What must I do to be saved? Research

Page 7 of 7 (129 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7
This post has 128 Replies | 6 Followers

Posts 1206
xnman | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 4:46 PM | Locked

MJ. Smith:

xnman:

1. Is belief needed or not needed?

2. Is believe a part of the condition to be in Christ or not?

Simple answer. The question itself is ill-formed. The Lutheran is right: 

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari:
The teaching of the CCC (Cathechism of the Catholic Church) holds true even in Lutheran perspective: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”.

Your vocabulary of "need" and "condition to" both try to constrain God. All we can speak of are the normative conditions.

That adds more confusion.....  my minds in a whirl... lol

1. Does Mark 16:16 apply only because of "baptism" or does it apply because of "believes" and "baptism"?   

2. Can one be "baptized" without believing and be saved?

3. Does God require one to believe in Jesus... and if so... how is that "constrain" God?

xn = Christan  man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".

Posts 1927
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 5:43 PM | Locked

xnman:
1. Does Mark 16:16 apply only because of "baptism" or does it apply because of "believes" and "baptism"? 

Only God knows. But it does seem in scripture that belief and baptism do go together. As a Lutheran, we say belief clings to that water... We are earthly, and so we tend to need things coming here to earth. I can point to my baptism and say that God says I am a child of God, marked with the cross of Christ forever. And so my belief isn't a gut check. It is something I slowly and often too stubbornly realize about what God has done... In general, all of this stuff is relationship language - of a quite unequal relationship between Creator and Creature.

xnman:
2. Can one be "baptized" without believing and be saved?

It certainly looks like it on this side of the grave. It seems like we stumble and fall away. But that doesn't necessarily constrain God. God's Word does accomplish its purpose (Is 55) but on God's timescale. I hope and pray that all the Baptized will arise with Christ into his Kingdom and that Sin, Death and the Devil don't get the last word for anyone. But it unfortunately looks like there are still people lost out there...

xnman:
3. Does God require one to believe in Jesus... and if so... how is that "constrain" God?

We have no scriptural warrant to say that there is any other name by which people are saved. But Jesus did say how the Kingdom was like a Wedding where they went through the streets to get anyone to come. Our concepts of what is "belief" in Jesus is not God's measuring rod in this. The Kingdom of God is, well, God's, and the only "constraint" on this is that God is faithful to his promises. Hence, when I have to talk about this, I try to talk about what God as said and done.

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 36041
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 5:56 PM | Locked

xnman:
1. Does Mark 16:16 apply only because of "baptism" or does it apply because of "believes" and "baptism"?   

Or is it a rule of thumb for the normative case?

xnman:
2. Can one be "baptized" without believing and be saved?

And what content are you assuming is meant by "believe"? Depending upon your definition of what must be believed, the answer may be yes or no. Given the baptism of entire households in Acts, it is reasonable to assume baptism without belief.

xnman:
3. Does God require one to believe in Jesus... and if so... how is that "constrain" God?

How do you fit Abraham and David etc. into this requirement? to say that God "requires" anything implies that if that anything isn't done, God can't save you - that is a constraint on God.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1206
xnman | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 6:44 PM | Locked

MJ. Smith:
 Or is it a rule of thumb for the normative case?

What is normative case?

MJ. Smith:
And what content are you assuming is meant by "believe"? Depending upon your definition of what must be believed, the answer may be yes or no. Given the baptism of entire households in Acts, it is reasonable to assume baptism without belief.

So is Joh 3:16 valid?  Is Joh 3:18 valid? Is Joh 3:36 valid?  Can one be saved without believing in Jesus? 

MJ. Smith:
How do you fit Abraham and David etc. into this requirement? to say that God "requires" anything implies that if that anything isn't done, God can't save you - that is a constraint on God. 

I fit them in just fine as the Bible does... 2 Tim 2:15...  by rightly dividing the word of truth...  Abraham was before the Law of Moses which came to be in Exodus 20. ... and Deuteronomy 5:3-4. as such didn't have to believe in Jesus... but did have to believe in God and that was shown in his faith in God .... and the same goes for those under the Law of Moses... they had to keep that law... which ended with the death of Jesus...

