By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:19:00 +0000

by Micah at 05:47PM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
I agree with you that all these things are true and supported by Scripture. What I don't quite see, at least Scripturally, is where it says that assent to these beliefs is necessary for salvation, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Murdock at 06:05PM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
I think much of it is wrapped up in John 8:24. “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe I am he you will die in your sins.” Assuming belief in something requires possessing an idea of it, we must understand who Jesus is. In context Jesus is speaking of being the light of the world, the judge, and in likeness of the Father. This also entails that salvation from sin has to do with His work, not anything we can do. There are likely other passages which shed light on this but this should suffice for now. Thanks Micah.
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Micah at 07:05PM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
That is the most helpful verse, though it also raises some other questions. The nature of Christ as fully man and fully God wasn't settled in the early church until Nicea, around 325 (this is roughly right, right?).
Does your position then hold that all those on the wrong side of that question were not saved, and concurrently, that all the early Christians had their theology (such as the Trinity) as figured out as we do know?
I'm with you on what it counts to be orthodox, I guess my understanding of what's needed for salvation is significantly lower, (I'm also troubled by the countless other verses about what is necessary for salvation that do not include the content of John 8:24, which seems like a pretty serious omission; the earliest accounts in Paul's letters emphasize belief in Jesus as the Messiah, but do not include a proper understanding of the Trinity).
Thanks for the thought-provoking posts . . .
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Bill Ekhardt at 08:47PM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
I don't have it in front of me… I could go look for it, but I think you will find that a large portion of the Church has set a minimum orthodoxy in the requirements for membership to the World Council of Churches, which is minimal enough to include nearly all of protestantism, but descriptive enough to exclude the Mormon Church.
While I have heard reference to this criteria, I couldn't find it online. Sorry.
I agree with Micah about what we are listing in this inclusion.
I would start with the questions of baptism and go forward. Roger, I think you are still working within a conservative evangelical perspective as you build this. You might want to consider starting from within an Eastern orthodox position (assuming you affirm they are Christian.) The subset of what you share in common with them might be instructive.
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Murdock at 10:20PM (PST) on Mar 15, 2005
Micah, it depends what you mean by “settled.” There wasn't an official declaration on the subject that I know of until Nicea (yes, 325), but it was taught by the earliest church fathers we have records from. But I don't think that even matters; what does matter is if it's actually in Scripture, which we believe it is. I highly doubt someone needs a painstakingly worked out Christology to be saved (though I think God's glorified if we have one). But from Scripture it appears that there needs to be some, perhaps vague, understanding that Jesus is divine and human.
I make no determination about who's saved or not, that's God's call. I'm simply looking at what God has revealed as necessary for salvation. Regardless of whether Paul omitted the content of John 8:24, the words are God's word and final.
Bill, why would you start with baptism? And, why should I consider starting from an Eastern Orthodox position? I actually don't know anything about Eastern Orthodox, so I can't say if I think their doctrines are Christian or not. What I'm going for here is what the text of the Bible (expired by God) actually states. I don't see how my current presuppositions (reformed) abuse my understanding of the text. If I'ved missed or misunderstood something, please show me what it is. I think we both have the goal of understanding the truth revealed in God's Word; iron sharpens iron.
As for working in a “conervative evangelical perspective.” I'm certainly conservative, but I'm not sure if I'm evangelical. I used to think evangelical and protestant were the same thing, but recently I've seen they aren't. I'm still working on what distinguishes evangelicalism as a movement and whether or not I'm a part of it. For now I'll be forward and say I'm reformed, conservative (theologically and politcally), a Red Sox fan, and proud of it. I agree much more with someone reformed like Mike Horton than someone evangelical like Rick Warren or Bill Hybels.
Thanks for your thoughts guys.
Re: Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Bill Ekhardt at 01:35PM (PST) on Mar 16, 2005
The reason I start with the questions of baptism is that it is from the church practice the minimum barrier to membership. We in the PC(USA) are only allowed to bar someone from membership based on the questions of baptism. The other creeds and doctrines can bar someone from leadership, but not from membership. From memory, the session is only allowed to consider wether someone professes Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior. Implicit in that is their belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God, was an actual human being that came and died and was bodily resurrected. This extension isn't explicit, though.
When the session evaluates someone, they can inquire into these things to determin in their view if the person has genuinely received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but those are the only grounds on which we can bar membership.
In addition to that question, the common question of baptism is do you renounce evil and its work in the world.
The reason I ask you to consider the Eastern Orthodox perspective is to exclude that which you have added to the Orthodox set that they have not.
I understand why and how you are trying to build an orthodoxy from Scripture. From my perspective as someone who has studied a bit of graduate theology, this approach seems both reduntant (reinventing the wheel) and naive. Biblical theology, one branch of theology is far from unified. There is a vast breadth of faithful interpretation in the formulation of biblical theology.
Now I don't want to shout you down. I think it is a good exercise to work these things out biblically for ourselves. I just think it is limited at best to do so without the previous work of the Christian commuinity and scholarship.
Having said all of that, lest you be concerned, I still hold other revelation to be subject to scripture. Its just that I think the rest helps us interpret scripture.
Re: Re: Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Murdock at 11:03PM (PST) on Mar 16, 2005
To that degree then I think looking at the Eastern Orthodox or PC(USA) position is only helpful if it interacts with the same texts (John 8:24 or bringing other passages to bear that shed light on the subject). I find it interesting that PC(USA) bars membership based only on baptism, but I don't see why I should care if it doesn't deal with the text.
Simply because Biblical theology isn't unified doesn't mean a) that there isn't a right interpretation or b) that I can't arrive at it. Unfortunately I don't have time to read what every person thought about John 8:24 throughout history (or any other passage for that matter). I can, however, form an interpretation in light of what I perceive the text to say and adjust my understanding as necessary when I encounter interpretations better than my own. This approach makes the most sense to me, and it's why I enjoy dialoguing with folks such as yourself.
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Face at 07:27AM (PST) on Mar 16, 2005
I'd like to throw out the idea from the Calvinist perspective that there is only one thing required for salvation, and that's regeneration of a person's spirit by God. What a person believes is only an outward indication to us of his spiritual state, since those whom God draws and who are regenerated will accept the plain truths of the Bible when they are confronted with them. I think those truths include the ones above and also some about the nature of God. But, always present will also be an element of trust and submission to God. Without the trust, the belief means nothing!
This would answer the question of people in the past as well. They hadn't worked everything out perfectly, but those who were regenerated accepted the plain truths as they were understood because they recognized them as truth. (Still sorting through these ideas.)
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Bill Ekhardt at 01:22PM (PST) on Mar 16, 2005
Interesting Amy. This perspective too, made questions of orthodoxy less sticky. As our salvation was not dependent on one particular creed, orthodoxy moved from being critical to important. It is interesting how far removed we are now from this Reformed soteriology.
Re: What is Necessary For Salvation?
by Murdock at 11:10PM (PST) on Mar 16, 2005
Since I'm a Calvinist I think I should add some to this. Orthodoxy is as important as good works. It is the fruit of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Just as faith without works is dead, so is faith without right belief dead. When we see self-proclaimed Christians living lifestyles of sin, even after being confronted, we tend to think their faith is not genuine (for good reason). Similarly, if after being confronted with the truths of the Bible a person decides to believe otherwise, it gives us reason to believe their faith is not genuine. I take John 8:24 and other passages in this context to mean that if someone doesn't believe Jesus is their light, judge, Messiah, and that He's in the likeness of the Father, the Holy Spirit has not regenerated that person yet. In this sense, certain beliefs are necessary.

Comments on: What is Necessary for Salvation?

By: Anonymous