Salvation is a matter of knowing & being known by God, not believing in God

[csuguy]

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16-21 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.​

True belief implies acting accordingly. Belief devoid of action is dead and cannot save you (James 2).

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it does. Hence you are now backpedaling in this post.

Lying will get you nowhere.

Ah, lovely backpedaling. But once more you are wrong - and I have already provided such scripture.

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”[a]? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?​

Here GOD says he is the Father of the SON. The scriptures declare the same wherever they say Jesus is the Son of God. For if Jesus is the Son of God, then God is the Father of Jesus. Simple stuff.

How did God the Father get to be a father? Both the Father and the Son are God.... just like the Bible says.

You lack understanding of analogy.

You already conceded this obvious truth earlier. You can try to backpedal and deny it now, but it won't change the obvious truth of the statement that the son is never the father.

Blah blah blah.... Once again, I have never said that the son is the father. Your idiotic repetition of something that I did not say is childish.

It does, for it says that Jesus is the "Son of God," which means the same thing.

When did God become the father of a son?

The Bible has SO many examples of Christ's deity, but unbelievers will not believe.

Joh 2:19 KJV Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.​

Act 2:32 KJV This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.​

You must believe that Jesus was a liar.

 

[csuguy]

Lying will get you nowhere.

Right back at you.

How did God the Father get to be a father? Both the Father and the Son are God.... just like the Bible says.

You lack understanding of analogy.

Read the verse I provided to you and learn.

Blah blah blah.... Once again, I have never said that the son is the father. Your idiotic repetition of something that I did not say is childish.

I may have misread you. It makes no difference, for the truth of the statement holds: a son is never the father, nor is the father ever the son. One begets, the other begotten.

When did God become the father of a son?

Again, read the verse I provided to you

The Bible has SO many examples of Christ's deity, but unbelievers will not believe.

Joh 2:19 KJV Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.​

Act 2:32 KJV This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.​

You must believe that Jesus was a liar.

You ignore the plethora of scripture that so clearly contradicts you. With regards Jesus being raised up, it is both true that Jesus raised himself up and that God raised him up - and there is no need to think that Jesus is God for both statements to be true. For Jesus has no power/authority in of himself - but God gives him his power and authority.

John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”​

So Jesus took up his life again, via the power and authority bestowed upon him by God. Or do you credit Moses and the prophets alone for the miracles they performed?

 

[Right Divider]

Right back at you.

I have not lied.

Read the verse I provided to you and learn.

:juggle:

I may have misread you. It makes no difference, for the truth of the statement holds: a son is never the father, nor is the father ever the son. One begets, the other begotten.

Once again... beating your poor straw-man to death.

The trinity does NOT say that the Son IS the Father or that the Father is the Son.

Again, read the verse I provided to you

:juggle:

You ignore the plethora of scripture that so clearly contradicts you. With regards Jesus being raised up, it is both true that Jesus raised himself up and that God raised him up - and there is no need to think that Jesus is God for both statements to be true. For Jesus has no power/authority in of himself - but God gives him his power and authority.

John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”​

So Jesus took up his life again, via the power and authority bestowed upon him by God. Or do you credit Moses and the prophets alone for the miracles they performed?

Funny stuff there.

Jesus is God...

It's funny that you often use the "most churches teach" stuff with regard to your preferred interpretation. But you never mention that most churches teach the doctrine of the trinity.

Bye bye heretic... back to the ignore list for you.

P.S. Come to the truth and get saved.

 

[csuguy]

The trinity does NOT say that the Son IS the Father or that the Father is the Son.

You and the Trinitiy however assert that the Son is God. But Jesus is the "Son of God." That's the same as saying God is the Father of the Son. Thus it is irrational to assert that the Son is God, who is his Father.

Perhaps this is too complex for you to comprehend.

 

[Jacob]

There is no favoritism with God. He won't damn people that never even heard the Gospel. He won't damn people who heard it but rejected it because it came from the mouths of hateful bigots, crusaders, conquerors, etc. He won't damn them because they were unconvinced.

I am uncertain of what you are saying here.

No, faith is a gift - for no one comes to God unless he calls them. It is not the presence or absence of such a call that determines if one is saved or not. Or do you believe that all Native Americans, prior to the settlement of Christian Conquerors, are damned because they never learned of the one true God?

We can keep learning the truth, and have learned it, but when we consider a question like this does it take away from the necessity of sharing the gospel with others? Are you saying we just need to consider that no one who has not accepted the gospel has yet to be saved? Or are you saying that not hearing it does not bring about punishment for something they haven't even heard or understood yet?

No - that is favoritism, a sin. God looks not at our stated beliefs, but at our hearts and at our deeds.

We need to share the gospel. It is possible that people would not know the truth because we have not shared it with them.

 

[csuguy]

I am uncertain of what you are saying here.

There are people who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel and believe, or people who heard the gospel from wicked men/women, etc. Look at the Native Americans prior the Christian conquerors settling here, the African American slaves owned by white Christians, etc. God shows no favoritism - and thus he won't condemn those who never had the opportunity to believe, or who experienced the faith through such evils as slavery and conquest.

