• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured The gospel is "believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"...?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Neogaia777, Jun 19, 2019.

  1. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +649
    Christian
    Single
    Salvation means that person is saved from the judgment that would come because of sin. Forgiveness is offered for free and don’t require anything. However, if person doesn’t accept it and reject sin, forgiveness is not useful. If sin is forgiven but person continues in sin, there would be judgment because of the new sin. That is why Jesus taught that people should repent, stop sinning.


    These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

    Mat. 25:46


    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Romans 6:23

    "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
    John 8:11

    Person who believes this and repents (rejects sin), can become righteous and for them there is eternal life. If person doesn’t believe this and remains in sin, forgiveness is not useful. It would be like washing a car and right after that mess it with mud. Washing is not useful, if one mess up things right after that.
     
  2. d taylor

    d taylor Well-Known Member

    939
    +399
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    Here are links and none of them state "not just to believe"

    But what they do say is "to be persuaded of"
    Example: I am persuaded, because of the Bibles evidence (especially the Gospel of John), that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Old Testament prophecies and that eternal life is given, when a person trust in The Messiah for eternal life.

    Strong's Greek: 4100. πιστεύω (pisteuó) -- to believe, entrust

    Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

    Strongs's #4100: pisteuo - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

    G4100 πιστεύω - Strong's Greek Lexicon

    Pisteuo - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

    pisteuo - Strong's number G4100 - Greek Lexicon | Bible Tools - Messie2vie
     
  3. watchman 2

    watchman 2 Active Member

    509
    +58
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes it does, I have the book 4100 , the New Strong's Expanded Dictionary. Includes the best of Vines and cross-referenced with Thayer's, Brown-Driver-Briggs.

    It's like 15 bucks on Amazon.
    The Exact quote again, " pisteuo means NOT just to believe". 4100
     
  4. d taylor

    d taylor Well-Known Member

    939
    +399
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    Oh the new one, so somebody finally made a version that fits your beliefs, probably John MacArthur
     
  5. watchman 2

    watchman 2 Active Member

    509
    +58
    Non-Denom
    Married
    This is the definition of pisteuo I stand on and know is correct.
    Vines: "A personal surrender to Him, and a life inspired by such surrender. Producing a full acknowledgement of God's revelation of truth."

    This is true NT saving Faith. No mention of "believing" anything as you define it. Is there believing involved in true pisteuo? Yes! but taken on it's own is error.
     
  6. d taylor

    d taylor Well-Known Member

    939
    +399
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    Good that the Bible shows your definition to be incorrect.
    John 4 women at the well was told by Jesus that if she took a drink of the water He offered, she would not thirst again. I do not believe Jesus stated that she had to keep drinking.

    Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
     
  7. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +220
    Protestant
    Single

    <<The gospel is "believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"...?>>


    This statement is not conclusive; salvation will depend on what is meant by “believe in/on”. Even then the statement would be “a Gospel” not “THE Gospel”

    In the early 1900s when Dispensationalism erupted Dispensationalism taught

    68 Gospels (mentioned in scripture). It can be shown that only one Gospel is mentioned in scripture and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, regardless of what words the Bible writers use. The Gospel according to Jesus, “Repent, the Kingdom of God is near”; and everything Jesus taught is in that context.

    <<So can we resolve these issues or discuss them maybe....?

    Is our salvation dependent upon right (or wrong) believing or not...? Or our (confession and) repentance or our being "repentant" in and throughout our lives, and which one is it, if it is...?>>

    For those who keep the Commandments; do we keep the Commandments in order to be saved or do we keep the Commandments because because we are saved; this is like what came first the chicken or the egg. It is amazing how some abrogate the Law and in the absence of the Law still talk about repentance.
     
  8. davsunram

    davsunram Spiritual Philosopher Supporter

    6
    +2
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Hello Everyone - Very interesting discussion! I am new here, but a long-time 'student' and 'interpreter' of Jesus's words/sayings. I personally think that literal interpretations of them (as well as what others have declared in the Bible) are often ill-logical. Sometimes, as for instance in the saying about 'eating' and 'drinking' Jesus' 'flesh and 'blood', ridiculously so. I have written a treatise, titled "What Did Jesus Really Mean?", Chapter Two of which goes into the matters being discussed here by interpreting Jeus's statements in non-literal terms. Here is a sampling of quotes from said Chapter (a pdf of which is freely downloadable by clicking here) which I 'dish up':) as an enticement.:

    From page 27 "What else could the truth alluded to by Jesus’ various statements: “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it”, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” and “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” possibly mean then? This is something you may well ask, especially if you’ve been indoctrinated by literal interpretations of such sayings. Comprehension in this regard requires that one appreciate what Jesus himself understood the earthly dynamic of our Life-Source and, consequently, what he grokked the nature of his and everyone else’s personal Life (which are expressions of and so only exist as a function of said Life Source’s Flow) to transcendentally be. What follows should come as ‘good news’ to anyone who has been disillusioned by growing awareness of the many ways in which the ‘app’☺ of rational logic is making it clear that literal interpretations of what’s said in The Bible are actually nonsensical. This doesn’t mean that real truth isn’t figuratively referenced by Jesus’ statements, however."

