other grounds I had no reason to doubt—who could not see the doctrine clearly in scripture, as I could. I realized that I was in a position to think of these people as lost souls on the basis of this misunderstanding alone. Was I able to make this judgment?

The one verse that seemed to say to me that belief in Christ's deity is necessary for salvation was John 8:24—"For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

In that verse, the word "He" is in italics, because there is no corresponding word in the Greek. The phrase "I am He" in the verse is translated from two words: "ego eimi"—which can be translated literally as "I am."

Since this sounds like the divine name of Exodus 3:14, I assumed that Jesus was saying, "If you do not believe that I am Yahweh, you will die in your sins."

However, "ego eimi" can also mean (by implication) "I am he." The "he" is sometimes implied in the phrase, as in John 9:9, when the blind man whom Jesus healed said to his neighbors, who were wondering whether he was the same man whom they had previously seen blind, "I am he" (Gr. ego eimi). Clearly, "he" is implied in this particular occurrance of "ego eimi," and it is no reference to the divine name.

This raises the possibility that "ego eimi" may also mean "I am He," in John 8:24, as it has traditionally been translated. If so, Jesus might not be saying that recognition of His deity is mandatory for the forgiveness of sins. "I am He," could mean, "I am the Messiah."

Since even the disciples, at that point, probably did not yet grasp that the Messiah was actually God incarnate, it was probably not necessary to understand the deity of Christ in order to acknowledge Him as Messiah. In other words, Christ's statement may not be saying all that I once read into it.

I think that those who do not recognize that Jesus is God are in grave error. But given the fact that all true disciples are in varying degrees of ignorance, it is not obvious how much ignorance God may overlook in someone who is honestly seeking Him in His Word, and who is committed to following Christ and trusting in Him for their salvation.

Uncertainty as to how much ignorance God may overlook does not translate into apathy on our part concerning error. It should be our desire to know the truth as well as we can know it, and to help others along, as best we can, to the purest apprehension of true doctrine.

It simply may not be in our power to say with certainty which seeker after Christ has already found Him adequately for salvation, and which has not. This uncertainty should lead us, all the more, to urge others onward toward truth, when we perceive that they lack in correct understanding. God will ultimately be the one to recognize as His own those whose hearts are perfect toward Him.

[Guest]

Steve,

I think I agree with everything you wrote, but would you apply this to JW's as well? This issue seems to be one of the only differences between them and traditional Christians. Of course, they're a cult in the sense that believe they are the only saved ones and you must be in their beliefs and in their church to be true believers. But what else, if anything, do you see about them that might disqualify them from salvation?

Just curious.

[Guest]

Hi Chris,

Of course, the JWs don't have to worry about whether I think they are saved or not, but whether or not the Lord recognizes them as sincere disciples of His. He has not made me His official spokesman about the secret counsels of His mind, which may be where the answer to this question lies.

The Watchtower Society, in my opinion, is a very corrupt and deliberately deceitful organization. All evil systems (among which I would include all false religions, including many which profess to be Christian) must eventually come under God's judgment. However, I see no reason to assume that every person who has been deceived into associating with those organizations must necessarily be equally under God's disapproval.

Although the Watchtower Society tends to standardize the thinking of their members, so as to dissolve all individuality into an impersonal, sub-human and homogenous "group-think" (something all cults attempt to do), yet we must remember that JWs are individual people, and must be considered as individuals. It is easier for us to put a label on a group and then to conclude that we've got them all "pegged." However, God calls us to love real people, which requires that we give each one individual consideration in our thinking about them.

I could be wrong, so take what I am about to say with a grain of salt, but I think God has compassion on those who sincerely seek for Him and who love the truth. Most people, including many religious ones, no doubt, are not seeking God sincerely, and do not love the truth as much as they value the security they experience from being accepted by a group of people in an organization.

I suspect that most of the JWs I have met fall into this category—as do many people from more-orthodox denominations. My reason for saying this is that, when they are shown scriptures that contradict their views, rather than rejoicing in the new light and correction offered to them, they instead seem uncomfortable and resort to desperate and irrational arguments to salvage their limping doctrinal position.

True love of the truth is apparently very uncommon—even among religious people. However, I have met some individuals among the JWs, who seem to have a refreshing interest in knowing whether their views are truly scriptural or not.

