Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

[brinny]

Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

This topic came up in another thread, and I am interested in people's thoughts on this.

I am thinking that it definitely could be an issue of salvation because of the following verses:
John 8:24 (NASB)
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

This is a few verses before John 8:58 (NASB):
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

I suppose that Jesus could either be saying "unless you believe I am the Messiah," or "unless you believe I AM" (that He is YHWH.) I also don't know whether or not Jesus was thinking about the future -- where there might be some people who believed that He was the Messiah, but denied His deity.

And there is the question of -- if you do not believe that Jesus is YHWH, then do you really believe in Jesus? And do you really believe that He is Lord?

I realize that no one can for sure answer these questions except for God. Only God knows the salvation of each person.

Then there is Romans 10:8-13 (NASB):
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 are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The second quote that Paul used is from Joel 2:32, which says in the NASB:
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

Since LORD = YHWH in the OT, it seems that he is calling Jesus YHWH here.

Maybe Paul was not thinking that there might be people who believed in Jesus, but denied that He was YHWH. Or maybe he considered belief that Jesus was YHWH to be necessary for salvation.

What do you think?

This is what came to mind for me after i saw the title of your thread and read your post:

Isn't a "Savior" required for "salvation"?

 

[AlexDTX]

Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

No, it is enough to believe that Jesus is Jesus.

Missionaries to India have had a hard time leading people to Christ. The reason they have a hard time is because people in India believe in a multitude of gods. So most will gladly add Jesus to their pantheon, but no change comes to them because they do not believe that Jesus is the ONE God, known in the OT as YHVH. Likewise, Muslims believe in Jesus but they see him as only a prophet, not God. So, no, belief in Jesus is not enough.

Perhaps, you mean that understanding how Jesus is Yahweh is not necessary, or understand that God is called Yahweh. But to be saved, one must believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?


This is what came to mind for me after i saw the title of your thread and read your post:

Isn't a "Savior" required for "salvation"?

Amen.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

No, it is enough to believe that Jesus is Jesus.

No it is not! Simply believing that Jesus is Jesus, can remove the fact that He is Almighty God, without which no person can ever be saved from their sins and go to heaven!

 

[Baby Cottontail]

We must call on Jesus as our Lord and Savior to free us from our sins.

As far as accepting his divinity, his earliest disciples would have had a much more primitive Christology than we do today. We might even have called them heretics. (Some of Paul's writings suggest he may even have fell into the adoptionist camp, in fact.) So I don't think that much is necessary.

But even to believe that Jesus is Savior is a belief about Him being YHWH, since YHWH said in the OT that He alone is Savior.

And Lord as what -- Lord of our lives, or LORD -- as both Lord of our lives and as YHWH.

Sure, the disciples and early Christians would not have had a well defined statement of faith regarding Jesus. This could possibly be because one wasn't necessary, because they all shared pretty much the same beliefs about Jesus.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

But since, as you believe, Jesus instructions on how to baptize correctly was the trinitarian formula, then why didn't the disciples ever do it 'that way'? There are only 4 times that baptism is performed and not once did they do so "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." Strange indeed.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women…:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Time for bed for me. You all play nice now.

I think of it this way -- before Jesus even started His earthly ministry, John the Baptist was out baptizing people. He was calling people to repentance, and having them be baptized. I don't know how many other people might have been baptizing people, and I don't know if anyone did so after John was killed. I imagine that someone might have continued that practice, or that there could have been others who baptized people besides John.

At any rate, Jesus wasn't the only person that John baptized. Other people clearly received a baptism from him.

So, I think there is a distinction made between John the Baptist's baptism and the kind that Jesus instructed His followers to do.

If people were repenting and receiving baptisms, but they were not believers in Jesus, then they wouldn't have been baptized in Jesus' name or authority. They would have been simply baptized with the kind of baptism that John the Baptist gave.

I think the emphasis in Acts is that these baptisms were done with the authority of Jesus -- these weren't simply John the Baptist kind of baptisms.

In the Scripture you quoted here, I don't see anyone literally saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ." Rather, it looks like a summary of what happened. Could any of those baptisms been literally, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ?" Sure. However, that doesn't follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 28.

I don't think the words necessarily matter, though. Baptism is not a magic ritual. I think what matters is the thought behind it.