If you maintain that holding the correct beliefs is what gets one into heaven, then you are saying that God is showing favoritism towards all those who were in a place and time to hear and receive the gospel. Born into a Christian family? BAM - your saved. Born into a Muslim family? BAM - your damned. No - that isn't how God works.

The scriptures consistently tell us that God judges our deeds and our hearts - not our doctrine.

Are you saying we just need to consider that no one who has not accepted the gospel has yet to be saved? Or are you saying that not hearing it does not bring about punishment for something they haven't even heard or understood yet?

I'm saying that a mere mental belief in God and the gospel is meaningless in of itself and cannot save you. Additionally, if one did not receive the gospel, but lived their life doing good - their reward is not lost. For salvation isn't determined by a list of doctrines.

James 2:14-20 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.

18 But someone [q]may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that [r]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
​

We need to share the gospel. It is possible that people would not know the truth because we have not shared it with them.

Yes, as Christians it is our job to share the gospel and to teach others to obey the commandments, to do what is right.

 

[Jacob]

There are people who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel and believe, or people who heard the gospel from wicked men/women, etc. Look at the Native Americans prior the Christian conquerors settling here, the African American slaves owned by white Christians, etc. God shows no favoritism - and thus he won't condemn those who never had the opportunity to believe, or who experienced the faith through such evils as slavery and conquest.

If you maintain that holding the correct beliefs is what gets one into heaven, then you are saying that God is showing favoritism towards all those who were in a place and time to hear and receive the gospel. Born into a Christian family? BAM - your saved. Born into a Muslim family? BAM - your damned. No - that isn't how God works.

The scriptures consistently tell us that God judges our deeds and our hearts - not our doctrine.



I'm saying that a mere mental belief in God and the gospel is meaningless in of itself and cannot save you. Additionally, if one did not receive the gospel, but lived their life doing good - their reward is not lost. For salvation isn't determined by a list of doctrines.

James 2:14-20 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.

18 But someone [q]may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that [r]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
​

Yes, as Christians it is our job to share the gospel and to teach others to obey the commandments, to do what is right.

Sounds good. Belief in God and beliefs about God or about your faith might be different, knowing that belief is different from beliefs.

 

[bcbsr]

Your misinterpretation is opposed to the idea that salvation is by faith in Christ, as the scriptures testify.

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" Acts 16:30,31

Ro 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Ro 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Ro 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ga 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

 

[bcbsr]

There is no favoritism with God. He won't damn people that never even heard the Gospel. He won't damn people who heard it but rejected it because it came from the mouths of hateful bigots, crusaders, conquerors, etc. He won't damn them because they were unconvinced.

No, faith is a gift - for no one comes to God unless he calls them. It is not the presence or absence of such a call that determines if one is saved or not. Or do you believe that all Native Americans, prior to the settlement of Christian Conquerors, are damned because they never learned of the one true God?

No - that is favoritism, a sin. God looks not at our stated beliefs, but at our hearts and at our deeds.

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works

 

[csuguy]

Your misinterpretation is opposed to the idea that salvation is by faith in Christ, as the scriptures testify.

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" Acts 16:30,31

Ro 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Ro 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Ro 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ga 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

What you are doing here is called cherry picking. Try addressing the plethora of scriptures I've provided on the topic that clearly contradict you're misrepresentation of the scriptures.

Where the scriptures don't make a differentiation between deeds and belief, that is because it is common sense that if you truly believe then you will act accordingly. And, for those foolish enough to think otherwise, there are scriptures calling you out as a fool.

 

[Lon]

That is what the scriptures teach, and I have provided plenty of scriptural support.



And which verses do you think detail how to know and be known by God here?

2 Corinthians 5:17 Only a new creation can produce new works. It isn't 'do good works' but having been recreated, one known by God does 'naturally' new works.

Matthew 7:23 has people who 'thought' they were known by Jesus, yet He told them plainly He never knew them. They had done 'good works' but not new-naturally. Only a spirit recreated in God is 'capable' of doing acts according to a new nature.

It does no good at all to say 'emulate me' or 'emulate this/that apostle.' Rather, we need to have the Lord Jesus Christ's touch else all of it, every bit of it, is simply and nothing but old wine in old wineskins. We are ONLY capable of new-natured works, with a new nature recreated so. Ephesians 2:10 John 3:7

 

[Lon]

What you are doing here is called cherry picking. Try addressing the plethora of scriptures I've provided on the topic that clearly contradict you're misrepresentation of the scriptures.

Where the scriptures don't make a differentiation between deeds and belief, that is because it is common sense that if you truly believe then you will act accordingly. And, for those foolish enough to think otherwise, there are scriptures calling you out as a fool.

:nono: It is the difference of what you focus on and what another sees in scripture. Weigh, don't dismiss. Look to the timeline of the truth unfolding: The Jews had Deuteronomy, Christians have Matthew thru Revelation for instruction, and gentiles have specific books addressed to them as well. We are one in Christ, but not by instructions: Acts 15:28; 21:25 (clearly there is a separation in instructions).