    From pages 55 & 56 "As to the reason for the extreme emphasis on believing in ‘him’ in statements such as “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (John 6:47) and “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25 26) – again, before I go on, let me once more remind you that his ‘me’ referenced the Living Entity of Life because Jesus personally completely ‘i’dentified with It ! – my guess is that he figured that if folks didn’t at least believe that they had potentially ‘immortal’ (because existentially ‘rooted’ in said Entity) souls, such that they could (and would, if they lived ‘in accord’ with what he taught) continue to be functionally operational as coherent psychospiritual gestalts in the context of the ever-ongoing Flow of Creation after their physical body ‘died’, still ‘petty’ self ‘i’dentifying folks (which most of those around him then were) wouldn’t have sufficient ‘reason’ to choose to make the kinds of self-subordinating choices that are necessary for a soul to psychospiritually transcend the parameters of its ‘natural’ (while bodily ensconced, that is) constellation of selfishness. The ‘promise’ that the souls of those who believe that they have a Cosmic ‘I’dentity will (in due course) be ‘freed’ from having to suffer the many kinds of naturally unwanted experiences (such as frustration, pain, loss, and death) which are unavoidably part and parcel of existence in a physiosocial context and live in a state of unadulterated Love and Joy forevermore thereafter may indeed function as a self-transcendence motivating ‘pitch’ in relation to those who are still myopically entranced, and so essentially ‘enslaved’, by their own selfishness.

    Such kind of belief is a double-edged sword, however, because ‘negative’ effects may and often do accrue as a result of the self reifying motivation which often ‘greedily’, in such regards at least, hitches a ride on it. As many have over the course of time since become aware, it is important that those who presently aren’t (so aware) be educated to the point where they also appreciate the fact that, notwithstanding the many ‘positive’ results that are clearly attributable to the kinds of Life embracing attitudes and intentions which logically derive from people embracing said belief, a whole slew of negatively consequential errors in judgment and consequent malfeasance (‘sins’ if you will) have historically not only gone unrecognized as being such, but even been paraded and lauded as ‘holy’ as a result of over simplistic interpretation and propagandizement of the ‘assurances’ and ‘guarantees’ pertaining to the futures which such kinds of ‘promises’ advertise.

    Why? Because simply ‘thinking the thought’ and ‘talking the talk’, i.e. just believing and socially affiliating with others who ‘confess’ and ‘proclaim’ their belief that what Jesus and others have stated in similar regards is absolutely true, won’t result in a soul’s psychospiritually realizing the ‘eternally’ ongoing Life he referenced. One has to actually ‘walk the walk’ of self-transcendence by really considering and intelligently (one might say, Solomonically☺) evaluating what most likely will and what most likely won’t serve to maximize the experience and expression of Love and Joy in The Flow of Life and then really (i.e. conscientiously!) choosing to do what(ever!) one consequently thinks and feels has the best chance of so serving – in other words, not just for one’s own self ’s or any other particular self ’s or set of selves’ Love and Joy ‘sakes’– as one goes along, for the kind of Life Jesus spoke of to be ‘entered into’ and soulfully ‘lived’ thereafter."

    Enjoy!

    [Note: the link provided above will just lead to the downloading of (66 page) Chapter 2 which begins on page 24 of the treatise. If you'd rather download the full treatise, including Chapter 1 (which deals with issues other than the one's being discussed in this thread, click here.)
     
  9. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +220
    Protestant
    Single

    I started reading but it was too heavy for me but I might offer some comments: Genesis is a preamble to the covenant; Jesus always spoke in parables except when talking privately to His disciples; I believe "Son of man" and "Son of God", were names as are "God with us" and "Faithful and true"; today a Jew might say, "God does not have sons", but as far as I am aware Jesus' use of those terms were not questioned at the time.
     
  10. davsunram

    davsunram Spiritual Philosopher Supporter

    6
    +2
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I appreciate your taking a crack at reading my 'dense' o_O writing, Sparow.

