The "Trinity" thread is nearing 600 replies with no sign of minds being changed. It seems to me the issue is not what is best to be believed, or better to be believed, but what must be believed in order to be saved at all. Surely there is more to being a Christian than trying to be obedient, for Jesus said "whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved". I realize His statement is in the context of the preaching of the gospel, the message of good news. But what must be believed? We have no biblical record of the doctrine of the Trinity being preached, but we do have in history a series of creeds imposed on people and anathemas and excommunication being pronounced on those who do not confess the creed.
So what do you believe are the minimal facts to be believed in order to be saved? It seems to me Christianity is based on facts. Are there abstract ideas that must be believed? What say ye?
What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
-
Singalphile
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
I like this topic. (I've been waiting for Steve's lectures on the "essentials"!)
As I see it, an "essential belief" is a statement of fact that a person must affirm in order to be considered a Christian, no ifs, ands, buts, maybes, or "God only knows"s. Such a statement should be able to be expressed by only quoting Scripture. I have been planning to go through the NT and write out every passage that explicitly states such a belief. Unfortunately, I've been slow and I've only gotten through Mark (in which I found none).
Of course, our generally accepted Scriptures don't say that a person must affirm that "the Bible is true" in order to be saved, and there is also the issue of translation. But a) we have to start somewhere, b) I don't think that total understanding is necessary, and c) this is partly why I don't think that affirmations of facts (aka, "doctrines" in the modern sense) are very important in God's eyes on the whole.
Anyway, I'll start with an obvious one (I think):
As I see it, an "essential belief" is a statement of fact that a person must affirm in order to be considered a Christian, no ifs, ands, buts, maybes, or "God only knows"s. Such a statement should be able to be expressed by only quoting Scripture. I have been planning to go through the NT and write out every passage that explicitly states such a belief. Unfortunately, I've been slow and I've only gotten through Mark (in which I found none).
Of course, our generally accepted Scriptures don't say that a person must affirm that "the Bible is true" in order to be saved, and there is also the issue of translation. But a) we have to start somewhere, b) I don't think that total understanding is necessary, and c) this is partly why I don't think that affirmations of facts (aka, "doctrines" in the modern sense) are very important in God's eyes on the whole.
Anyway, I'll start with an obvious one (I think):
- Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." (ESV)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Hi Singalphile,
I apologize that I have not posted that lecture (nor some other recent lectures) yet. My problem is that I have given more than one lecture, to different audiences, on that subject in the past year—as is also true of the "Strategies for Unity" lectures. Obviously, when I give the same lecture twice, both instances cover much of the same ground (too much common ground to justify posting both versions). At the same time, due to the somewhat extemporaneous style of my lecturing, I never give the lecture exactly the same way twice—meaning that each version contains certain unique elements not included in the other. The result is, I might think one version of the lecture to be "better" than the other. Since I want to post only one, I want it to be the better version.
Where my problem comes in is that, in desiring to post the better version of the lecture, but need to actually listen to both in order to decide which one that would be. Finding time to listen objectively to my own lectures and to decide which is better is challenging. First, I have to let enough time elapse from the date of its delivery so as to come to it "fresh"—as much as possible as if I had not already heard it (at my age, I am actually forgetful enough to do that! I can hear the same joke twice in a month and already have forgotten the punch-line!). I need to do this with the "Essentials" lectures, and also with the "Strategies" lectures, before I can feel good about posting them. This is why it has been so long delayed.
As for the "Essentials" lectures, they do not differ much, "in essence" from the answer I gave to this question, ten years ago, at the original forum. You can find that discussion here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... essentials The lectures do include some additional points, though much of the added material is little more than my typical rambling on pet peeves, with which regular listeners will already be familiar.
I apologize that I have not posted that lecture (nor some other recent lectures) yet. My problem is that I have given more than one lecture, to different audiences, on that subject in the past year—as is also true of the "Strategies for Unity" lectures. Obviously, when I give the same lecture twice, both instances cover much of the same ground (too much common ground to justify posting both versions). At the same time, due to the somewhat extemporaneous style of my lecturing, I never give the lecture exactly the same way twice—meaning that each version contains certain unique elements not included in the other. The result is, I might think one version of the lecture to be "better" than the other. Since I want to post only one, I want it to be the better version.