Because of this, it is essential that one read the Apostle to the gentiles and follow his instructions. In addition, as I've given above, it is essential that one understands that 'works' has one often putting the proverbial cart in front of the proverbial horse. You cannot 'do' good works for salvation, but rather MUST be a new creation in order to be a vessel for good works Ephesians 2:10 Anything else is whitewashed tombs doing whitewashed works that lead nowhere. John 3:7 is a must. 1 Corinthians 2:14 'cannot' It can't be done. One cannot insist on blood from a turnip nor good works from an unregenerate man, nor 'reborn' oneself. Only God is capable creating a new creation. With man, it is indeed impossible. Once God makes this clear to you, your theology understanding will change. Pray for it CSguy. You must/necessarily be recreated to grasp any of this.

 

[Right Divider]

:nono: It is the difference of what you focus on and what another sees in scripture. Weigh, don't dismiss. Look to the timeline of the truth unfolding: The Jews had Deuteronomy, Christians have Matthew thru Revelation for instruction, and gentiles have specific books addressed to them as well. We are one in Christ, but not by instructions: Acts 15:28; 21:25 (clearly there is a separation in instructions).

And this is exactly why Churchianity is so confused in the present day. If you try to take instructions for the body of Christ from, for example, Matthew through John you will be mixing apples and walruses.

The vast majority of "the gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are still teaching exactly the same things as Genesis through Malachi. We, the body of Christ, can learn from those things... but they are NOT doctrines for us to follow. On the day of Pentecost (a lawfully required feast day for Israel), Peter was NOT preaching to the body of Christ (as it has not even been established yet). He was preaching the fulfillment of prophecy for Israel and to Israel.

The new testament is not even possible until the very end of those books (MMLJ). So they are actually just a continuation of all that God was doing to and through Israel. Peter makes this crystal clear in Act 1-8, but Churchianity has perverted the meaning of all of that with its mashed myths and scripture blending.

Even just prior to His ascension, Jesus told the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel to teach the law of Moses.

Mat 28:19-20 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Those ALL THINGS THAT IS HAVE COMMANDED YOU included following the law of Moses.

Mat 23:1-3 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

This is so clear that it take complete blindness to believe otherwise.

Because of this, it is essential that one read the Apostle to the gentiles and follow his instructions.

A hardy AMEN to that!

 

[Lon]

And this is exactly why Churchianity is so confused in the present day. If you try to take instructions for the body of Christ from, for example, Matthew through John you will be mixing apples and walruses.

The vast majority of "the gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are still teaching exactly the same things as Genesis through Malachi. We, the body of Christ, can learn from those things... but they are NOT doctrines for us to follow. On the day of Pentecost (a lawfully required feast day for Israel), Peter was NOT preaching to the body of Christ (as it has not even been established yet). He was preaching the fulfillment of prophecy for Israel and to Israel.

The new testament is not even possible until the very end of those books (MMLJ). So they are actually just a continuation of all that God was doing to and through Israel. Peter makes this crystal clear in Act 1-8, but Churchianity has perverted the meaning of all of that with its mashed myths and scripture blending.

Even just prior to His ascension, Jesus told the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel to teach the law of Moses.

Mat 28:19-20 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Those ALL THINGS THAT IS HAVE COMMANDED YOU included following the law of Moses.

Mat 23:1-3 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.​

This is so clear that it take complete blindness to believe otherwise.


A hardy AMEN to that!

Well, I could have used "Genesis through Revelation" as we have a complete book. I do realize that we divide the book differently but I'd suggest that Matthew Mark Luke and John tell you of your Savior whom you love. Direct application? :nono: I agree, you have to be careful to notice what is written to a Jew as well as notice what can be applied universally. For instance, I think it behooves all Christians regardless, to value loving the Lord with all our heart soul mind and strength. Possible? Yes 1 John 3:2, such is our hope.

In a nutshell, while I acquiesce our difference (I'm not a Dispensationalist, though believe God works in dispensations an unfolding plan). The largest difference is our emphasis, we both recognize difference and sameness throughout scripture. Rather I focus on what is the same and Dispensationalists on what is different and it certainly does drive our theology proper.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I could have used "Genesis through Revelation" as we have a complete book. I do realize that we divide the book differently but I'd suggest that Matthew Mark Luke and John tell you of your Savior whom you love. Direct application? :nono: I agree, you have to be careful to notice what is written to a Jew as well as notice what can be applied universally. For instance, I think it behooves all Christians regardless, to value loving the Lord with all our heart soul mind and strength. Possible? Yes 1 John 3:2, such is our hope.

In a nutshell, while I acquiesce our difference (I'm not a Dispensationalist, though believe God works in dispensations an unfolding plan). The largest difference is our emphasis, we both recognize difference and sameness throughout scripture. Rather I focus on what is the same and Dispensationalists on what is different and it certainly does drive our theology proper.

One of the main reasons that you see me focusing on differences is that modern Christianity tries to blur and blend so many things that it make a terrible mess of it.

It tends to follow this pattern:

• Completely ignore important differences.
• See anything that is even remotely similar and call it identical.