I am inclined to judge them as charitably as the evidence visible to me will permit, and to think that they may not be "non-Christian" so much as "pre-Christian." That is, they are being brought along by God, who sees the honesty of their heart, and are on the road to discovery, and will eventually embrace a purer Christian theology, as it becomes more apparent to them that such is consistent with scripture.

I see them as (probably) children of God (like the disciples before they understood the deity of Christ), who are being led by Him into all truth, because they love the truth, though they are several steps behind some of us on their journey of discovery. But then, there are people several steps ahead of us on the same path, and I hope they may extend charity in their judgment of me as well, as I thrash my way through the thickets of tradition and religious disinformation and disabuse myself of the baggage that I have carried as a result of prior indoctrination. God well knows that we all "know in part"—and He is somewhat responsible for the progressive opening of our eyes, so long as we are desiring to see. We can only do so much to advance our own enlightenment—the rest is up to Him.

When we decide that acquiring new insights will become more costly to us than the price we are willing to pay for the truth, I think we cease to be lovers of truth, and this is the point at which God becomes disappointed and displeased with us. The wrath of God is reserved for those "who suppress the truth" and who do not "receive the love of the truth" (Rom.1:18/ 2 Thess.2:10)—not those who really desire the truth with all their hearts, but have not yet been fortunate enough to have had it revealed to them.

I think the JWs are like anyone else, in this respect. Most of them (like most people) seem to want something more than they want the truth. This is tragic and will result in great loss to them. However, insofar as any individual among them desires to know the truth and to please God, and simply has never been shown what the Bible teaches, I think God judges them more charitably—and may not be displeased with them at all. He knows the road they are traveling, and where they will end up, if they remain upon it.

These are my thoughts. They are not inspired or infallible.

[Guest]

Steve, I wrote something very similar to what you just said last night on my blog, but in regards to Muslims. Thought I'd share it here as well.

Am I the only evangelical who thinks there may be some muslims who will inherit eternal Life? There are millions upon millions of muslims that are, simply put, muslim by birth. They've never known anything else. Some of them are, I'd imagine, truly seeking the true God. They might not call Him what we call Him, but they are truly seeking Him. They might be skeptical of some of the lies attached to God by muslim teachers, but they haven't heard otherwise.

These men & woman recognize from creation that there is a God (Romans 1:20). Perhaps they even respond positively when God speaks through their conscience (Romans 2:15). They simply haven't received the light of Christ (or else they've been told false information about Him).

I don't think such people are saved by some Way other than Christ. I just think Christ's grace reaches out to them in the same way I believe it reaches out to children and the mentally handicapped.

I tend to think there is a remnant of true Truth seekers in every culture.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve,

Your answer may not be inspired or infallible, but I think it is very wise and completely in-line with God's loving character (at least as I see it revealed in scripture).

I've often wondered about this because I have to believe that at least some people who are in cults are very sincere about their search for the truth and love for Jesus at least as far as the information they are currently working from.

I know many people would disagree with you, because they would say that JW's are worshipping a Jesus that doesn't exist and therefore can't save them. But I think some of that reasoning may be out of our human tendency to set up legalistic boundaries for God's mercy and loving-kindness.

Thanks again, and God bless.

[Guest]

Steve,

Thanks for you replies into my question. You had mentioned John 8:24 as a possible verse that would point to someone needing to belief that Jesus was in fact God in order to have their sins forgiven but you then pointed out another place in scripture (John 9:9) that uses the same Greek words "ego eimi" which clearly wasn’t meant to be used in reference to the divine name. This would then seem to imply or at least give room for the fact that Jesus might not have been claiming to be deity in John 8:24. I was curious though, could John 8:24 still be used to defend this point when regarding the full context of this passage? Because in John 8:58 Jesus uses the same words “ego eimi” in what seems to be (even to the Jews there who tried to stone him) a clear claim to deity.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Whether ego eimi has the same meaning in John 8:24 as it has in 8:58 is hard to determine. The sentence structures of the two statements are different, so that the phrase functions differently in the different cases. Of course, they could both be references to the divine Name, but that is something that wouold be impossible to know for sure, I think. It is clear that the expression is a claim of deity in 8:58.