Where my problem comes in is that, in desiring to post the better version of the lecture, but need to actually listen to both in order to decide which one that would be. Finding time to listen objectively to my own lectures and to decide which is better is challenging. First, I have to let enough time elapse from the date of its delivery so as to come to it "fresh"—as much as possible as if I had not already heard it (at my age, I am actually forgetful enough to do that! I can hear the same joke twice in a month and already have forgotten the punch-line!). I need to do this with the "Essentials" lectures, and also with the "Strategies" lectures, before I can feel good about posting them. This is why it has been so long delayed.
As for the "Essentials" lectures, they do not differ much, "in essence" from the answer I gave to this question, ten years ago, at the original forum. You can find that discussion here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... essentials The lectures do include some additional points, though much of the added material is little more than my typical rambling on pet peeves, with which regular listeners will already be familiar.
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Steve,
That was a very good answer you gave 10 years ago.
In the old post you wrote:
It seems to me the creeds have been wholly unnecessary and harmful, not because of what they say in particular, but because of the use made of them, which seems to largely to be to exclude and divide.
That was a very good answer you gave 10 years ago.
So how did you remember you posted it?(at my age, I am actually forgetful enough to do that! I can hear the same joke twice in a month and already have forgotten the punch-line!).
In the old post you wrote:
Wouldn't the first disciples have been required to believe things newly revealed to them after they cast their lot with Jesus? Thomas comes to mind regarding the resurrection; he would not believe the testimony regarding the resurrection until Jesus appeared to Him. Likewise, it would seem that a person could cast their lot with Christ today while ignorant of something important, and then balk when informed of it. In saying this I do not have in mind any "fact" supposedly discovered after the scriptures were written.It seems likely to me that the first disciples were justified by faith before they ever heard or understood the doctrine of justification by faith. That is, as soon as they cast their lot in with Christ, I believe, their faith was accounted to them for righteousness—whether they understood this to be true or not. They also were assured that their names were written in heaven long before they understood the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement—or even before they realized Christ would die and rise again (Luke 10:20)!
It seems to me the creeds have been wholly unnecessary and harmful, not because of what they say in particular, but because of the use made of them, which seems to largely to be to exclude and divide.
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Well, I'll give my opinion for what it's worth.
Ultimately our salvation or reconcilliation with God works because God says it does. The question is, on what basis does He so say? When the Israelites were bitten by the poisonous snakes in the wilderness, God arranged for a way they could be "saved" from death, "Moses at once made a serpent of copper and placed it upon the signal pole; and it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive." (Numbers 21:9)
I can imagine a skeptical Israelite that got bitten by a serpent, and then being told to look at a snake on a pole....I wonder what he thought? Either way, was there something magical about copper? Something about wood and copper together? Or how about the snake; was that somehow an agent of healing? Maybe there was something in the "hypostatic union" of all three elements?
Obviously not. This arrangement worked because God decreed that it would, and it took an act of "faith" if you will for the Israelite to look at the copper serpent for healing. (Interestingly, the Israelites later turned that serpent into an idol.) (2 Kings 18:4)
Jesus said "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life." (John 3:14-15)
"And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me." This he was really saying to signify what sort of death he was about to die." (John 12:32-33)
It seems in considering these things, that faith in the fact that Jesus is God's provision for salvation is what would be necessary to be a disciple of Christ. Whether or not God chooses to impute this merit to others inspite of their ignorance, I will leave to Him. But, I for one find it interesting that as many interpretations that there are on how the Atonement works, each one appeals to men of a certain sort. Is it possible that this arrangement is God's Master Stroke, as it were? For how else could Jesus draw men of "all sorts" if the only way to look at the Ransom of Jesus were a strict legal interpretation, such as Substitutionary Atonement? By the same token, how could one with a keen legal mind ever find the Moral Influence theory to be appealing? It appears that Jesus' broad appeal is something that works in God's favor to the drawing of men of all sorts. I think He works with people where He finds them. If they don't have it all worked out on "this side of the veil", I doubt He is all that concerned.
Regards, Brenden.
