What Must I Believe To Be Saved?
Apr 19
This discussion is simply philosophical, well… sort of 
With so much going around about the Gospel, Great Commission, Evangelism, Church Planting, Kingdom Perspective, and Body Life, I often wonder where is the line of salvation? Now this question could be a category mistake, so I am speaking simply of the point of justification. Salvation can mean multiple things so we must be careful. We are saved from God’s wrath (justification), we are being saved (transformed) and we will be saved (eschatological). So I want to state the question clearly. When is someone saved from God’s wrath?
The better question is what must I believe to be saved? How much “orthodoxy” makes one justified before God? I know Romans 1:16-17. But the questions that arise from that verse are: 1) Is Paul talking of the static justification that is very popular among evangelicals? 2) What does Paul mean by “gospel” and 3) Is this the articulation of what Jesus accomplished and agreeing with the details or something more?
I have not read a lot of works so I want to be honest. This is my own inquiry. It seems to me that Paul spent a great deal of time, took much personal loss and even gave his life for this Gospel thing. If this be the case, I want to ensure that what he was trying to convey was first of all right (many question Pauline theology) and second of all what he really meant by it.
So my question really revolves around how much orthodoxy once must embrace to be truly saved. And I don’t know. If you study the horizon of Christian theologians you will see a diverse perspective. For example is the virgin birth essential to being saved? What about the deity of Jesus Christ? Can one affirm all about the resurrection, the virgin birth but yet deny Christ’s deity and still be saved (remember which one I am referring to). Can someone deny the inspiration of scripture and still be saved? What about creation, can theistic evolution be a position someone holds and still be saved? Can someone deny some of the miracles and still be saved? Can someone add tradition/revelation and yet still be saved? Even more nerve wrecking is what about those who have yet to hear the Gospel in its complete form? Can one respond to the light given (if there even is such a thing) and still be saved?
These are serious questions for me as a man of faith. And these answers have real personal value to me (maybe not others). Not because I want to skirt the line, but I do want to understand how dogmatic I must be about certain truths (truths to me at least). What if someone denies some of these “essentials” (I don’t know what those essentials are, I am just using the current term) can they be allowed fellowship amongst the saints as a brother/sister of Christ? Another one is what about the hyper-atonement view or the hyper-Calvinistic view? What about the Trinity? Can someone be a Oneness Pentecostal and still be accepted as a brother/sister in the local gathering? What about hyper-atonement (also known as Universalism but they believe that Christ is who atones not every persons opinion)? Can that person be considered a brother/sister? Man, I don’t know.
I really wished I could get an answer from Christ but I have not and I am being honest. I understand I have the scripture, the only problem with that is that I have my own theological presuppositions, cultural influence on my hermeneutic, a very low, very low level of understanding of the Greek language and none of the Hebrew or Aramaic. I know Jesus speaks but He has yet to speak to me in some direct way that gives me any real comfort on these areas? I know I am to love people regardless, yet what if one of those doctrines is damning and that person should be dealt with like Jude or Peter or John instructs? I don’t want to be disobedient by being too “liberal” however I don’t want to separate from those Christ calls His own either.
So that is my dillema. 2 years ago I was sure of this stuff, though it was someon else’s surety. Today, well I am not. I am not saying the Gospel is not true. I believe in the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ and on many of the questions I have position and biblical text to support it; however, I don’t know if those things are mutually exclusive in relation to salvation. Thanks for reading and responding (not being presumptuous here )
A certain jailer asked that question:
and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in/on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. -Acts 16:29-33
I guess the follow up question would be what is the content of “the word of the Lord” that they spoke to him.
I would have to say that the jailer was not required to understand very much about what we call orthodox systematic theology, I am pretty sure they spoke to him about the Person (who Jesus is) and Work (what Jesus did) of Christ so that he could “believe in/on the Lord Jesus.
Thats my two cents worth, thats all I knew when God granted this Gentile repentance unto salvation.
Hutch,
Thats what I think also. But often times I hear people, people whom I respect throw some type of works in, others throw certain points of orthodoxy. What if a person has a heart oriented towards God yet have not heard the Gospel in its packaged form? For example John’s disciples who Paul meets in Acts 18 or 19.