But under the New Covenant... Rom 7:6, Heb 7:12 and which Jesus speaks of in Mat 26:28... one has to believe in Jesus as point out in Scriptures above... 

So a requirement to be saved... is definitely "believe in Jesus as being the Son of God"...  it's not the only requirement... but it's seems to certainly be one of them....  IMHO...Geeked

Edit: As to the "baptisms of households".... I think it's a big assumption to say they didn't believe before they were baptized... but I am interested in where you get such an assumption.... 

xn = Christan  man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".

Posts 36041
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 7:27 PM | Locked

xnman:
What is normative case?

the normal way but not necessarily the only way

xnman:
valid

Validity refers to the form of a logical argument or contracts that meet legal requirements to be enforced ...so I don't know what you mean. I would never describe scripture as valid. If you mean "true", then yes, all passages of the Bible when correctly interpreted are true in the casual sense of the word ... much of scripture is poetic, for example, rather than propositional so "true" doesn't really apply.

xnman:
but I am interested in where you get such an assumption.... 

Not an assumption - a common sense inference based on the timelines.

xnman:
it's not the only requirement... but it's seems to certainly be one of them....  IMHO...

As the question "are you saved" to me reeks of "what's in it for me" and as several people in this thread have expressed the view that relationship (member of the family of God aka Church) is critical and as some of us reject anything that constrains God, we will never reach consensus - the usual goal of theological debates (as per informal logic). I need to bow out as the thread is far outside the forum guidelines.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 236
Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 7 2022 9:14 PM | Locked

xnman:

3. Does God require... if so... how is that "constrain" God?

To stay in Forum guidelines, I suggest the following search and the following resources:

First, a search:

future WITHIN 10 WORDS imperative WITHIN 10 WORDS promise

The difference between future tense imperative and a promise is a subtle one, to say the least, at least in Lutheran perspective. To translate a future verb either as an imperative or as a promise makes all the difference between Law and Gospel, in Lutheran perspective.

When something future is only an imperative, the resulting failure shows it to be so. When man doesn’t fail, the resulting success shows that the future verb said in the past was an indicative, so a sweet promise.

Says Luther (in the Bondage of the Will): "Hebrew language frequently uses the future indicative for the imperative." He continues: "This shows only that “man is shown what he ought to do, not what he can do.” 

Once again, paradoxes, st. Augustine’s famous prayer from the Confessions: ”Da quod iubes, et iube quod vis." (Give what you command, and command what you will).

xnman:

 2 Tim 2:15...  by rightly dividing the word of truth... 

Says Walther: "The Word of God is not rightly divided when one makes an appeal to believe in a manner as if a person could make himself believe or at least help towards that end, instead of preaching faith into a person’s heart by laying the Gospel promises before him."

I quess everybody knows the difference between making demands and promises, in everyday language and communication. Especially the children and the youth are well tuned to hear the difference between making demands and making promises…

Peace!

Logos 9 Anglican Diamond, Logos 9 Lutheran Diamond

Posts 5576
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 8 2022 3:46 AM | Locked

xnman:

After reading the above posts.... I'm confused...

1. Is belief needed or not needed?

2. Is believe a part of the condition to be in Christ or not?

While some words in Hebrew and Greek (and their English counterparts, also) have essentially identical lexical domains (ruuahh/pneuma/spirit, for instance, have remarkable overlap), sometimes there are corresponding words with significant semantic variation, and on occasion one language may not contain a true analogous counterpart with the other. For instance, there simply isn't any Hebrew word that means "mind" per se. In Hebrew, the heart is the organ associated with thought, remembrance, and other concepts commonly associated in English as "brain work". It's also the organ typically associated with deceiving and being deceived. In Greek, "brain work" is associated with the mind and, over time, this began to be localized in the brain. The first Greek neurocentrist (as opposed to cardiocentrist) view of the mind was approx. the early 5th century BCE.

