Can you be saved not believing Jesus is God?

[zoidar]

Can we confess Jesus as Lord and not mean he is God?

Not with uppercase L.

There are other verses that are more clear Jesus is God. John 1 for an example.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Can we confess Jesus as Lord and not mean he is God?

only if He is acknowledged as YHWH

 

[zoidar]

#1 and #2 do not appear to be all that different because they both can make room for a person to justify sin with the thinking they are saved. But believers have to confess and forsake their sin in order to receive mercy (Proverbs 28:13). A person acknowleding they are a sinner can be taken not as a one time event when we first come to Christ, but it can be wrongfully taken to mean that we must always commit mortal sin as a way of life. If this is what you meant, I do not believe that such a view is biblical or moral. To say we are currently a sinner now in a our walk with God does not compute. There is no point of even thinking about God if one thinks they will remain as a sinner. God and sin do not mix.

When we are saved we don't want to sin, or there is something really wrong. Mortal sin, then you mean sin to death? I think this Bible verse (1 John 5:16) is hard to understand. What is sin unto death?

Some say all sins are the same to God, but I say there are different degrees of severity to sin. If a Christian sins gravely then I think his heart will harden, the Holy Spirit be quenched, where there no longer is salvation.

Anyways, getting back on topic: Do you honestly believe a person will be saved if they deny that Jesus is God. Ignorance of such a truth is one thing (and I believe they would be saved in ignorance), but a denial of this truth is another thing altogether. I do not see how a person can be saved and yet deny how Jesus is God. Worshiping a Jesus who is not God is worshiping another Jesus. Can a person be saved by believing in another Jesus who is not of the Bible? I would say.... “no.” Then again, I shouldn't be surprised people think otherwise. People want to just do their own thing and think their own way these days. They do not want to submit to what God's Word says. They like to just pick and choose what parts they like.

I think if you deny Christ to be God, you know it but willingly choose not to believe it. Who would do such a thing, I don't know, and yes I believe it may cost him or her salvation, or he/she never was saved to begin with. Most of these cases I think is because of ignorence, I hope, and not willful rejection.

Jesus said, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:24).

I don't think worshiping another Jesus by denying that He is God fits what this verse says. We have to STRIVE to enter in at the strait gate (i.e. the narrow gate). For many will seek to enter in, and they will not be able to.

This is kind of scary, and that's an understatement. There is the question what striving to enter the narrow gate means. We aren't talking about polishing facades here. Doing this, doing that won't save us. It's in the heart, a heart connected with Christ, in which we live to love God and our neighbour. That's how I see it.

I believe we must overcome mortal sin in order to be saved. Do you believe that we are sinners in the sense of committing mortal sin all the time (even in our continued walk with God)? If so, do you have Scripture verses to support your conclusion on this?

No, I don't believe we can live in mortal sins and be saved. Then we need to repent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Really? then read what Luke 22:20 says, where Judas was still at the table when Jesus gave the Lord's supper, and tells them ALL, "“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for YOU", yes, including Judas! And Matthew, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (26:27:28). Commenting on "many" used in Mark, this is what John Calvin says, "Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only". Even the Reformed theologians John Gill and Matthew Henry, say in their commentaries, that Judas did take the Lord's Supper. Now, if as some assume, that Jesus did not die for Judas, who sadly is lost, then surely He would have waited a short while, and when Judas had left the room, Jesus would have given the Lord's Supper, to make sure that 1. Jesus did not use "all" to include Judas, and 2. that Judas would not have part-taken of the Supper, which represents the Body and Blood of the Saviour! It is "Reformed theology" that is WRONG, and not the Teachings of the Holy Bible, which IS Infallible!

I did not say there aren't other verses more apt than John 3:16 to say that he died FOR the whole world. I said John 3:16 is not the one to use for that.

Now if you want to argue whether he paid the penalty for absolutely everyone who ever sinned, we can go there.

 

[zoidar]

I did not say there aren't other verses more apt than John 3:16 to say that he died FOR the whole world. I said John 3:16 is not the one to use for that.

Now if you want to argue whether he paid the penalty for absolutely everyone who ever sinned, we can go there.

I think John 3:16-17 maybe is the clearest text that Jesus bore the sins of everyone.

