Do you need to believe Jesus is God to be saved?

[Free]

Totally agree save for I think one must understand Christ is God to be saved. That being said I am 90% sure in my own mind which is not evidence. I read a very good book on what 'saving faith' is composed of and the guy wrote one doesn't have to believe Christ is God. (aside: by Rick Brown https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brown_Beliefs_hw.pdf )
The following is my 2 proof texts: John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe [with a deep, abiding trust] that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), the Son of God; and that by believing [and trusting in and relying on Him] you may have life in His name. What aspects of the definition of "Christ" and the definition of "Son of God" must be believed to be saved? For example, if "Son of God" means Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity then basically you're saying one must believe Christ is God to be saved. "To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.”
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit.

Thanks for your response. You have a lot of patience to list so many verses for Runningman *giggle*

There is also something to be said for believing "in his name" for salvation.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity.

From Vincent regarding Matt 28:19:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Mat_3:11); εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Act_2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Rom_6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him. Eἰς, into, is the preposition commonly used with baptize. See Act_8:16; Act_19:3, Act_19:5; 1Co_1:13, 1Co_1:15; 1Co_10:2; Gal_3:27. In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."

 

[Runningman]

From the commentary...


From Ligonier.org

A nature is that which makes something what it is, those attributes that define it. For example, the divine nature is marked by divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, self-existence, eternity, and so on. To have a divine nature is to possess all the attributes that make God who He is. Thus, when we say that Jesus has a divine nature, we are saying that He possesses every attribute that God possesses in His divine nature. He is truly God.

Christ’s possession of the divine nature is taught directly in passages such as John 1:1–18. We can also look to episodes in our Lord’s life that reveal His divine nature to us. In today’s passage, for example, Jesus creates life, raising a young girl from the dead, simply by commanding her to live (Mark 5:21–43). That is something only God can do, for He created life by speaking it into existence (Gen. 1). Another passage that reveals Jesus’ possession of the divine nature is John 1:43–51. Here we see evidence of omniscience, as Jesus tells Nathanael that he was sitting under a fig tree before our Lord encountered him.

Where Trinitarianism makes the mistake is that pre-supposing that before Jesus came in the flesh that it refers to him existing in a pre-existing state (as God) when the Bible does not say any such thing.

This passage is basically in reference to a time when Gnosticism was blossoming and taking hold. They (the gnostics) were denying that Jesus had a physical body because the physical world is evil in their belief. Therefore God didn’t incarnate as something evil. “Dying mankind” as you may see some gnostics say.

What John is saying doesn’t transfer that he is saying Jesus pre-existed as God because that isn’t something that would refute a gnostic theology of Jesus.

Consider that Pul said the same thing of himself, using “in the flesh” as a phrase to refer to being face to face, in person, as opposed to not being in writings. Jesus pre-existed in writings, prophecy, written in scrolls was came “in the flesh” after all. And Paul isn’t an omnipresent spirit.

Colossians 2
5Truly indeed, if I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and seeing your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

So once again, to say Jesus came in the flesh means he was here in real life as opposed to being talked about on paper. Those who deny that are anti-Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Of course it's a doctrine and theology. Doctrine comes from the Bible and is based on theology.


You need to provide evidence that John 1:1-3 is a personification. So far you have only given your opinion, and your opinion cannot account for what John states. You're appealing to Proverbs and Psalms, both of which use a fair amount of poetry and figurative language.

First all of, God’s word is personified in the Old Testament. There isn’t a pre-existent person known as the Word in the Old Testament.

The word of God is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11)

You may also see how non-person immaterial things like words and wisdom are used in Hebrew literature such as in Proverbs 8-9 where wisdom is called a woman. We automatically know wisdom isn’t a real woman.

John talked about the very same topic in that he talked about in John 1 in 1 John 1:1-3 saying that the Word of Life is a thing (he literally called the Word an it) that manifested in a man named Jesus in the beginning. This was something the apostles could see, hear, and touch, so it refers to the beginning of Jesus ministry.

John's gospel, however, is historical narrative, the whole point of which John gives us at the end:

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

Says Son of God not God the Son.

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (ESV)

The whole point is that we can know who Jesus, the Son of God, is. If John didn't write actual fact in John 1:1-3, then there was no purpose in what he wrote. Different genres require different approaches to interpretation.

Well, the Bible contains various literary devices. How else would you account for John contradicting John 1:1-14 in 1 John 1:1-3, God’s words being personified in the Old Testament, and no record of a pre-existent being known as the Word in the Bible? Its personification. The alternative is a theology with holes like the ones I’ll continue to expose.

