Belief in Jesus is required this side of the cross?

antiskeptic

In another thread, solodeogloria asserts:

solodeogloria wrote:

Finally as I've said clearly already. Belief in Jesus is required this side of the cross. Good works don't save anyone. If you're guilty of something good works don't cover it up. It still needs to be dealt with.

Clearly an awful lot of people are excluded from the possibility this kind of salvation by virtue of never having had the opportunity to "believe in Jesus".

I'm thinking of people in Old Testament times. I include Abraham in this - whilst he believed God and that was credited to him as righteousness (salvation), he didn't believe in Jesus as such.

I'm also thinking of the swathe of people in New Testament times (up to the present day and beyond) who, by virtue of their lack of possible knowledge of Jesus (such as to believe in him) must be excluded from salvation.


This discussion to examine:

a) how the above, problematic assertion is to be sustained

b) what the alternative, more inclusive ways to salvation might be.





Note to solodeogloria: you have previously (and presumably still do) asserted that:

a) the translation you use is an infallibly accurate representation of the original text and that everything in that translation is contained in the original text

b)your interpretation of the translation you use is the only interpretation possible (again, the position is your infallibility).

There is no place in a conversation for these standpoints - since there is no one here who could agree with them, save for you (somewhere else) demonstrating them to be true. By all means comment and discuss if able to leave this conversation-closing weaponry at the entry door.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

To be brief. When I say "this side of the cross" I mean after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

I made specific reference to Abraham and Romans 4 on that thread and how Abraham was made righteous by faith before God the Son became flesh (I believe Jesus is preeminent and that He existed before Abraham - John 8 makes that clear).

The Bible is silent on those who have never heard. We trust God will do what is right. I don't speculate beyond the Scriptures.

The other two points about my belief in the infallibility of the Bible were discussed at length on another thread. I'm a Christian and a key part of that for me is trusting that God speaks clearly through His Word. I don't leave that at the door and it is unreasonable for you to ask me to do that.

Edit: if however you can show me my position is wrong from the Bible I will happily reconsider.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To be brief. When I say "this side of the cross" I mean after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

I made specific reference to Abraham and Romans 4 on that thread and how Abraham was made righteous by faith before God the Son became flesh (I believe Jesus is preeminent and that He existed before Abraham - John 8 makes that clear).

Believing Jesus was preeminent is fine. However, Abraham didn't believe in Jesus, rather he believed God (which is slightly different than believing in God). So we have a way of salvation which doesn't involve believing in Jesus.

Believing in Jesus involves, in the first instance, believing what Jesus says (otherwise how could we believe in him, what he has done, what he offers us). So believing Jesus can be said to be a way of salvation. But believing Jesus is also believing God.

Which is what Abraham did.

Thus harmony of salvation old and new testament, rather than two separate ways.

The Bible is silent on those who have never heard. We trust God will do what is right. I don't speculate beyond the Scriptures.

Of course we trust that God will do what is right.

If believing God is the crux of the issue, then not having heard of Jesus isn't an impediment. God can speak to anyone (as he did to Abraham, as he did to those who heard via Jesus, whether directly or through the Bible). And so all have the potential to avail of that singular way of salvation. We are not speculating beyond the scriptures, rather, we are taking what the scriptures say and also arriving at a way by which salvation is open to all.

The other two points about my belief in the infallibility of the Bible were discussed at length on another thread.

It wasn't so much the infallibility of the Bible (as in original text written by each author) that was questioned but:

a) your supposing your particular translation infallible. This in light of the problem of translation (given multiple translations)

b) your supposing no personal interpretation issues could arise since your method of extracting meaning was the only possible meaning that could be extracted. This appears problematic, given the sheer number of possible meanings (gross and subtle) which the body Christianity has managed to extract. We are left supposing either there is an issue of interpretation or you are in some way infallible.

I'm a Christian and a key part of that for me is trusting that God speaks clearly through His Word. I don't leave that at the door and it is unreasonable for you to ask me to do that.

Key for you, but not actually sustainable in light of all the evidence standing against you (not to speak of the arrogance inherent in supposing only your reading is the only possible reading). I'm a Christian too and conclude other than you do.

Edit: if however you can show me my position is wrong from the Bible I will happily reconsider.