Have you asked brother Zens and brother Black about their understanding of the issue?
Not really Hutch.
Well I know this:
How much Calvinism did he need to understand? None. Arminianism? None. Ecclesiology? Heck Acts was still unfolding it will take hundreds of years before we arrive at the mess we have today! Grin. Eschatology? I don’t see that as the issue. Nope, I’m sticking with the Person and Work of Christ which is the gospel (D-B-R), thats all-believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Man, I wrote a long response to this but my browser went haywire, Gah!
How would any of the elements you listed in you post effect the gospel?
1. Denial of the virgin birth is denial of the diety of Christ. How would that effect the gospel? This is debatable though. When I was first saved, I wasn’t aware of the “deity of Christ”. I was only aware that He lived the perfect life that I couldn’t and I trusted that. But eventually, I think a person should understand the deity of Christ.
2. Inspiration of the Scripts may not be necessary for salvation but it’s definitely important since Jesus’ Himself stated that they testify of Him.
3. I believe a theistic evolutionist can still be saved as long as they understand that God made them and they’re accountable to Him.
4. A person could deny the miracles and be saved. That’s not central to the gospel, although they are important in showing Christ’s deity.
5. I suppose that a oneness penecostal could also be considered to be saved since belief in the Trinity isn’t necessary for salvation.
I think the essential elements of the gospel are – Recognition of sin (shown by the Law), understanding of accountability before a holy and righteous God, understanding that we don’t meet His standard nor will we ever meet it, recognition of the need for a foreign righteouness, true repentance and true conversion (regeneration).
Questions for you Lionel – How do you know you’re saved? When did you know you were saved? How were you able to determine that you were saved? — Not trying to be funny, but maybe it’ll help you answer your intial question.
Oh and of course faith/trust in Christ.
Ash,
My quick response is here is how I used to answer.
1. Because I have put my trust in Christ and daily there was a thirst for Him
2. At the point of placing faith in Christ.
3. I would use the traditional reformed perspective of justification
Today? Well……
I’d say that the Law showed my my sin and killed me. The Holy Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that I am a child of God.
That was before I found reformed theology and that still stands today.
Within those 2 things the elements of the gospel that I laid out above occured also.
Lionel,
To answer your heading question: Not much!
Ash,
I would disagree with your first statement. You were already dead and the Holy Spirit gave you life, you can’t kill a dead men (Ephesians 2:1-10). But that would be a different argument. I believe that the “Law” is obsolete.
Aussie J,
I think I agree Sir.
Lionel,
You’re right. I should’ve chosen better words. Rather, the Law showed me that I was dead. I agree that the Law is obsolete in terms of it being God’s covenant with Man after Christ, especially since it was the covenant between Him and Israel. But, I would still say that it’s useful in that it shows us our sin, specifically the moral aspects of the Law.
Ash,
I think Christ said the Holy Spirit will convict us of sin, I also believe Christ to be a new law of sorts, but I can give you a link to help clarify it.
Anway, I believe the Good News, I have entrusted my life to Christ and I am convicted of unrighteousness and have the desire to be conformed. I believe all is a work of the Spirit thus I know I have eternal life (1 John 5:18-20 I think).
I also agree that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. Perhaps I don’t understand how that happens apart from the law, since I believe the purpose of the Law is to show us our sin. But I’d definitely be willing to look at the link.
Good, on point B. =)
Ash,
Which law are you referring to? For example where is impatience in the “law”? I am trying to understand your use of “Law”.
By Law I mean the entire Law (Gen – Deuteronomy), but I’m more/less speaking of how the top 10 (if you will) shows us how we don’t meet God’s standard of perfection i.e. –Have you ever lied? Have you even stolen anything? –Those things are used to demonstrate that we’ve sinned and offended a holy God. I’m not speaking of adhering to the letter of the Law, but rather how it shows us people (i.e. pagans) that they (formerly us) miss the mark. Romans 3:20, Romans 4:15, Galatians 3:24
In addition, I’m also not saying that we are by any means still under the Law or that it’s binding on Christians (whether Jew or Gentile). It wasn’t meant for us (Gentiles), since it was specifically the covenant God made with Israel.