The differences between the thought we find embedded and revealed in the two Biblical languages is made evident by looking at the verse that follows the Sh'ma`, Deut. 6:5 NASB. Notice the three domains mentioned in Hebrew: leibhaabh (heart), nepphesh (soul), and m'ohdh (strength). In the gospels, the list varies between three (Mt. 22:37) and four domains (Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27). All three include "mind", which is a new introduction in the Greek. Interestingly, Matthew replaces "strength" with "mind" rather than "heart", which one might think is the natural comparable analogue. This indicates that in the Greek of the time, there was a sense of significant variation in what "heart" and "mind" signified.

Hebrew
Deut. 6:5 -- heart, soul, strength

Greek
Mt. 22:37 -- heart, soul, mind
Mk. 12:30 -- heart, soul, mind, strength
Lk. 10:27-- heart, soul, strength, mind

Granular analysis would certainly yield much worthy of comment, but I just want to focus on the perceived need to add a domain. Whatever prompted this addition, the result, especially as the text eventually transitions into English, is that a perceived bifurcation is introduced. The sense here is that contemplative thought was a product of mind, whereas emotional response was the function of the heart. This bifurcation, whatever its merits or faults, creates a sensation in the meaning-making process of Christians that is entirely foreign to what is in force in Tanakh:. In English, by way of the bifurcation introduced through Greek, much room is made for "interior" activity (thinking and feeling) that is really pseudo-activity--not in the sense that it isn't "happening", but in the perceived and expressed sense that it doesn't have to manifest in perceivable "exterior" action. As a result, people have "beliefs" that are considered by themselves and others as fully legitimate even though there is no tangible evidence of these supposed notions that manifest in perceivable action. This is functional nonsense in the Hebrew of Tanakh:, where there is both an implicit and explicit assumption that the "two" domains are effectively just one. In Tanakh:, you don't ever have to depend on someone telling you what they believe; you simply "see" what they believe. There is almost a sense of irrelevancy with regard to the "interior" due to the assumption (it's actually more than just an assumption) that the exterior is what matters. Virtually any time the two domains are not perceived to function in "lock step", a sense of duplicity is elicited and ascribed. In Hebrew it is called being "double-hearted"; in Greek, a corresponding phenomenon is labeled as "double-minded".

I underlined "beliefs" and "believe" above because I want to draw attention to how this added conceptual domain (mind) introduced through Greek thought provided an ecosystem that allowed for the introduction of notions that were (and still are) foreign to YHWH's expressed will. I will continue to address belief forthwith, but I want to acknowledge another lexical domain where Greek introduces a bifurcation not present in Hebrew. The Greek word I want to draw attention to is pistis (usually translated as "faith"). I expect it to shock you, and most will immediately find the statement "unbelievable" (per Hab. 1:5 NASB), but there is no word in Hebrew that corresponds to the NT concept of "faith" that Christians hold so dear. It simply isn't to be found at all. This is what I meant earlier when I said the "interior" realm of heart/mind is effectively irrelevant in Biblical Hebrew perspective. A person's "feeling" or "interior sense" of having "valid" intellectual assent or agreement with some concept, described as "faith", is unknown and undescribed in Tanakh:, believe it or not. In fact, in NASB95, the word "faith" only appears a paltry four times in the OT. In Deut. 32:51 NASB, "faith" is used in the phrase "broke faith" (ma`al), which is better translated as "trespassed" or "acted unfaithfully". In Job 39:12 NASB, "faith" is used inaccurately for 'aaman, which has the following entry in TWOT:

116 אָמַן (ʾāman) to confirm, support, uphold (Qal); to be established, be faithful (Niphal); to be certain, i.e. to believe in (Hiphil). ASV, RSV usually the same. One notable exception is Gen 15:6 where RSV has “believed,” while ASV has “believed in.”)
Jack B. Scott, “116 אָמַן,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 51.