Rather than bog down in the unscriptural supposition that a particular translation is inerrant or that a particular person's personal reading is blessed amongst all others, in it's being inerrant, I would simply ask that you avoid discussion which rests on either of those planks. There is no profit in granting yourself inerrancy. I mean, we can all simply do that and stall conversation before it can commence.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

To be brief again as it isn't fruitful to get into a lengthy discussion on this.

On Abraham I was clear to say "this side of the cross". As far as I can see the Bible says that this side of the death and resurrection of Jesus that we need to believe and trust in Him. If you disagree I'm happy to hear a Biblical argument to the contrary. I have no interest in discussing without a Bible open.

I also have never said that my interpretation is infallible. If I believed that why would I invite you to correct my understanding from the Bible? I don't believe asking you to refer to the Bible in this discussion is stalling a conversation.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

On Abraham I was clear to say "this side of the cross".

I know what you asserted but I don't see "this side of the cross" mentioned in the Bible. Nor do I conclude two ways of salvation: pre-cross and post-cross from what is written therein.

Where, for instance, are the parts which say:

that this side of the death and resurrection of Jesus that we need to believe and trust in Him.I'm happy to hear a Biblical argument to the contrary. I have no interest in discussing without a Bible open.

So open the Bible. You assert a two step way of salvation + mystery for a large portion of mankind.

I've simply inserted like word for like word (Jesus = God) in order to cause clearly scriptural means of salvation to merge. To wit: believe God.

I also have never said that my interpretation is infallible. If I believed that why would I invite you to correct my understanding from the Bible? I don't believe asking you to refer to the Bible in this discussion is stalling a conversation.

I do remember conversation with you where you saw little need in discussing possible interpretations (and possible translational difficulties*). Your view what that the texts meaning was plain and simple and that was that - even if others don't see it so.

This flies in the face of the facts - Christianity is nothing if not divided by the multiplicity of possible views of words/phrases/passages and the like. If something is plain and simple then it can't be misconstrued. Making the understanding inerrant. Not supernaturally so, but so effectively considered inerrant.


*I did once seek from you an explanation as to how you conclude your translation identical in all meaning to the original text. You don't explain how clear translational losses/errors* are to be overcome - since God can no more make one language identical to all others than he can construct a square circle.

By error I mean that one modern translation differs from the next. They both can't be right

endacl

Reminded me of a thread I started a few years ago, and then completely for got to get back to!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86056736

I could yet be saved by the swing voters...

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

antiskeptic - if you want to read more about why I believe that I recommend reading the posts I made to tommy2bad on this issue. I also recommend reading the section of John's gospel from chapter 5 to 10 where Jesus explains this in a number of places.

Have a good weekend.

Edit: if you want to argue that the book of Romans as a whole teaches that we don't need to believe in Jesus to be saved I'm willing to hear it. I've pointed to a number of passages in that thread which say that if we believe the Father we would believe Him also (in John) and also throughout Romans saying we are justified by belief in Jesus. I'm happy to be convinced by a Biblical argument.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

endacl wrote: »

Reminded me of a thread I started a few years ago, and then completely for got to get back to!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86056736

I could yet be saved by the swing voters...

Who can say. Suffice to say, I don't think you "have to believe in Jesus Christ" or "accept Jesus into your heart" or adhere to any of the multitude of other narrow formulae that can extracted from a 'proof text'.

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

antiskeptic - if you want to read more about why I believe that I recommend reading the posts I made to tommy2bad on this issue. I also recommend reading the section of John's gospel from chapter 5 to 10 where Jesus explains this in a number of places.

Have a good weekend.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

That's a bit of of a wide net! The opening of chapter 5, for instance (vs 1-14) says absolutely nothing about the way of salvation. How far in need I go? Can you be a bit more specific?

Remember, it's a Christian (who's sourcing his view from his reading of the Bible) that you're dealing with here. Assume I've read the chapters you refer to already, and that more than once. My view isn't dogmatically held - that is, it is prepared to modify as the evidence pressing for modification causes it to change. That evidence has thus far moved me away from this view that you and many others hold. It has moved me from what, imo, are similar, equally narrow, simplistic, exclusionary, partial (a.k.a. fill the gap with "mystery of God") explanations as to the way salvation is obtained.

You might also link to the relevant part of the conversation you had with Tommy - something that is specific to the assertion quoted in the OP, e.g. since-the-cross mode of salvation being different from the mode prior to that.