No. The plain reading of that passage shows a clear change in chronology when John the Baptist is mentioned. is speaking of the Word, the Son, not the Father.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
Joh 1:16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Many things when read literally without understanding the global context of the Bible may seem to say something they actually don’t. John provided clues in John 1 that Jesus isn’t God. He mentioned that John the Baptist was testifying about the true Light coming into the world in the present tense in verse 9. That would mean Jesus was ~30 years old when the true Light was coming into the world. That excludes the Word as being God Almighty or the Creator of the world.

There is one continuous thought in John's prologue--who the Messiah is. And John plainly states that the Messiah has never not existed, being the preincarnate Word, the Son, who is also in nature God. Of course, that he is in nature God necessarily follows from John already having stated 1) that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and 2) the Word was in a living union and communion with God. That is further supported by the Word having been involved in the creation of every that was created. It necessarily follows from this that the Word cannot be created himself.

You need to provide evidence for that. Where was the Word saying or doing anything in the beginning? There should be something in Genesis if we’re to be anywhere.

The rest of the passage clearly is linked to the Word by continuous use of "he," "him," and "his." The true light whom John bore witness of can only be the Word, the Messiah.

Personification.

That's not found anywhere in Scripture, right?

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (ESV)

Isaiah 7:14,15 describes Immanuel as being a child who needed time to reject evil and chose good. Immanuel is just the definition of the name, not that he is literally God with them. God doesn’t need time to reject evil and choose good. There are many theophoric names in the Bible that refer to Gos but don’t make the person named that God.

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. (ESV)

The divine will of God became flesh.

No. John 3:31 is either John the Baptist or John making the statement that Jesus is from above.

John 3:3 says one must be born from above (where Jesus came from) to see the kingdom of God. This isn’t literal. Jesus was born in a manger.

Of course he didn't and no one is saying he did. But, he did say that he descended from heaven, and since he didn't do that in the flesh, when did he?

It’s not literal.

It's irrelevant if the manna didn't preexist eternally. The point is that Jesus, as the Son, came from heaven. That means he preexisted, and, as John has already pointed out, he existed "for eternity past" as the Word, as the Son.

John didn’t point out Jesus existed from eternity past except for perhaps in the foreknowledge of God.

That is a fallacious argument. It doesn't follow that if one example was proven to not show deity that every other example wouldn't be an example of deity. If you could refute just one, that would be interesting.

But we agree that deity is always deity and there are no exceptions.

It says a lot more than that, including the at Jesus is deity, equal to the Father.

Jesus said the Father is greater than him.

Out of context those may seem to say one thing, but as I have pointed out numerous times, the logic of 1 Cor 8:6 can only mean that the Son is also God in nature.

Then why does 1 Corinthians 8:6 not affirm the deity of Jesus, saying the Father is their one God?

 

[Runningman]

Of course not, but that isn't relevant. The Father was involved in creation, the Son was involved in creation, and the Holy Spirit was involved in creation.

The Father is the only creator of heaven and earth as all of scripture states. He is known personal as YHWH.

Of course, and since every son is the exact same nature as his father, it necessarily follows that the Son is also deity.

There are many sons of God who are not deity themselves. Jesus isn’t deity if other sins of God are not deity.

1 John 3
9Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10By this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

And why would Jesus accept worship? Jesus taught that people should pray to and worship the Father because the Father is God and was in heaven, but that doesn't preclude Jesus from also being God.

Jesus never accepted worship as God. When people prostrated themselves before him, it was in context as being the Son of God, but not as God. The kind of worship Jesus taught about that was acceptable was of the order of “spirit and truth.” In John 4:23,24 and he prescribed it explicitly and solely to the Father. He didn’t mention the Son or the Holy Spirit because Jesus didn’t teach Trinitarianism. The Father is holy and Spirit, therefore the Father is the Holy Spirit. Same God, different title.

And, yet, Jesus accepted worship on a few occasions:

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
…
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, (ESV)
Jhn 9:37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.”
Jhn 9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
Jhn 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” (ESV)

The context is important in each instance.

When those knees bowed to Jesus only the Father got the glory according to Paul.

Philippians 2
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Of course Jesus was the servant, the Messiah, but how, exactly, does that mean they believed Jesus wasn’t God? John clearly did, Thomas did, and Peter did:

No one ever prayed to God and called Him a servant. Servant isn’t something anyone should be calling the Sovereign Lord and Creator, yet after Jesus was taken to heaven they called Jesus a servant. A servant serves someone else. That would mean shod and Jesus aren’t the same person.