Ultimately our salvation or reconcilliation with God works because God says it does. The question is, on what basis does He so say? When the Israelites were bitten by the poisonous snakes in the wilderness, God arranged for a way they could be "saved" from death, "Moses at once made a serpent of copper and placed it upon the signal pole; and it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive." (Numbers 21:9)
I can imagine a skeptical Israelite that got bitten by a serpent, and then being told to look at a snake on a pole....I wonder what he thought? Either way, was there something magical about copper? Something about wood and copper together? Or how about the snake; was that somehow an agent of healing? Maybe there was something in the "hypostatic union" of all three elements?
Obviously not. This arrangement worked because God decreed that it would, and it took an act of "faith" if you will for the Israelite to look at the copper serpent for healing. (Interestingly, the Israelites later turned that serpent into an idol.) (2 Kings 18:4)Jesus said "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life." (John 3:14-15)
"And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me." This he was really saying to signify what sort of death he was about to die." (John 12:32-33)
It seems in considering these things, that faith in the fact that Jesus is God's provision for salvation is what would be necessary to be a disciple of Christ. Whether or not God chooses to impute this merit to others inspite of their ignorance, I will leave to Him. But, I for one find it interesting that as many interpretations that there are on how the Atonement works, each one appeals to men of a certain sort. Is it possible that this arrangement is God's Master Stroke, as it were? For how else could Jesus draw men of "all sorts" if the only way to look at the Ransom of Jesus were a strict legal interpretation, such as Substitutionary Atonement? By the same token, how could one with a keen legal mind ever find the Moral Influence theory to be appealing? It appears that Jesus' broad appeal is something that works in God's favor to the drawing of men of all sorts. I think He works with people where He finds them. If they don't have it all worked out on "this side of the veil", I doubt He is all that concerned.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
So how did you remember you posted it?
Those who believe in Christ will believe whatever He has said, to the extent that they recognize that it is He that said it, and they understand its meaning. Those who know that Jesus taught a certain thing, and disbelieve Him, are not His followers.Wouldn't the first disciples have been required to believe things newly revealed to them after they cast their lot with Jesus? Thomas comes to mind regarding the resurrection; he would not believe the testimony regarding the resurrection until Jesus appeared to Him. Likewise, it would seem that a person could cast their lot with Christ today while ignorant of something important, and then balk when informed of it. In saying this I do not have in mind any "fact" supposedly discovered after the scriptures were written.
Of course, there may be cases where someone (say, a Jehovah's Witness?) is honestly unconvinced that Jesus taught His own deity. God will be the judge of such, but I am not sure that person would be counted an unbeliever. Once convinced, however, that person would have to decide to either believe the truth, or stay on good terms with their organization. I suppose Catholics and denominational Protestants are in a similar situation.
-
Singalphile
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Thanks, Steve, for the explanation. I understand and appreciate that. I plan to go read that other thread as soon as I can.
I've little time this morning to respond to everything that I'd like to, but want to quickly add ...
TheEditor, good thoughts. Does that mean that, in your opinion, there are no statements of fact that one must affirm in order to reconcile himself to God (i.e., to be "born again"/"saved")?
I think that this is another of the (well-known) statements of fact that must be affirmed in order to have a spirit from God rather than antichrist (which equates with salvation, I think):
I've little time this morning to respond to everything that I'd like to, but want to quickly add ...
TheEditor, good thoughts. Does that mean that, in your opinion, there are no statements of fact that one must affirm in order to reconcile himself to God (i.e., to be "born again"/"saved")?
I think that this is another of the (well-known) statements of fact that must be affirmed in order to have a spirit from God rather than antichrist (which equates with salvation, I think):
- 1 John 4:2-3 - By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, ....
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Does that mean that, in your opinion, there are no statements of fact that one must affirm in order to reconcile himself to God (i.e., to be "born again"/"saved")?
Well, the short answer is I'm not sure.
I will say that I believe in order to be a disciple of Jesus would, it seems to me, entail recognizing his authority, and so a basic affirmation of his right to rule and be Lord and Master seems necessary.But for the matter of Atonement, my view is this; I believe that Jesus death accomplished (however that works) a bridging of the gap between God and humanity. By sheer virtue of being born human we enjoy that privilege in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Whether or not Kim Lo living in middle China has ever heard of Jesus is immaterial to him being saved from Adamic sin by that arrangement. I would be inclined to think that if God recognized people that sought after Him prior to Jesus coming to earth, then He would do all the more so after.