After the Law has shown us our sin, thru the conviction of the Holy Spirt, who then leads us to repentance, there’s no more purpose for it.
Ash,
I see what you are saying and though I disagree that is the traditional reformed perspective. I believe that the Law has no bearing whatsoever on the nonbeliever or the believer but that the Law of Christ is the new law to convict through the Spirit.
So, how do you take Paul’s statements? And what do you mean when you say “Law of Christ”?
I take Paul to be crossing over from one covenant to the next. The only person who can say “when the law came I died” is a Jew, the Law never came to Gentiles in any way. Next Paul says “for I have the desire to do right but can’t”. Again this is the Jew fighting for righteousness through the Law. The Law promised life (well, from an OT perspective it did, really the law came to kill to show the righteousness of Christ) he says but he said that it killed him.
So in short Paul is a Jew attempting to gain righteousness through the Law, everytime a new law is introduced sin becomes more evident and he finds himself “sold under sin”. The believer is no longer “sold under sin” we are “set free from sin” and “slaves of Christ” not “slaves of unrighteousness”.
So if we read Romans 6-8 as a unit (which I believe it is) Paul is defending the Gospel against claims that it is antinomian (Romans 6), yet proving the law only came to kill (Romans 7) and that those who are of God (truly) are by the Spirit and are not of the flesh (Romans 8).
This could turn into a looonnnnggg discussion. But I do not agree with the popular interpretation of Romans 7. Neither Does Charles Leiter http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2007/11/romans-7-by-charles-leiter.html
or Douglas Moo
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&pg=PA447&lpg=PA447&dq=Douglas+moo+Romans+7&source=bl&ots=quxMzfEYSF&sig=nSe_Hvv0xypaFGs48S3qfM8O3Lo&hl=en&ei=kO3NS_foD8b_lge27cyiCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Douglas%20moo%20Romans%207&f=false
I wrote about here
http://blackandreformedministries.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/oh-wretched-man-that-i-am-the-mantra-of-the-defeated-christian/
Ash,
The Law of Christ is the ethic given by Christ and His apostles. We find it on the pages of the New Testament.
Thanks for the links! I skimmed thru them but I’ll definitely read more thoroughly when I have time. I guess that’d probably be best before making a counter-argument, especially since you probably already know everything I’m going to say. LOL!
However, I won’t concede that the Law doesn’t have a place in showing people their sinfulness. I WILL, however, say that perhaps it’s not the ONLY way that a person comes to salvation. And if what you’ve written is true, I’ll just have to praise the Lord all the more because He used my misinterpretation of Paul’s words to show me His salvation, namely Romans 7:7, led me to the Law, and BAM! – made me a believer.
I knew about the ethics of Christ and His apostles (was churchin for 8 years before I became a believer) but that never led ME to salvation, although it may have for others. This just helps me to know that I shouldn’t try to restrain God to my little box. Thx again!
Ash,
So are you saying the New Testament ethich never drove you to repentance but the Old Testament ethic did? Can you elaborate on that a bit. Which ones?
At the time, all I know is when I came face2face with the 10 commandments, specifically “Thou shalt not lie”, I was like, “OMG, how many lies have I told in my life?! I just lied yesterday!” I really couldn’t get thru to the rest of them because I understood that in view of that 1 sin I had a rap-sheet that would wrap the circumference of the globe.
I supernaturally understood that I was under God’s fierce wrath, because I’d looked at that thing tons of times before and never felt any conviction, and that I’d never measure up to it. And if I died, I’d be eternally separated. Immediately following that, I had a light-bulb moment like, “Oh so THIS is why Jesus lived a perfect life.” And I trusted in Him and it’s been on ever since.
Idk if that answers your question or not. But I’m not sure that I view the OT and NT ethics as being mutually exclusive, which reminds me of Psalm 51:17. I don’t recall that being in the Law.
Lionel,
Important questions that have left their marks on the church – think about the creeds and so forth.