I hope other people share their thoughts on this as well.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I think of it this way -- before Jesus even started His earthly ministry, John the Baptist was out baptizing people. He was calling people to repentance, and having them be baptized. I don't know how many other people might have been baptizing people, and I don't know if anyone did so after John was killed. I imagine that someone might have continued that practice, or that there could have been others who baptized people besides John.

At any rate, Jesus wasn't the only person that John baptized. Other people clearly received a baptism from him.

So, I think there is a distinction made between John the Baptist's baptism and the kind that Jesus instructed His followers to do.

If people were repenting and receiving baptisms, but they were not believers in Jesus, then they wouldn't have been baptized in Jesus' name or authority. They would have been simply baptized with the kind of baptism that John the Baptist gave.

I think the emphasis in Acts is that these baptisms were done with the authority of Jesus -- these weren't simply John the Baptist kind of baptisms.

In the Scripture you quoted here, I don't see anyone literally saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ." Rather, it looks like a summary of what happened. Could any of those baptisms been literally, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ?" Sure. However, that doesn't follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 28.

I don't think the words necessarily matter, though. Baptism is not a magic ritual. I think what matters is the thought behind it.

I hope other people share their thoughts on this as well.

That's probably why Jesus asked people to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit instead of John's baptism. But here's a question. Why did Jesus ask John to baptize him? Why didn't he just get baptized by someone of authority?

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Perhaps its around the other way, we expect people to learn who Jesus is but Jesus himself revealed something else:
But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

That is an interesting thought.

Is it necessary to believe that Jesus is the Messiah for salvation?

If so, it is a probably both/and situation -- where to believe in Jesus as the Messiah is also to believe in Him as YHWH (in Jesus' day.) And the reverse would also be true -- to believe Him as YHWH would also necessitate believing Jesus' words to be the Messiah.

I think that this is likely -- the two beliefs about Jesus go together in believing that Jesus is Savior.

After all, Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah as well, and He did make belief about Him as Messiah to be almost tied up in His identity as YHWH.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Jesus is the Father and the Father is the Son.

Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

They're the same. They are different, but the same. Jesus is God, He died to free us from the law of the adulterous bride. Otherwise there's no point in Him dying for us if He wasn't. We weren't in bondage to the law itself, but to the curse of the law for being unfaithful. We were His bride, and were unfaithful, and so He bought us back.

We are in agreement that the Son is YHWH. We are in agreement that the Father is YHWH.

We are not in agreement regarding the Father being the Son, and the Son being the Father.

Yes, the I AM in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 is the same. The same God.

I agree with you in regard to why Jesus had to die, and I agree with you in the importance of Jesus being YHWH.

You admit that the Father and Son are different -- that is what I am trying to note when I say that Jesus isn't the Father, and that the Father isn't Jesus. Jesus prayed to the Father, and He referred to the Father as someone other than Himself.

At the same time, though, both Jesus and the Father are YHWH. The two are one Being and one God.

This is why language can be tricky.

 

[Hillsage]

I have not used the name Jehovah in this thread. Yes, Jehovah is sometimes used in place of YHWH in some Bible translations. Some groups prefer to use the name Jehovah.

As far as I'm concerned, the tetragrammaton was really the whole point of your OP question to begin with. All of the talk here attempting to prove you have to believe in Jesus as YHWH, was really not even a valid question to begin with IMO. And I confess that most of my posts were really just to prove how much wasn't even considered concerning this whole thread.

The name Yahweh was simply an attempt to add some vowels to the consonants YHWH to even make it possible to pronounce. If having to believe Jesus was YHWH/YaWeH/Jehovah or 'whatever', in order to be saved is really necessary to salvation, then there's millions who never got saved at Billy Graham crusades alone. Why? Because, according to the OP question they missed the boat because Billy never taught you had to believe Jesus was God or Jehovah or Yaweh or any of the other attempts to pronounce the tetratrammaton/YHWH. He simply preached Jesus was the son of God who died and was resurrected for your sins. And I think his message worked.

Personally, I don't think 'Jesus'...who was the 'son of man' after the flesh, even existed until he was born of Mary. Scripture is clear that; In the beginning was the WORD....not Jesus. And the WORD gave up equality with God to become a man...JESUS. And that happened 2000 years ago.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

this is a translation. the word translated as "LORD" is Yahweh so Joel makes no such comparison. When you see LORD in all caps it is translated from Yahweh.

I know that LORD means Yahweh. That's the whole point about Paul including that verse from Joel, and applying it to Jesus.