But, terms like being "born again" or "saved" have been larded with meaning, I think, by the church for centuries, Being "saved" from what, exactly? If the answer is "sin" then it seems Jesus provided just that for every man. If it is from living in sin, then one has to make effort of some sort and that it seems would require discipleship. If being "born again" is a putting on the new man or walking in a newness of life, then again I believe that requires discipleship.
But if we are talking about being spared from a future eternal judgment (of a negative kind), then I'm not so certain that there is anything explicit enough in the Bible to say there are any concepts a person has to have firmly in mind in order to escape it. It is true that "He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36) But if one has never heard of the Son, or has never had an opportunity to hear the unvarnished Good News, will the wrath still remain on him? If people who saw the winsome Son of God, and were moved enough by him to say "Hosannah" one day and yet "Crucify him" the next; if these received Jesus mercy ("Forgive them Father for they know not what they do") then who am I to say toward whom God will or will not show mercy?
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Brenden wrote:
Acts 2:36 (NASB)
36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
That Jesus is Lord is surely part of the gospel that must be believed. If Jesus is Lord, an affirmation of His right to rule and be Lord and Master would make it necessary that we make it our aim to obey Him, else we deny that which we profess:
Titus 1:16 (NASB)
16. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
Which brings up a question. Why is it the persons who differ in some way from the creedal orthodoxy regarding the Trinity (disclaimer: I am Trinitarian, as best I understand it), are not considered Christians while there are those are, such as Ryrie, who have derided "Lordship salvation", i. e., they teach that Jesus does not have to be obeyed to be in a saved state?
Seems to be plain enough that we have a Lord, but I would say there probably aren't one in ten Christians who can explain the Trinity.
And His status as Lord and Master was proclaimed on the day of Pentecost, when Peter used the keys to open the gates of the Kingdom, declaring:I will say that I believe in order to be a disciple of Jesus would, it seems to me, entail recognizing his authority, and so a basic affirmation of his right to rule and be Lord and Master seems necessary.
Acts 2:36 (NASB)
36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
That Jesus is Lord is surely part of the gospel that must be believed. If Jesus is Lord, an affirmation of His right to rule and be Lord and Master would make it necessary that we make it our aim to obey Him, else we deny that which we profess:
Titus 1:16 (NASB)
16. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
Which brings up a question. Why is it the persons who differ in some way from the creedal orthodoxy regarding the Trinity (disclaimer: I am Trinitarian, as best I understand it), are not considered Christians while there are those are, such as Ryrie, who have derided "Lordship salvation", i. e., they teach that Jesus does not have to be obeyed to be in a saved state?
Seems to be plain enough that we have a Lord, but I would say there probably aren't one in ten Christians who can explain the Trinity.
Re: What Must Be Believed To Be Saved?
Hi Homer,
You ask a fair question. Perhaps we assume too much of people? When I was a JW I thought that if nothing else, what held us together as a brotherhood was the desire to know the truth. After I had discovered that one of the core teachings of ours was false, namely that the majority of Christians--all JWs of course--would inherit everlasting life on earth and were not considered children of God until after they had reached perfection (at the end of the Millenium). I thought "How clear this is. Surely others will welcome this." Well, I didn't really think others would welcome it because I had already ready too much about organizational dynamics and human nature...but I digress. My point is my assumptions were false. Most peole when given a choice between finding the truth and maintaining a "comfort zone" will opt for the latter. This is not meant to be a critical statement, just a fact of human nature.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that had the Nicene Council gone the other way--toward Arianism--that the trinity would be considered the heresy, and the majority of churchgoers would shake their heads in disbelief over those nutty trinitarians with the wild-hare idea about God. As to why certain "heresies" are tolerated and others are not, my guess would be it primarily has to do with how much thinking people have done on why they believe what they believe. If a person has a core set of ideas (ie. the trinity, hellfire, heaven, etc.) that they confess to, it's easy to simply say "heresy" when something runs afoul of those ideas. But when someone makes a comment on "Lordship salvation", for most people it's like arguing Vanilla versus French Vanilla. And maybe it is. Besides, changing one's thinking is hard work and a paradigm shift is never easy. Why bother?