My own conclusion is this: we must be careful to get Jesus right so as not to diminish from his claims and him being Savior and Lord.
Ash,
Let me ask how would you handle 2 Corinthians 5:7 ? You can read 2 Corinthians 5:1-11 for the entire context. I would say if we can’t look at Jesus and become convicted but look at cold tablets that are now obsolete then we may really be redefining the Gospel a bit. Hebrews 8:1-13 is another good reference. I would love to discuss this more.
One last note if we look through Acts they only preached Christ and never the Law.
T.C.R,
I agree, but that would leave us with 1 Corinthians 15 alone
Ash,
Check this out it is really brief
http://www.christmycovenant.com/content/er1/er_lib1/the_law_and_the_new_covenant.html
I would think that if Christ is the embodiment of the Law -Matt 5:17, then it would stand to reason that I could be convicted by it as well, IMO. And by that I’m not saying that we are still under the Law/Old Covenant.
I think a possible issue could stem from the fact that you may see disharmony between the two covenants and I don’t. Are there differences? Most definitely. But blatantly opposed, not necessarily.
I believe OT Saints were saved by faith just as we are. I don’t deny or disregard any of the priestly work accomplished by Christ, or that we walk by, and are saved by faith in Christ, or that the Old Covenant is obsolete in that it’s no longer binding.
Ash,
Yep, I think that may be our difference
. Thanks for the convo it has definitely help rekindle some of my passion. Have a good hump day.
Awesome! Anytime!
I just saw the link in #29. Don’t know how I missed it earlier. Reading….Ok, I agree with what most of what he wrote. Am I legalistic? Nope. Am I antinomian? Nope. Is the Lord conforming me to the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit? Yep. =)
When I look at the Law of Moses , I see the standards of God, His heart and mind and what’s important to Him. I think there’s value in the awareness of the Law of Moses because I believe those things demonstrate our rebellion against the Lord; therefore, I believe it would be incorrect to say that it’s not useful at all. Binding? No. Useful? Yes. Is it always needful to show a person their sin? Perhaps not.
We don’t live by, nor are we saved by, the letter of the Law of Moses. But lying, stealing, and murder are still not ok in God’s eyes. Jesus even rehashed some of it on the Sermon on the Mount, thus also showing us our sin. And I know my righteousness doesn’t exceed that of the Pharisees.
I guess I just needed it to be spelled out for me in a straight-to-the-point sort of way and the Lord used the 10 commandments and Romans 7 to show that to me.
How ’bout you? What did He use for you?
Also, when I say that I don’t see disharmony between the two covenants, this is what I mean –
*Moral aspects of the Law of Moses – Fulfilled thru Christ
*Ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses – Fulfilled thru Christ
*Sacrificial aspects of the Law of Moses – Fulfilled thru Christ
*Law on tablets vs Law on Hearts – different
*Indwelling of the Holy Spirit – different
ETC.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask away and I’ll do my best to try and answer them.
Have a good hump day too! B-)
Ash,
I guess for me in the Transfiguration the Father says “this is my beloved Son, you are now to listen to Him”. Jesus never points us back to Moses, He moves us away from Moses and towards Himself. Hebrews says “in the prior days He spoke through Moses and the Prophets, but today He speaks through His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-11 or so).
For me the ethic of the Christian is found through Christ and His Apostles. We no longer need to look back to Moses. Why? Because Jesus is the “word of God”, “exact impression” of God and “the bodily form” of God. If want to see God’s standard, I only need to look at God.
I also believe once Jesus fulfilled He set them to the side. If we understand the Old Covenant in its redemptive, historical intentions then I think we will be more apt to set it aside. I no longer need to look at the picture, because I have the real thing. The Old Covenant was a picture, Jesus is the fulfillment and the anthithesis of that picture. That is why I no longer need to look back for a “standard of God”. God’s standard became flesh and dwelt among us and we are beholding His glory.
This is why I gave you the verses, but it was actually 2 Corinthians 3:1-11 not 2 Corinthians 5:1-11. The law only came to kill, Jesus came to give life. Again this is why Paul says “we preach Christ and Him crucified”, the law has been set aside and though it may be good historical reference it has no benefit in evangelism nor Christian ethics.