    However, re your comment about phrases, idioms, etc. that Jesus used not being 'questioned' at the time, I must say that (comment) is 'questionable'. For one thing, he was certainly 'taken to task' for saying he was a/the Son of God! But even more than that, I would ask what you thought the relevance of such information (presented as your 'awareness") to the thesis I have presented might be given the fact that these are being 'questioned' (and not just by me, at that) now?
     
  11. Gracia Singh

    Gracia Singh Newbie Supporter

    +6,605
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Good question. I think that repentance needs to be not only initial, but also ongoing. We will sin. We will mess up. We will stumble. We should feel sorrow, and conviction, and ask forgiveness, and with His help, keep going.

    I also think that there is a great extent to which we need to believe in Christ for exactly who He is, too. Unless we want to begin believing in "another Christ".

    Anyone who denies His pre-existence as the Word who is God, denies His Virgin Birth, denies His physical death and physical Resurrection from the dead, and denies His physical return is in trouble.
     
  12. kcnalp

    kcnalp Member

    190
    +48
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    Acts 16:31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved, ....

    you and your household!
     
  13. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +220
    Protestant
    Single


    Sir you have misunderstood what I meant to say. I believe my comments are relative to the small amount of your thesis that I read.

    I assume you mean something and I disagree with that assumption; that maybe incorrect. If I were to ask a Rabbi, “Is Jesus the son of God?”; he would most likely say no; if the Rabbi asked me, I would say “yes”. But do we disagree, I say no. because “son of God” means something different to the Rabbi than it does to me; and this is not a binary matter but infinite deviations; linked to prophesy, the world being turned upside-down and calling evil good and visa-versa. If I were to ask a Pharisee (2000 years ago), was Jesus the son of God, he would most likely say no; I would say yes; on this occasion the Pharisee and I can disagree because we are talking about the same idiom.

    What does “son of God” mean to me; I do not take the words literally. Suppose Jesus was the literal son of God, what would that mean; what God would be His Father. We know that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (Elohim); was the Word Elohim's son; what manner of procreation was responsible: what is required to entitle the title “son”. Jesus was the Word of God manifest in human flesh; Through Mary and Joseph Jesus is the son of all the important patriarchs; when Jesus refers to His father does he mean the word and Elohim His grand father or is it Elohim who is his father. We have learned nothing from Elohim only from the spokesperson, the Word of God who gave us creation, the covenant and the promise of the kingdom; it makes sense that the Word of God is the Father Jesus refers to because Jesus and His Father are the two witnesses who confirm the covenant.

    The term “Son of God” appears in the Gospels (KJV) 23 times; I have not examined the original text but I believe is a preconceived idea of the interpreter/translators and is not a word for word equivalent; “of God”, with son omitted would be more valid or more meaningful, “King of Israel', Messiah, or God manifest in human form. Jews typically deny Jesus is the promised Mesiah, when we use the term "Son of God", the 2000 - 4000 year old semantics of the term are lost.

    All of Israel, according to David, are (provisional) sons of God, Jesus is the only one to pass through the Guantlet and arrived at the other side and is alone the son of God, but after the resurrection of the righteous the will be many sons of God, what ever hat may mean.
     
  14. davsunram

    davsunram Spiritual Philosopher Supporter

    6
    +2
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Thank you for the clarification. Except according to the gospels at least, the 'priests' of the time, who were the standard setters for 'Israel' did take to task as a 'blasphemer.'
     
  15. LoveofTruth

    LoveofTruth Christ builds His church from within us

    +1,504
    Christian
    The gospel defined

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
     
  16. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +220
    Protestant
    Single
    .

    Had Jesus not been who He said he was, He would indeed be a blasphemer; so there are important questions.

    If we assume Jesus is the messiah, why was He not anticipated, why had He came upon them as a thief in the night, how did they not recognise Him and anoint Him; it was because the standard setters were not using the standards God gave them.

    Daniel 9:24-25 (NKJV)
    24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.
    25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.


    The Jews failed to rebuild Jerusalem; they had ignored all their prophets.

    If Jesus was not the Messiah, then all the prophets have failed; and those who see prophesy fulfilled and being fulfilled are deluded.
     
  17. sdowney717

    sdowney717 Newbie

    +1,733
    Christian
    Its more of repent of your unbelief, such as when Peter was preaching in Acts. He clearly told them of Christ being the promised messiah, which they jews did not believe that He was that person.
     
  18. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,484
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    Everyone has different and varying levels of belief, (and also many seem to believe different things also) (but that's another topic)... But, everyone has different and varying levels of belief or faith, so what "level" of faith does it take to be saved...?

    If you doubt "any promise of God at all", are you considered "faithless"...?

    God Bless!
     
Loading...