It is used in the hiphil in this verse from Job. Notice how it says this hiphil sense typically corresponds to the niphal sense of "trusting certainty", but that an EXCEPTION is made in Gen. 15:6 where it is translated as "believed"...a translational decision that is flagrantly initiated by a backward-looking and anachronous theological predisposition rather than a semantic sense that is contemporaneous with the time of the autograph. The same scenario is in play for this usage in Job 39. In fact, the LHI gives "rely / trust / believe" as its options (and not "faith") here, choosing "rely" in its text line. Before moving to the third usage of "faith" in the NASB95 OT, I want to draw attention to the ultra-common translational choice of "believe" in Gen. 15:6, where this is nearly always perceived in an "interior" sense of "intellectual assent", with some folks expressly denying room for any accompanying exterior manifestation of obedience or associated "work". That concept is semantically untenable with any use of the 'aalepph / meim / nuun root.

In Psa. 146:6 NASB, the word inappropriately translated "faith" is 'emetth in Hebrew, which means "truth". 'Nuff said. Which brings us to the last and most infamous use of the English translation "faith" in Tanakh:, which is Hab. 2:4 NASB. The infamy is strong here, precisely due to the fact that the way this verse is interpreted both lexically and doctrinally, due to the erroneous translation as "faith", has resulted in Christian theological assertions and "beliefs" that are diametrically opposite of what the Hebrew is saying. Recall what I just said in the last two sentences of the previous paragraph. It is semantically untenable--understand that to mean "impossible"--for the word used here, the Hebrew word ':emuunaah, to refer to anything like "mental assent" or "interior belief". Perhaps you find that hard or impossible to believe? Not surprising, as this is one of the most conspicuous facets of the Unbelievable Work, but you don't have to take my word alone. The NET note for this verse says:

Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה‎ (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith”, but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111–12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the LORD is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct.
The NET Bible (2006). Biblical Studies Press.

"preserved...by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct." Hmmm...cogent, isn't it? The NET isn't alone in this assessment. TDNT says:

"Hab. 2:4 is interpreted as a comprehensive fulfilment of the commandments in meritorious faithfulness."
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (2:187).

TWOT has:
אֱמוּנָה (ʾĕmûnâ). Firmness, faithfulness, fidelity. (ASV, RSV generally the same. Both give a marginal note in Hab 2:4 where they translate “faith” instead of “faithfulness” in accord with Paul’s use of the verse in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11.)
There are at least ten distinct categories in which this noun is used in Scripture. In its first occurrence in Scripture it expresses the sense of steady, firm hands, a very basic idea (Ex 17:12). From this mundane sense, Scripture moves almost entirely to a use of the word in connection with God or those related to God.
Basically, the term applies to God himself (Deut 32:4) to express his total dependability. It is frequently listed among the attributes of God (I Sam 26:23; Ps 36:5 [H 6]; Ps 40:10 [H 11]; Lam 3:23). It describes his works (Ps 33:4); and his words (Ps 119:86; 143:1).
ʾĕmûnâ is also used to refer to those whose lives God establishes. He expects to see faithfulness in them (Prov 12:22; II Chr 19:9). Indeed, such faithfulness or a life of faith is characteristic of those justified in God’s sight (Hab 2:4). God’s word of truth establishes man’s way of truth or faithfulness (Ps 119:30).
From this we can also see the concept of a duty being entrusted to a believer which becomes his trust (faithful responsibility, I Chr 9:22; II Chr 31:15, etc.) or office.
Jack B. Scott, “116 אָמַן,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 52.

We can confirm the relationship of righteousness with faithfulness in Isa. 11:5 NASB. As a result, it is conceptually impossible to interpret and apply "the righteous will live by his faithfulness" to any notion of "interior assent alone" (I'm looking at you, sola fide), simply because the word ':emuunaah absolutely and unwaveringly means "dutifully fulfilling obligations", which in the context of YHWH's enunciated expectations means the obedience of keeping His commands in His Tohraah and throughout His Word. Should anyone doubt that or find it wholly "unbelievable", perhaps Yeishuua` can persuade you to this perspective (or perhaps not?):

Mt. 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and 1cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
1 Similar to caraway seeds
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update (Mt 23:23).

Faithfulness, according to Mr. Salvation Himself, is a provision of YHWH's Tohraah, which He says must be DONE. And what of those who refuse to accept this word...who insist upon a "workless", non-obedient sola fide sense of ':emuunaah?