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: if you want to argue that the book of Romans as a whole teaches that we don't need to believe in Jesus to be saved I'm willing to hear it. I've pointed to a number of passages in that thread which say that if we believe the Father we would believe Him also (in John) and also throughout Romans saying we are justified by belief in Jesus. I'm happy to be convinced by a Biblical argument.

I think you misdirect by citing a whole (theologically massive) book.

And I think you misframe in supposing what it does teach (and to whom it teaches it) to be indicative of what it doesn't teach. Remember, we already know that salvation is possible without belief in Jesus (e.g. Abraham).

One option, in the face of that knowledge, is to find the common denominator between these two ways of salvation - such as they become one way, at root. You would agree, for instance, that Abraham's sin's are dealt with by Christs future sacrifice? You would agree that it is through Christ that Abraham comes to God - even if Abraham wasn't aware of the channel?

The alternative option to a common mode of salvation is your erecting some kind of "since the cross" way of salvation that differs in some essential way to what went before. Positive support for that particular notion is required rather than an weak inference.


-

Looking through Romans..

Romans 1:17 wrote:

For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f]

Paul links what occurred in OT times with what occurs in NT times. At 1:17 he quotes the OT mode of obtaining God's provision of righteousness "the righteous shall live by faith" as support for the current mode of salvation he will subsequently elaborate on. By faith is a common denominator. Faith in Christ isn't.

It's worth noting here that faith and belief can be interchangeable where they refer to the triggering of salvation.


What are we to make of the next section dealing with the issue?

[quote=Romans 3:21) But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.[/quote]

I'd note:

1. now has been made known. Made known is not the same as brand new / different. The law and the prophets testified to it - the way of righteousness existed and was clearly operating on people. But it wasn't hitherto known about in terms of it's working method.

2 the righteousness given through faith in Christ to all who believe.

a) you'll notice a little (h) at faith in above. When I hover over it it says "Or through the faithfulness of". What are we to make of this (possibly translation-sourced) flexibility in meaning? Let's look at both options.

- Righteousness given through faith/belief in Christ for all who believe (believe what yet to be disclosed)

- Righteous given through the work of Jesus on the cross to all who believe (believe what yet to be disclosed)


The former makes no grammatical sense. The latter does: object/channel/subject I'll plump for the latter option for the moment, because it'll be supported later

2:27 wrote:

No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Interesting word that - maintain. "To cause or enable (a condition or situation) to continue." Justified by faith in the OT, justified by faith in the NT. No faith in Christ here. No pre/post cross difference in means of salvation.

Romans 3:4 wrote:

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Starting chapter 3 we have Paul support the way of salvation using the OT case of Abraham. Abraham believed God. Which goes a way to letting us suppose where the undisclosed belief in verse 3:22 ought to lie. To wit: believe God.

Here at 3:4 Paul is using the present continuous tense. That's post cross and forever territory. And the mode of being justified is ... trusting God. Abraham, in believing God, trusted God. No belief or faith in Jesus here either

The chapter continues on, with no mention of Christ until near the end where it says this:

23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Credited righteousness by what? Not believing in Jesus but believing in him who raised Jesus. Believing God. That's post-cross people doing just as pre-cross people like Abraham did. They believed God and have righteousness credited


So Solodeogloria: This "faith in Jesus Christ" is mentioned but once thus far and that open to question depending on which option you pick from the translations available. Other than that the route is clear: believe God. OT, NT and on from that.


I scanned up to about chapter 6 but couldn't see anything else mentioning faith in Christ as route to salvation. Over to you.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

You've just quoted verses 22 and 26 of chapter 3 of Romans which clearly say that the one who believes in Jesus is justified.

None of these verses give rise to the notion that belief in Jesus isn't required.

I'm happy for you to insist that I'm a theologically conservative Scrooge as a result but verses upon verses upon verses can be referred to confirm this. John chapter 3 and specifically the dialogue with Nicodemus confirm as much. Or indeed the authors remarks in 3:36. The Apostles also understood that there was no other name under heaven by which man can be saved (Acts 4:12). It's not a scant example on isolated texts but something that runs right through the Bible.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

You've just quoted verses 22

Which has been qualified. It's a "through" statement. Salvation through what Jesus did (his faithfulness in going to the cross). Abraham avails of that same thing. Abrahams sin is dealt with through jesus on the cross

26 of chapter 3 of Romans which clearly say that the one who believes in Jesus is justified.