[Guest]

There is a confusion in the assertion "Jesus is God".

Notice when some people read John 1:1, they read "The Word was with God and the Word was God. Their emphasis on the word "was" indicates that they think that the Word is the same divine Individual as God the Father. That position was known as "Sabellianism" in early Christianity. It is also called "modalism", for its proponents believed in one Divine Individual who manifests Himself in three "modes". Today, this position is often referred to as "Oneness".

The Greek construction of the phrase "The Word was God" does not indicate that the Word was one and the same Individual as God the Father. If that was John's intention, he would have used the definite article "ho" before "theos". But neither is it "The Word was a God", as the New World Translation of the JWs have it. The order of the words does not allow that translation. The order is "God was the Word". Other instances in which the order is reversed is "God is love" and "Your word is truth". Does this reverse order indicate that the essence of God is love? That the essence of His word is truth? And in John 1:1, the essence of the Word was Deity?

Martin Luther, a great Greek scholar, put it succinctly: "The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism." If he had written today, Luther might have said: "The lack of an article is against the teaching of the Apostolic Church and the United Pentecostal Church; the word order is against the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Jesus, in his prayer, makes it clear that He regarded the Father as the only true God, and that He Himself was other than the only true God:

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Early Christians believed that the Father generated (or "begat", if you prefer) a Son at the beginning of time (not created) ---the first of His acts. Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho" compared this begetting to that of lighting a small fire from a large one. Lighting the second fire in no way diminishes the large one, yet it is the same "substance".

Later when trinitarianism prevailed in the fourth century, the begetting of the Son was declared to be "an eternal begetting" rather than an act in the beginning. The idea was that the Son is continuously being begotten from the Father and always will be begotten. Since this didn't make much sense, the church pretty well forgot about the begetting of the Son altogether. Until I had read Justin Martyr, I had never heard of the begetting of the Son expressed in this way. Until then, I thought the Scriptural reference to Jesus being "the only begotten Son" referrerd to His begetting in the womb of Mary. But it is clear that in the theological disputes of the fourth century that no one had that in mind when they were debating the matter.

In his discussion with Trypho and other Jews, Justin spent most of his time showing from Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was Deity in virtue of the fact that He was begotten from the Father. Justin pointed out that there were two different Individuals called "Yahweh" in Gen 19:24 ----- Yahweh in heaven, and Yahweh who remained behind with Abraham when the two angels went to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Both Justin and Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho, of the Jewish religion, did not regard the Holy Spirit as a separate divine Individual. For Jews believe that Yahweh is ONE Individual. It is interesting to note that Justin asked at one point, "Do you suppose there could be a THIRD person who is properly called God?" (I am quoting from memory, and so the quote might not be exact) and Trypho replied, "Well hardly. Since you've spent all this time and effort in trying to convince us that there are even TWO".

Although I don't fully understand Justin's reponse to this, it is clear that he was not suggesting that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual. Jesus stated that His Father and He would make their dwelling with His disciples:

John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.

The Father exists in some special way in heaven, and the Son seated at His right hand. Unlike us, They can extend their personalities
anywhere in the Universe, and especially in the hearts of the faithful. So if the Father and the Son are dwelling within us, is not that the Holy Spirit?

Here is a passage that tells us that "the Lord IS the Spirit" It appears that "the Lord" refers to Jesus, although it might refer to the Father:

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 ... when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

As I understand it, the Father is Deity, and His Son is Deity. They both share the divine name "Yahweh" (the One who was and is and shall be), and they both share the same Spirit. Humanity begets humanity. Deity begets Deity. The Father and the Son are the only Individuals in the Universe who can properly be called "God".

You have have realized by now that I am not a Trinitarian. Trinitarianism was a later development in the church, is not taught in the Scriptures even implicitly, and was not believed by the Christians of the second century ---- with the exception of Tertullian, 145-220,
(if his works were not interpolated by later writers). Or his ideas may have come from Montanism which he had espoused.

Yes, we can speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because we refer to three entities, this does not imply that we speak of three divine Individuals (or "Persons" if you prefer). Once I constructed a cross using a shorter and a longer piece of wood. I could hold up the pieces of wood and say that there were TWO pieces. Yet I could refer to THREE ---- the longer piece, the shorter piece, and the WOOD.