Jer. 7:28 “You shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God or accept correction; 1truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth29 ‘Cut off 2your hair and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on the bare heights; for the Lord has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath.’
1 Lit faithfulness   2 Lit your crown
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update (Je 7:28-29).

It seems quite like "traditional" Christianity has readily positioned itself as a viable target of His wrath, earning rejection. But, seriously...that is probably entirely "unbelievable".

Now we need to acknowledge one other disjunction between Hebrew and Greek. In Greek, the word pistis is used to mean two (at least as they are comprehended by Christians) very different notions: one is "faith" and the other is "faithfulness". Faithfulness, as presented above in the Hebrew ':enuumaah, always includes active completion of assigned responsibilities, that is, obedient fealty. That idea is also found in the NT, such as in Heb. 11, where "faithfulness" as the operative concept clarifies pistis as tangible EVIDENCE and SUBSTANCE, rather than just an incorporeal, internal state of mind. While it is conceivably possible to have these words "faith" and "faithfulness" have related meanings, that is not possible in Christianity because Paulus chose to define his version of "faith" such that it cannot and does not allow for works performed in obedience. He does likewise with "belief", eradicating any external requirement of obedience, as both 'aaman and Jn. 3:36 NASB demand. See Gal. 3:11-12, where he emphatically denies the meaning of ':enuumaah as "faithful completing of lawful obligation", instead insisting it is "evident" that it has the exact opposite meaning. This is simply a 180 degree lie. In Hab. 2:4 NASB, which Paulus is quoting and which we looked at above, "the righteous will live by his faithful keeping of YHWH's law". When Paulus says in Rom. 3:20 NASB that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight", that is an oppositional lie on two fronts. First, it blatantly contradicts Hab. 2:4 (and numerous other scriptures), but it also effectively denies that Yeishuua` came in the flesh, since it was the very fact that He DID keep the Law perfectly in the flesh that makes Him suitable as a justified (that is, "righteous") Savior. Stated plainly, the ONLY reason Yeishuua` can be Salvation for anyone is precisely because He was justified (i.e. declared "righteous") in the Father's sight because He perfectly kept the works of the Law...the exact thing that Paulus proclaims to be impossible and fruitlessly ineffectual. You may wish to say Paulus is only saying that the Law is impossible and ineffectual for humans, but Deut. 30:11 says the exact opposite, so decide whether you trust YHWH or a guy who was killing and imprisoning YHWH's children. Read on to see how Paulus does a doozy on the next three verses of Scripture.

In a nutshell, Paulus's concept of "faith" eschews and denies all presence of "works", which he can only accomplish by deliberately misquoting and contradicting the obvious meaning of YHWH's words. One way he accomplishes that dastardly feat is to simply excise the words "to do them" from his quote of Deut. 30. After entirely "internalizing" both "belief" (Rom. 10:4 NASB) and "faith" (Rom. 10:6 NASB), and entirely dismissing the YHWH-established truth described in Rom. 10:5, Paulus proceeds to misquote by means of deletion Deut. 30:12, Deut. 30:13, and Deut. 30:14, by intentionally refusing to include the parts of those verses that would entirely contradict the point he is attempting (and succeeding, as far as Christians are concerned) to make. Flip back and forth from Deut. 30 to Rom. 10 and read for yourself how he simply Exacto-knifes the words "to DO it" (that is, YHWH's commandments, the "works" of His Law) out of those verses, so that his purely internalized and vocalized (but NOT performed!!) concept of "faith" can be described in Rom. 10:9-10. With absolutely no "doing" required (because he expunged that part), Paulus's invented definition of "faith" grants both salvation and righteousness for simply engaging in mental assent and verbalization. Abracadabra! And, yes, of course, that is an outrageous and shameless transgression of Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32. Is this a problem for you? Or just "unbelievable"?

xnman:
So is Joh 3:16 valid?  Is Joh 3:18 valid? Is Joh 3:36 valid?  Can one be saved without believing in Jesus?