It's not Joel that is making the comparison, but Paul.

Paul quoted Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13.

In so doing, Paul was calling Jesus YHWH.

 

[Saved.By.Grace]

As far as I'm concerned, the tetragrammaton was really the whole point of your OP question to begin with. All of the talk here attempting to prove you have to believe in Jesus as YHWH, was really not even a valid question to begin with IMO. And I confess that most of my posts were really just to prove how much wasn't even considered concerning this whole thread.

The name Yahweh was simply an attempt to add some vowels to the consonants YHWH to even make it possible to pronounce. If having to believe Jesus was YHWH/YaWeH/Jehovah or 'whatever', in order to be saved is really necessary to salvation, then there's millions who never got saved at Billy Graham crusades alone. Why? Because, according to the OP question they missed the boat because Billy never taught you had to believe Jesus was God or Jehovah or Yaweh or any of the other attempts to pronounce the tetratrammaton/YHWH. He simply preached Jesus was the son of God who died and was resurrected for your sins. And I think his message worked.

Personally, I don't think 'Jesus'...who was the 'son of man' after the flesh, even existed until he was born of Mary. Scripture is clear that; In the beginning was the WORD....not Jesus. And the WORD gave up equality with God to become a man...JESUS. And that happened 2000 years ago.

So Jesus Christ is a created being?

 

[GingerBeer]

I agree. But, this question has been asked before. Just what is believing in Jesus? I can answer the question but, I'm curious as to what you believe it means to believe in Jesus. Because, believing in Jesus can mean several things.

It means believing that God became a man, the man Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is the Word of God who was with God and is God and who bears witness to the Father and who together with the Father sent the Holy Spirit to help people in their walk with God which leads to eventual salvation.

 

[Neostarwcc]

So Jesus Christ is a created being?

No, of course not. Christ has existed from the beginning of time.

 

[Neostarwcc]

It means believing that God became a man, the man Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is the Word of God who was with God and is God and who bears witness to the Father and who together with the Father sent the Holy Spirit to help people in their walk with God which leads to eventual salvation.

I see. So you hold that belief that Jesus is God is required for salvation? So, say for example, non-Trinitarians who deny Christ's deity. Are they saved?

 

[GingerBeer]

I see. So you hold that belief that Jesus is God is required for salvation? So, say for example, non-Trinitarians who deny Christ's deity. Are they saved?

If they knowingly reject the Holy Trinity then they are in deep heresy and doomed by it to eternal separation from God and from his people.

 

[AarontheStudent]

But even to believe that Jesus is Savior is a belief about Him being YHWH, since YHWH said in the OT that He alone is Savior.

And Lord as what -- Lord of our lives, or LORD -- as both Lord of our lives and as YHWH.

Sure, the disciples and early Christians would not have had a well defined statement of faith regarding Jesus. This could possibly be because one wasn't necessary, because they all shared pretty much the same beliefs about Jesus.

Isaiah 53 doesn't say anything about the Lord and Savior (Messiah) who would free us from our sins being God.

John's gospel also makes it pretty clear the disicples didn't all believe the same thing. Some thought he was the prophet 'like Moses' promised in Deuteronomy 18, others thought he was the Messiah. Some thought he was both.Taking this into consideration, I have no problem thinking they didn't all believe in Jesus' divinity.

 

[Hillsage]

So Jesus Christ is a created being?

I don't know how to answer your question. What's your interpretation of 'CREATED'? And whether he was, or wasn't....what difference do you think it really makes?

 

[Neostarwcc]

If they knowingly reject the Holy Trinity then they are in deep heresy and doomed by it to eternal separation from God and from his people.

I don't know. I didn't believe in the Trinity a year ago and I still think I was saved back then for reasons I won't discuss here. I couldn't quite grasp that Jesus was God But, I don't think that that had ANYTHING to do with my overall salvation.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Yes, I can do this. Do you have any verses in mind?

Thanks!! Yes, I do. I made a list of them. I'll highlight the parts that I am most interested in. I'm just curious if it is the same as it is in John 8:24.

Isaiah 41:4 (NASB)
Who has performed and accomplished it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.

Isaiah 43:10 (NASB)
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.

Isaiah 43:13 (NASB)
"Even from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of my hand; I act and who can reverse it?"

Deuteronomy 32:39 (NASB)
'See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, and there is no one who can deliver from my hand.