But then, all of this gives me pause to consider what God is doing with all of this? Does he concern himself with what is in our minds when we do a good work because it honors him? Or does he recognize the work and merely smile to himself over the fact that we still are groping? I'm not even sure I know what is necessary to believe, frankly. I'll tell you a story:
When I was attending JW Meetings, there was a sister that gave an answer in a Bible study discussion. In her answer she referred to herself and others as "children of God". Now, to get the import of this, you have to understand that in JW thought, the only ones that are "children of God" now are the remaining members of the 144,000 class (aproximately 8,000 people). Well, at the time I was still a true believer (though wavering) and I knew her answer was a theological faux pas, but I understood what she meant. Another fellow (not quite so understanding) raised his hand to make sure everyone knew that technically speaking, "none of us are children of God just yet". She looked a little embarassed.
Now, why do I tell this story? At the time I thought to myself "What was the point of that correction? As if her understanding that point would make her a better Christian". Of course in hindsight, if anything it would probably have made her a worse one. But the woman that made the comment was a sweet, humble and caring individual that I have no doubt is (even if she is still a JW) a Christian at heart. But she is one in spite of her theological notions, not because of them.
And so too with all this stuff we hash out here. I enjoy the discussions, obviously, but somewhere in the back of my mind I keep thinking, "Would my dear wife of 27 years be any more Christlike than she is now if she only had that Lordship thing figured out?" On the other hand, has figuring (or trying to figure) this stuff out done much for me?
Reagrds, Brenden.
You ask a fair question. Perhaps we assume too much of people? When I was a JW I thought that if nothing else, what held us together as a brotherhood was the desire to know the truth. After I had discovered that one of the core teachings of ours was false, namely that the majority of Christians--all JWs of course--would inherit everlasting life on earth and were not considered children of God until after they had reached perfection (at the end of the Millenium). I thought "How clear this is. Surely others will welcome this." Well, I didn't really think others would welcome it because I had already ready too much about organizational dynamics and human nature...but I digress. My point is my assumptions were false. Most peole when given a choice between finding the truth and maintaining a "comfort zone" will opt for the latter. This is not meant to be a critical statement, just a fact of human nature.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that had the Nicene Council gone the other way--toward Arianism--that the trinity would be considered the heresy, and the majority of churchgoers would shake their heads in disbelief over those nutty trinitarians with the wild-hare idea about God. As to why certain "heresies" are tolerated and others are not, my guess would be it primarily has to do with how much thinking people have done on why they believe what they believe. If a person has a core set of ideas (ie. the trinity, hellfire, heaven, etc.) that they confess to, it's easy to simply say "heresy" when something runs afoul of those ideas. But when someone makes a comment on "Lordship salvation", for most people it's like arguing Vanilla versus French Vanilla. And maybe it is. Besides, changing one's thinking is hard work and a paradigm shift is never easy. Why bother?
But then, all of this gives me pause to consider what God is doing with all of this? Does he concern himself with what is in our minds when we do a good work because it honors him? Or does he recognize the work and merely smile to himself over the fact that we still are groping? I'm not even sure I know what is necessary to believe, frankly. I'll tell you a story:
When I was attending JW Meetings, there was a sister that gave an answer in a Bible study discussion. In her answer she referred to herself and others as "children of God". Now, to get the import of this, you have to understand that in JW thought, the only ones that are "children of God" now are the remaining members of the 144,000 class (aproximately 8,000 people). Well, at the time I was still a true believer (though wavering) and I knew her answer was a theological faux pas, but I understood what she meant. Another fellow (not quite so understanding) raised his hand to make sure everyone knew that technically speaking, "none of us are children of God just yet". She looked a little embarassed.
Now, why do I tell this story? At the time I thought to myself "What was the point of that correction? As if her understanding that point would make her a better Christian". Of course in hindsight, if anything it would probably have made her a worse one. But the woman that made the comment was a sweet, humble and caring individual that I have no doubt is (even if she is still a JW) a Christian at heart. But she is one in spite of her theological notions, not because of them.
And so too with all this stuff we hash out here. I enjoy the discussions, obviously, but somewhere in the back of my mind I keep thinking, "Would my dear wife of 27 years be any more Christlike than she is now if she only had that Lordship thing figured out?" On the other hand, has figuring (or trying to figure) this stuff out done much for me?
Reagrds, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]