To your question, He used the resurrection, not only to save me but also to conform me. The more I look at Christ’s work the more I am humbled and the more I want to “put Him on and walk in Him”.
I agree, but that would leave us with 1 Corinthians 15 alone.
Not really! John speaks of keeping Jesus’ humanity in tact, as a test of orthodoxy (1 & 2 John).
Besides, I think the virgin birth is essential. But Matthew and Luke takes pains to point this out. It’s essential to the incarnational distinctive.
T.C.R,
If he wasn’t human he couldn’t raise from the dead and he definitely couldn’t die.
I don’t know about the Virgin birth, I am not saying it wasn’t in Paul’s preaching, but none of his recorded information even references it. I think if it were really important he would have at least referenced it once maybe Colossians in dealing with gnosticism.
Well, regarding the Virgin birth as not being referenced by Paul, we’re then left to mere speculation. Yours is just as good as mine.
Are scholars settled on the type of Gnosticism in Colossians? Is it even there at all? Perhaps in an incipient form but not as full-blown as second century.
T.C.R,
Depends on which scholars. But as to speculation I am only saying it is lacking in what was recorded of him and by him, I think that says a lot. If abscence is speculation then there is much to speculate about :0
This quote is not a direct answer to your questions, but my heart resonates with it:
“There must be a real heartfelt belief that God’s promises are sure and to be depended on—a real belief that what God says in the Bible is all true and that every doctrine contrary to this is false, whatever anyone may say. There must be a real belief that all God’s words are to be received, however hard and disagreeable to flesh and blood, and that His way is right and all others wrong. This there must be, or you will never come out from the world, take up the cross, follow Christ and be saved.”
—J.C. Ryle, from “Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots”
As a guiding principle, I think we must settle in our minds that whatever the Bible says is true, whether we understand it or not. It seems to me, there are few things we need to understand in order to be saved. However, I get very concerned when someone starts rattling off a list of things they don’t believe which are stated in the Bible. I believe it all, whether I ever understand it or can explain it.
Brother Wyeth,
I think that goes back to inspiration, experience and so forth. I don’t know if people outright deny but they do question and many question in light of scripture that may sound contradictory at points. Though some may be able to explain it. I think it is part of our God given mechanisms to question and I am perfectly okay with questions.
Perhaps its just me—but Luke 10:25-35 seems to make things the most simple….and it may not be the most “theological” answer—but considering it was given to an expert in the law…with Jesus using the example of every-day dudes in action, it seems relevant.
Can one be a Good Samaritan based on what they know of the Lord and still make it?
I think so, Gabriel. I don’t believe correct doctrine saves us anymore than doubting or denying doctrine condemns us. Demons believe God is one (James 2:19) and also believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 3:11; 5:7) but it doesn’t do them a bit of good. There’s no reason whatsoever to think the thief at Jesus’ side knew about the virgin birth or the trinity, let alone believed them. Yet he’s in paradise all the same because he responded to something in Christ that made him believe in Christ. Believing in Jesus and believing things about Jesus are not the same (Matt 7:22-23). When people suggest our salvation depends on doctrinal purity it sounds an awful lot like intellectual works to me. What’s worse, turning the faith into a list of intellectual boxes that have to be checked off is what turns so many people away from Jesus, because it gives the impression (sadly an often correct one) that to be accepted by Christians first requires that seekers pretend to be something they’re not. Perhaps people wouldn’t perceive Christians as hypocrites if more of us valued integrity over the pretense of conformity.
Besides, if salvation required correct theology how could you ever be sure of your salvation given the fact that ‘the heart is above all things deceitful’? The truth of a person is more complicated than their conscious thought. You could be fooling yourself and would never know.
Rod,
I agree with everything you said accept one. I no longer believe the “heart is deceitfully wicked. Jeremiah 31 talks about a new heart and Hebrews 8 talks about the fulfillment of that in Christ. But great comment
Ahh, excellent point. I’d still say the whole truth of person isn’t limited to their conscious thought, though.
Ditto Rod