I'd agree that belief in Jesus means you belong to the group of the saved, justification being one of the many badges which are attached to you. The question arises as to whether belief in Jesus is the starting point in the cascade of things that occur: adopted as son, declared righteous, receive the holy spirit, eye's opened, old man crucified, justified, seeing Jesus for who he is (if you are subsequently exposed to information about him) etc. etc.

The key event is the thing which initiates the unstoppable cascade of salvation-related changes we undergo. We have to avoid the mistake of looking into the process mid-sequence, see that one thing in the cascade follows another - then supposing a precursor event is the salvation-initiating event. It needn't be. It probably won't be.

None of these verses give rise to the notion that belief in Jesus isn't required.

And if that isn't their purpose? What we do have is verses there that indicate what is required. Belief in / trust in God.

As I say, vs 22 is dealt with and doesn't indicate belief in Jesus required. Vs 26 says what it says - if you believe in Jesus then you are saved. IF/THEN*. Fine - that's an badge the saved will wear as will whatever badge Abraham wore. There is no exclusionary element in any verse being posited which supports your case - something firm like "unless a man believe in Jesus then he cannot be saved".

*We have an IF/THEN statement here. IF I walk in the direction of Cork THEN I will eventually get there. That doesn't exclude my driving to Cork. The verse can't be made say more than it says. And can't exclude anything it doesn't specifically exclude.

I'm happy for you to insist that I'm a theologically conservative Scrooge as a result but verses upon verses upon verses can be referred to confirm this.

You've cited Romans and I've trawled Romans up to a point. And I find it's somewhat less than chock full with support for your position. Indeed, it points more to mine. Whether or not we'll find verse stacked upon verse elsewhere remains to be seen. I doubt it myself.

From Romans.

1. Believing God is persistently indicated as a criteria for salvation. Before Christ and after Christ

2. We hopefully won't conflict over the notion of being blind before salvation and having eyes opened afterwards. One who is saved (on account of believing God) will see Jesus for what he is (if once exposed to knowledge of him). Having faith in Jesus can be relegated (if I might use that term) to a consequential thing. They see and believe in him because their eyes have been opened by God.

It's not a unknown idea: the notion of the father giving people to the son. Indicative of the salvation transaction occurring between the person and the father upon which: eyes open and subsequent recognition of the son.

John 8:42 wrote:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil..

See the sequences here. If you were saved (if God was your father) then you would love me. If you were able to hear (were saved) then my language would be clear (and you would believe) me.

John chapter 3 and specifically the dialogue with Nicodemus confirm as much. Or indeed the authors remarks in 3:36. The Apostles also understood that there was no other name under heaven by which man can be saved (Acts 4:12).

We can look closely at each in turn. When we do, I suspect we'll find as we'll see in a moment with the Acts verse "by which man can be saved". It doesn't support your contention anything near as clearly as you suppose.

I don't contend other than that all saved men are saved by (through) Jesus. Abraham's salvation rests as much on what Christ did as does mine. He was saved by (through) Jesus but not by faith in Jesus. "By" belongs to same category of word as "through". Channel, mechanism, that kind of thing. And as we have seen, Jesus-as-a-channel through which salvation is worked is quite a different matter to faith in him being the key instigator of the salvation transaction.



But first you might deal with Romans - and in whom the belief needs to be in, in order to be saved. God the father, it appears.

It's not a scant example on isolated texts but something that runs right through the Bible.

Then it should be easy to get some clear cut examples which exclude (from cross on) salvation where there is no belief in Jesus. But first you might deal with Romans given these inconvenient statements saying that salvation past and current comes from believing, trusting God the father.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Verse 22 also mentions the object of faith, as does verse 26. Rendering Jesus as simply the vehicle of salvation isn't what the Bible seems to be teaching. I need more robust explanation of that even just from Romans 3.

Abraham is before Jesus. He trusted in the same God who rescued us in Jesus. If salvation was simply thorough faith in a concept of God rather than specifically in Jesus it doesn't make sense of Paul's anguish for the Jews in chapters 9 to 11 and it doesn't make sense of chapters 1 to 3 where Paul argues that mere obedience to the law doesn't save.