I said I would get back to "belief" and whether it is "necessary". As long as it is understood as a manifestation of the 'aalepph / meim / nuun root, which ALWAYS entails manifest activity, as demonstrated in Jn. 3:36, where "believe" is effectively equated with "obey", then the answer is a resounding "yes". In other words, the "belief" YHWH acknowledges is "doing His will". Must we believe (in) Yeishuua? Do you comprehend that His obedience is your blueprint? That He came "in the flesh" to demonstrate that obedience in the flesh IS possible? Yes, believe Him...and believe in His name (per Jn. 3:18)--recalling His name means Salvation.

3802 יְשׁוּעָה (yešû·ʿā(h)): n.fem. [see also 3802.5]; ≡ Str 3444; TWOT 929b—1. LN 21.9–21.13 deliverance, safety, rescue, i.e., to be in a state of freedom from danger (Ex 14:13); 2. LN 21.25–21.32 salvation, i.e., deliverance in a religious sense (Ps 62:2[EB 1]); 3. LN 39.52–39.61 victory, i.e., the act. of conquering another entity (2Sa 22:51); 4. LN 12.1–12.42 Savior, i.e., a title of God (Dt 32:15; Ps 42:6[EB 5],12[EB 11]; 43:5; 68:20[EB 19]; 89:27[EB 26])
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

Why is it important to focus on His Name's meaning of Salvation? Notice Isa. 51:1 NASB...and then recall 1 Jn. 3:7 NASB, which insists that we are declared "righteous" only in the same way Yeishuua` (Salvation) was declared "righteous". We are righteous by "pursuing", "performing", and "practicing" righteousness (as He did), NOT by having it imputed or ascribed to us without our input or effort. Now look at the passage below.

What this passage shows is an associative triangulation of the words "law", "righteousness", and "salvation". Notice especially in verse 4 that "a law" (lit. Tohraah) will go out from YHWH, and in verse 5, His "salvation" has gone out from Him. Also, in verse 7, righteousness in known by having the law in one's heart. This is not some imagined perspective (as many people describe) where having the law "in one's heart" is sufficiently effective for righteousness and salvation, such that "doing" or "obeying" the law is unnecessary, not required, or even counterproductive. Having the law in one's heart means that practicing it is second nature and thus satisfying to YHWH. This passage demonstrates what it means to "believe in His Name".

Being "in Christ" is a positional opportunity only for those who are obedient, who get into that position by doing those things which result in being "in" Him. Getting in that position is absolutely not done for you--you must do what you are told by Him to get there. Recall that Yeishuua` as Savior and Messiah was fully prophesied IN THE LAW (Deut. 18:18-19), including His work on the cross (Deut. 21:22-23) and His death (Jon. 1:17; Mt. 12:40). Here's the crux of the matter: it's not the case that Yeishuua` kept the Law and then died on the cross, but rather, Yeishuua kept the Law BY dying on the cross. What you have to do is figure out what YHWH says it takes for you to prophetically be IN Him when He's on the cross so that you can come out of the grave when He does. What it takes is obedience to Him (which inevitably entails "believing" that He is the One who was prophesied to accomplish salvation), doing what He says (Deut. 8:3; Mt. 4:4). I will say it plain: you are saved by keeping the Law, because that is the mechanism YHWH gave us for that purpose. There is no legitimate reason for that mechanism to be altered or changed, and it has not been. Keeping the Law is not easy, because we must war against our fleshly nature, but that is precisely the war YHWH designed for us to engage. Perfection is not required, but persistent perseverance is. He says that we can do it (and we are not currently nailed to a cross as the thief was and thus requiring exceptional mercy--a function of Law--Mt. 23:23)...so do it. Just do it.

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 838
JRS | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 8 2022 7:28 AM | Locked

Now, for a set of American Tourister luggage, the Maytag washer and dryer, AND, the chance to come back next week, answer the following correctly:

For all who reject "works righteousness" and subscribe to Justification by faith (alone):  Is true/genuine faith  "prescriptive" or "descriptive"?  (Hint: The answer is not both/and, it is either/or)

JRS has left the building.

Posts 36041
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 8 2022 7:53 AM | Locked

JRS:
(Hint: The answer is not both/and, it is either/or)

Talk about a theologically loaded statementWink

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Page 7 of 7 (129 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 | RSS