I would be interested to hear your understanding of it.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Now if you want to argue whether he paid the penalty for absolutely everyone who ever sinned, we can go there.

start a thread!

 

[zoidar]

start a thread!

I would follow that thread with interest.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus is the propitiation of our sins, and NOT just for ours, but for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD.

He paid the price for sins of the whole world, but that’s only applied to those who receive Jesus, and who repent of their sins, separately from having faith.

But now we’re back to the fact that reformed doctrine is forced to claim that regeneration/grace is necessary to have faith, which is absolutely backwards - faith precedes grace, and is how we access grace - thus there’s absolutely no biblical support for grace preceding faith:

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

And faith still comes by hearing the word of God, Romans 10:17, not from regeneration first.

Causation is not always time-dependent. After all, are any of the fallen capable of doing anything on their own, to please God? Or are they all slaves to sin and at enmity to God?

Of course faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. How does that rule out the need for regeneration as the cause of faith?

Again, PRECEED, does not mean time-dependent, but cause dependent.

 

[1213]

In reality it does.
Romans 10:9
King James Version
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...

But it does not say the condition is to believe Jesus is the God.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

But it does not say the condition is to believe Jesus is the God.

Lord=Yahweh, which means Jesus=God

 

[Hammster]

But it does not say the condition is to believe Jesus is the God.

Does Paul, in his letter to the Romans, give any indication that Jesus is God?

 

[nolidad]

But it does not say the condition is to believe Jesus is the God.

Then you need to look up teh terem Kurios as it pertains to rulers. IN Rome which was the predominant culture of the day Cesars were Kurios! and they were the children of the gods! IOW they were divine!

So when Paul said we must confess (which means more than just lip service) that Jesus is Lord, we are proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God and Divine Himself!

 

[nolidad]

Does Paul, in his letter to the Romans, give any indication that Jesus is God?

In our translations, it would be questionable. But in teh Greek and understanding the terminology of Paul in the culture- there is no doubt that Paul in Romans declared Jesus is God or Divine!

 

[OzSpen]

then the poor man had problems making up his mind! His comments on John 3:16 are very clear

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found inthe world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

You are correct bond-servant.

You have given the one side of his doctrine. This is the other side:

Calvin’s online edition of 1 John 2:2 states:

And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​

I used the language he was a fence-sitter. Perhaps it would be better to state he wavered between universal and limited atonement.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

You are correct bond-servant.

You have given the one side of his doctrine. This is the other side:

Calvin’s online edition of 1 John 2:2 states:

And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​

I used the language he was a fence-sitter. Perhaps it would be better to state he wavered between universal and limited atonement.

Oz

Fortunately, the Puritans that can’t after him didn’t waver.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

You are correct bond-servant.

You have given the one side of his doctrine. This is the other side:

Calvin’s online edition of 1 John 2:2 states:

And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​

I used the language he was a fence-sitter. Perhaps it would be better to state he wavered between universal and limited atonement.

Oz

take a look of Calvin on Mark 14:24 and Colossians 1:14. The man must have lost his mind at some time!

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Fortunately, the Puritans that can’t after him didn’t waver.

there are two "gospels". the One which is the Gospel according to the Teachings of the Holy Bible; and the other is the gospel according to the Reformed/Calvinists. Of the latter the Apostle Paul says, "another gospel, Which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), and therefore a "pseudo-gospel", and must be rejected as not being from the God of the Holy Bible!

 

[Hammster]

there are two "gospels". the One which is the Gospel according to the Teachings of the Holy Bible; and the other is the gospel according to the Reformed/Calvinists. Of the latter the Apostle Paul says, "another gospel, Which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), and therefore a "pseudo-gospel", and must be rejected as not being from the God of the Holy Bible!

Sadly, you are mistaken.

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

Sadly, you are mistaken.

rather, very much the truth in what I say! you guys are so obsessed with your personal "doctrines", that you make God out to be a hater of lost sinners, by excluding the greater majority! "God SO VERY MUCH loves the ENTIRE WORLD"!

 

[Hammster]

rather, very much the truth in what I say! you guys are so obsessed with your personal "doctrines", that you make God out to be a hater of lost sinners, by excluding the greater majority! "God SO VERY MUCH loves the ENTIRE WORLD"!

Well, you are free to believe your personal doctrine.