I'm not persuaded of your position. If we could be saved without Jesus then that makes the cross pointless and unnecessary, which Paul doesn't believe. (Galatians 2:21)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Verse 22 also mentions the object of faith

Here's the verse. Where's the object of the faith?

22 This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe.

22 This righteousness is given / through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ / to all who believe.

as does verse 26. Rendering Jesus as simply the vehicle of salvation isn't what the Bible seems to be teaching. I need more robust explanation of that even just from Romans 3.

The robust-enough-for-now explanation is the fact that God as object of faith-tied-directly-to-salvation, past and present (by Paul), is mentioned a number of times in Romans. Compared to your singular verse.

The numbers at least are against you. Note that these inconvenient verses need dealing with by you - they are in the Bible, they stand against your contention. Have you anything to say?

It's time you start engaging in the argument presented - rather than simply say "you need more robustness" or that the weight of scripture stands in support of you. Indeed, you might read what's being written: you're still mentioning vs 22 as if nothing has been said in relation to it to counter your view.

Abraham is before Jesus. He trusted in the same God who rescued us in Jesus. If salvation was simply thorough faith in a concept of God rather than specifically in Jesus it doesn't make sense of Paul's anguish for the Jews in chapters 9 to 11

This "faith in a concept of God" was a profound event. Salvation of a man.


Could you tell me what essential differences might exist between salvation by faith in God vs. salvation by faith in Jesus (a.k.a. God). If the former just a concept then surely the latter too? I mean, what have you got that Abraham didn't have by way of substance. Some words on a page?


I note yet more chapters parachuted in. No argument to make whatever connection you think exists, no effort on your part. This is pretty weak stuff Solo...

and it doesn't make sense of chapters 1 to 3 where Paul argues that mere obedience to the law doesn't save.

So point out the conflict you suppose exists.I see Paul argue that obedience to the law doesn't save. But where is that rendered senseless by faith in God vs faith in Jesus (a.k.a. God)?

If we could be saved without Jesus then that makes the cross pointless and unnecessary, which Paul doesn't believe. (Galatians 2:21)

You don't appear to making even a passing attempt at reading my posts Solo.

I started the last post saying:

"Salvation through what Jesus did (his faithfulness in going to the cross). Abraham avails of that same thing. Abrahams' sin is dealt with through Jesus on the cross"

Yet you suppose me holding we can be saved without Jesus' work on the cross?

Let me spell it out to clarify. I hold we don't have to have faith in Jesus in order to avail of his saving work.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

That is what I find so dangerous. Belief in Jesus is required and your explanation isn't robust enough.

John 3:36 ESV wrote:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

For my point on the object in Romans 3:

Romans 3:21-26 ESV wrote:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

It is dangerous because it could have very serious eternal consequences for peoples salvation if they don't trust in Jesus now to say that they don't need to trust Him.

You do need to give a better explanation. There are many many more passages.

antiskeptic wrote:

I note yet more chapters parachuted in. No argument to make whatever connection you think exists, no effort on your part. This is pretty weak stuff Solo...

If I give you verses I'm proof texting. If I give you whole chapters in which Paul describes his anguish for his people the Jews I'm parachuting. Part of Biblical theology means reading books in context. That requires reading chapters.

If you don't want to read them that's fine but the Bible is the pitch for me.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

That is what I find so dangerous.

I'm not of the opinion that a persons salvation depends on you, me or anyone else communicating a correct theology. Bar assuming own infallibility (whether supposing one's theology construct perfect or one's being led inerrantly by the Spirit) we are left with our best effort. I don't suppose God relying on our best effort for a persons salvation.

Belief in Jesus is required and your explanation isn't robust enough.

I'm not supposing my position robust enough. But I am attempting to probe at this dogma of yours and am finding an unwillingness to address fair points raised.

A doctrine/theology is like a theory: it is ever-provisional (you say yourself you are willing to have your views changed in principle). If a theory can absorb each and every observation then it's a good theory. If an observation comes along which the theory cannot accommodate then the theory is either modified so that it can accommodate the latest observation or it is scrapped. It isn't stuck to dogmatically, fearfully.

I am not saying that there aren't verses/passages that, if taken in isolation alone, would indicate what you hold to be the case. But they stand alongside verses/passages that question what you hold to be the case. And you need to accommodate / construct a theology that explains the latter's presence. Else your theology is erroneous at best.