2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (ESV)

That’s a proof text that plays on the English of that verse. The next verse clearly distinguishes God from Jesus as do numerous other verses.

2 Peter 1
2Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Of course Jesus has human hands. If God came to earth as a human, what sort of hands should he have?

God isn’t serves by human hands and yet Jesus had human hands? That means Jesus isn’t God. God doesn’t require people, yet He strives with us.

Where did Jesus deny being God?

Right here:

Luke 18
19“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.

God isn’t a man, he is God, and we have already agreed that God cannot cease being God. But how, exactly, does that mean that God cannot come and also become human?

I guess God can do anything He wants but does He? Apparently He didn’t do this, at least not in the way Trinitarianism is saying.

Not a single thing you have given proves the deity of Jesus or Trinity false; not even close. Everything you have given is fallaciously begging the question—you assume the very thing you conclude with each of those passages.

Perhaps after you read the above you’ll reconsider.

 

[Runningman]

Totally agree save for I think one must understand Christ is God to be saved. That being said I am 90% sure in my own mind which is not evidence. I read a very good book on what 'saving faith' is composed of and the guy wrote one doesn't have to believe Christ is God. (aside: by Rick Brown https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brown_Beliefs_hw.pdf )
The following is my 2 proof texts: John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe [with a deep, abiding trust] that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), the Son of God; and that by believing [and trusting in and relying on Him] you may have life in His name. What aspects of the definition of "Christ" and the definition of "Son of God" must be believed to be saved? For example, if "Son of God" means Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity then basically you're saying one must believe Christ is God to be saved. "To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.”
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit.

Thanks for your response. You have a lot of patience to list so many verses for Runningman *giggle*

If believing Jesus is God is a point in the gospel or would be listed explicitly and clearly. Talk about a massive oversight to not mention this if what you’re saying is true. Apparently it is not true or you would have already quoted the scripture that says such.

Do you believe Jesus is the messiah and Son of God like the Bible says or no?

 

[Runningman]

There is also something to be said for believing "in his name" for salvation.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity.

From Vincent regarding Matt 28:19:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Mat_3:11); εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Act_2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Rom_6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him. Eἰς, into, is the preposition commonly used with baptize. See Act_8:16; Act_19:3, Act_19:5; 1Co_1:13, 1Co_1:15; 1Co_10:2; Gal_3:27. In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter.

And yet there is nothing regarding your gospel in the Bible about believing Jesus is God to be saved. You are beginning with a theology and then decorating it with Bible verses; Bible verses that don't state or describe what your theology says. Begin with Bible verses and then create theology out of it.

According to scripture, here is the gospel. He who believes Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah will be saved, he who doesn't will die in their sins.

John 3​

16For 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. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.​

​

John 4​

25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”​

26Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”​

​

John 8​

24That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”​

​

Romans 10​

9If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​

​

1 Corinthians 15​

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance a : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,​

 

[Fastfredy0]

There is also something to be said for believing "in his name" for salvation.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity.

Great info. I've seen billboard signs speaking of the way to salvation and one of the points is "believing in the name of Jesus". The statement always seemed obtuse to me. Your explanation finally puts meaning to that statement of the signs.

That would necessarily entail his deity.

That being said, your post would support my contention that one must believe Christ is God in order to be saved which is contrary to your statement that a person could be saved (at least initially) without knowledge that Christ is God. (Aside: one could make the 'rabbit hole' deeper by saying, "What does one's definition of God have to be to be saved").

Aside2: Faith consists more of certainty than discernment.” John Calvin

 

[Runningman]

Great info. I've seen billboard signs speaking of the way to salvation and one of the points is "believing in the name of Jesus". The statement always seemed obtuse to me. Your explanation finally puts meaning to that statement of the signs.


That being said, your post would support my contention that one must believe Christ is God in order to be saved which is contrary to your statement that a person could be saved (at least initially) without knowledge that Christ is God. (Aside: one could make the 'rabbit hole' deeper by saying, "What does one's definition of God have to be to be saved").

Aside2: Faith consists more of certainty than discernment.” John Calvin

You’re a Reformed theologian I take it. I already know about it. Did you know Calvin never said one must believe Jesus is God or hold a belief in the Trinity to be saved? It’s antithetical to TULIP. Why aren’t you following your mentor?