You might not end up with an (you think) iron-clad, end to end theology, but you'll end up with something that better reflects the whole.

-

1. We have Romans 3:22. I have given you a translation which removes Christ as object. You keep on avoiding that and simply persist in pressing the point. What are you going to do to resolve that? What are you going to do with the fact that your (and my) theology is constructed around a translation that might not be accurate at all points.

2. You have places in Romans where faith in God (present continuous tense) is stated as providing salvation - not faith in Jesus. How does your theology accommodate that?

3. [/quote]Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.[/quote]

The parallel passage in that same chapter uses the word "reject the Son" A couple of points/questions

a) What do you do with your "since the cross" division given people believed the son whilst Jesus lived and so were saved. Peter, for instance.

b) I've no issue with the above passage. It comments not on all those who never heard of Christ in order to accept or reject him. It doesn't say that unless a person believes Christ they will be lost.

If I give you verses I'm proof texting. If I give you whole chapters in which Paul describes his anguish for his people the Jews I'm parachuting. Part of Biblical theology means reading books in context. That requires reading chapters.

My complaint stands in context. You don't seem to be doing much of the work. 3:22 not dealt with, believing God rather than in Jesus .. not dealt with. I'm happy to engage with someone showing the signs of engagement. Otherwise I get to thinking I'm being sent on a wild goose chase. You did cite the whole book of Romans, for crying out loud.


Whilst we're on Romans:

In Chapter 10, Paul is discussing the question of the Jews in this gospel landscape. He continually grounds the gospel in the old testament - it might be revealed more fully but it was always God's way of salvation: by faith, by grace, not by works of the Law. Abraham experienced it so, we experience it so. What is that ditty: the New Testament makes patent what in the Old Testament was latent.

Can you comment on:

"All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Abraham called on the name of the Lord. These days we think of calling on the name of the Lord as Christ. Are you/we in danger of dividing up the Trinity into three separate individuals, supposing calling on the Lord God was the way to go in the OT time, and that this was switched to calling on the Lord Jesus these days. Who is the Lord that is to be called on?


Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."

Jesus is the word. Rather than only being accessible via the Bible or during his incarnation, he is ever existent and present. In the heart also (which ties in with Paul's describing all people as knowing of God's existence via creation and inner heart testimony). If so, then have we not a means whereby all can avail of this same salvation: Old Testament times, new Testament times (whether exposed to the written account of him or not)?

Since you will disagree, perhaps tell me, specifically, what must someone believe: we can believe in his name, we can believe God, we can call on the Lord (which one), we can, if we read the whole Bible come up with a whole host of detailed ways in which salvation by faith is described as being obtained.

What's the formula, what's the essence of this salvation, what precisely must be believed/believed in?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I'm not suggesting that anyone's salvation depends on me but rather on the Lord Jesus Christ and His precious death and resurrection.

Chapter 8 ends with Paul stating that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:44).

The logical question that he's trying to answer in chapter 9 if we are God's people, who's to say that we can't be separated in the same way that the Jews were.

Paul then distinguishes between national Israel and the Israel of faith in 9:6. Paul explains that they were cut off from Christ in 9:3 and he explains that the Christ is God over all.

If belief in Jesus wasn't necessary what's all the fuss about?

In chapter 10 we're told that although God is powerful in election (throughout chapter 9) we are still responsible for our rejection of His Word. The Jews who rejected Jesus had no excuse. Verse 6 explains that it is those who believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead that are saved. This is consistent with copious amounts of the New Testament.

Verse 6 contains the object of faith. The whole section from chapter 9 to 11 simply does not make a jot of sense without the essential place of Jesus. In fact the whole New Testament falls to pieces.

Chapter 11 offers hope that as the Gentiles are saved the Jewish people might come to believe.

Moreover if you believe that Jesus is God as Paul does then to believe in God inherently means to believe in Christ.

The Bible is the only pitch I play on for discussing the revealed nature of God.

The Deuteronomy quote needs to be understood in light of chapters 30 - 32. Moses explains to the Israelites that they will disobey His Word. I think we should walk through that also if you're arguing that Paul is saying that we can be justified by works (as he has strenuously refuted in chapters 1 to 4 of Romans).

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria