# Does one need to believe in the deity of Jesus to be saved?



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

I for one think so. Speaking to a friend ( who is a methodist), he tells me that he believes you can "read the entire bible and still come out believing Jesus is NOT God". I highly disagree. He continues by saying that we are never told we need to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. One passage does come to mind. John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Unless you believe that ego eimi you will die in your sins. The same term God uses in Exodus 3:14. Are there any other verses that can be used to show that a belief in the deity of Jesus is a must in salvation?


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 14, 2010)

As a Methodist, I can say that is one fuzzy-headed Methodist you talked with.


----------



## louis_jp (Jan 14, 2010)

Who is our redeemer? God, or man?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 14, 2010)

This line of thinking sounds like John Hagee. He wrote a book about how Jesus never claimed deity and therefore we can't blame the Jews for rejecting Him as the Messiah.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> This line of thinking sounds like John Hagee. He wrote a book about how Jesus never claimed deity and therefore we can't blame the Jews for rejecting Him as the Messiah.


 
I wonder if these people read the bible at all? I mean, its clear as day that He does.


----------



## etexas (Jan 14, 2010)

It is BEYOND wrong! It is a false "theology" (cough) so extreme, to hold to it is tantamount to a False God! I would say your friends soul is damned (I am NOT cursing I use a Biblical word in a legitimate way.) I pray he repents it is Demonic! God have mercy on him.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

I am not sure that a "single verse" will convince your friend, as it will be explained away: what he needs is the whole teaching of scripture. He needs to be taught about the covenant of works, which, through its enactment and rupture, demonstrated that man's mutability shows that creaturely perfection or goodness cannot be the foundation of any permanent relation between God and man -- for there is then nothing sure or firm upon which to rest. Rather, a surety who is greater than any mutable creature must be sought for a firm covenant to be established in which man can rest safely and securely. Immutability belongs to God alone, and thus the only "man" in which we can trust is that man who is God himself assuming a human nature. Now make it personal -- ask you friend what other foundation so firm does he have upon which he can rely so freely than God himself? Is he willing to rest all upon the work of a mutable creature? Or alternatively, what creature could pay an infinite sacrifice to God by which our sins could be forgiven? Or what rational creature is able to obey and satisfy for another, when that creature, being finite, first owes such satisfaction for themselves? Or what mere creature could voluntarily lay down their life for another, when they are not lords of their own bodies but owe all to God? Again, make these questions personal. Or how should be be able to cry out, "The Lord our Righteousness," if it were the righteousness of another creature and not the Lord in which we rested? Show him the scriptures that teach these concepts, which serves the same purpose as finding a verse which states, "You must believe that Christ is God to be saved," and ask him if it is right or possible to so trust in any creature. But more plainly and fully, how can we deny the plain statements of scripture which declare Christ to be our very God clothed in flesh?


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 14, 2010)

Well, for starters, how about the Athanasian Creed? Medieval Sourcebook: Quicunque Vult, or The Creed of St. Athanasius
All Christians must hold to this creed (though I'm not so sure Romanists hold it anymore).


Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Arianism is Consistent with Scripture?
--important historical information

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White <---ton of resources, I'm sure you can find something there.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> Well, for starters, how about the Athanasian Creed? Medieval Sourcebook: Quicunque Vult, or The Creed of St. Athanasius
> All Christians must hold to this creed (though I'm not so sure Romanists hold it anymore).
> 
> 
> ...


 

I've read these before. Thanks though.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2010)

I disagree. Salvation is matter of election and regeneration, and it may take years for the mind to be renewed in some areas. One example is catholics who get saved and eventually leave the RCC, but in between they are still praying to Mary. Another example is brethren locked into all kinds of wrong Arminian thinking who are nevertheless saved.

There are many messianic believers who think Jesus is the lamb that was slain, the promised messiah, and blood sacrifice for sin, and every other NT fulfillment of the type and shadow. They do not think he is deity the same as God, he is the Son of God, and to tell you the truth I don't know exactly how they see him but I know some and I think they are saved. Their total trust for heaven and eternal life is in the sacrificed lamb, the messiah Yeshua. Are they wrong about the trinity? Well yes, terribly wrong. Does a deficient mental understanding mean you can't be elect and born again? I don't think so. I would expect that in the gradual process of sanctification they will eventually see the light. I've seen oneness Pentecostals become 5 pointers; this is sort of the opposite, but God changes them, it just takes time.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> *They do not think he is deity the same as God*, he is the Son of God, and to tell you the truth I don't know exactly how they see him but I know some and I think they are saved. *Their total trust for heaven and eternal life is in the sacrificed lamb, the messiah Yeshua.*


 
Lynnie, that's exactly the problem -- their total trust is then in a creature, not in God Himself. Such is idolatry, not religion, and is the same as though they were trusting in themselves or any other creature. God demands us to rely upon him and him alone for he will not share his glory with another. We are bound to serve and honor the one who saves us, and we owe an infinite debt to the one who would redeem us from eternal death and destruction -- thus, if we think we were redeemed from such by a creature, then we are binding ourselves to wholly serve, honor and glorify a creature; and such would be abominable in God's sight.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Is it safe to say that a lack of a confession of faith, and expository preaching from the pulpit, the result of these heresies?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> I disagree. Salvation is matter of election and regeneration, and it may take years for the mind to be renewed in some areas. One example is catholics who get saved and eventually leave the RCC, but in between they are still praying to Mary. Another example is brethren locked into all kinds of wrong Arminian thinking who are nevertheless saved.
> 
> There are many messianic believers who think Jesus is the lamb that was slain, the promised messiah, and blood sacrifice for sin, and every other NT fulfillment of the type and shadow. They do not think he is deity the same as God, he is the Son of God, and to tell you the truth I don't know exactly how they see him but I know some and I think they are saved. Their total trust for heaven and eternal life is in the sacrificed lamb, the messiah Yeshua. Are they wrong about the trinity? Well yes, terribly wrong. Does a deficient mental understanding mean you can't be elect and born again? I don't think so. I would expect that in the gradual process of sanctification they will eventually see the light. I've seen oneness Pentecostals become 5 pointers; this is sort of the opposite, but God changes them, it just takes time.



Nobody says they cannot be saved eventually. However, their belief that Jesus is not God is indication that they are not yet regenerate. Belief in the Deity of Christ is absolutely required, or your trust is (as has been noted already) in a creature of God. Belief in a creature is not saving faith. 

"Deficient mental understanding" means nothing about whether you might be elect. However, they may come around - but if they take this belief to the grave, it is evidence that they were not elect. If they are still alive, all it tells us is that they do not yet have saving faith (and hence that, if elect, they are not regenerate. I don't know why this seems to stumble you. I know it's not "nice" to think that someone might not be saved - but in this case it's clear evidence that they are not.


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 14, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Is it safe to say that a lack of a confession of faith, and expository preaching from the pulpit, the result of these heresies?


 
I'm not sure which way you are drawing your causal arrow in your question.


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> I for one think so. Speaking to a friend ( who is a methodist), he tells me that he believes you can "read the entire bible and still come out believing Jesus is NOT God". I highly disagree. He continues by saying that we are never told we need to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. One passage does come to mind. John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Unless you believe that ego eimi you will die in your sins. The same term God uses in Exodus 3:14. Are there any other verses that can be used to show that a belief in the deity of Jesus is a must in salvation?



If someone reads the bible and concludes that Jesus is not God, then it is not for a lack of scriptural evidence, but rather it would be due to the hardening of that person's heart. Jesus makes several claims throughout the scriptures that He is God. What a person chooses to do with those claims is up to them. I think it's important to remember that God can choose to harden some people's heart's to His Word and when He does that, it is for His glory. Jesus explains this in the parable of the sower found in several places in the gospels. After Jesus shares the parable of the sower we read:



> Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. - Matt 13:10,11



As for needing to believe that Jesus is God to be saved, I would say yes, it is neccessary because if Jesus is not God then His death on the cross would not be an atonement for anything. A normal man cannot die for the sins of the world. A normal man would not be righteous before God, therefore we would not have any righteousness imputed to us. A normal, sinful man cannot satisfy the wrath of God.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Whitefield said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > Is it safe to say that a lack of a confession of faith, and expository preaching from the pulpit, the result of these heresies?
> ...


 
A lack of getting into the word, expounding on it, is that the result of these heresies that spew out in the church? If there were more time spent on fundamentals such as, " Who Is Jesus"...
If pastors would take their time with their congregation going through the word, maybe these heresies would not survive in the church. Thats where im going..


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

Lynnie, 

I would add that in many things you are absolutely right: it may take years for the mind to be renewed in some areas. But some areas are so fundamental that a rejection of them is a not just a rejection of orthodoxy or an espousal of heresy, but is an absolute betrayal of Christianity itself. The very name of Christianity identifies us as those who worship Christ (together with the Father and Holy Ghost, these three in one). If that person denies that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead incarnate, then they have one of two options: either 1.) They, respecting that worship is due to God alone, do not worship Christ -- in which case they have no title to the name Christian; or 2.) They persist in worshipping this creature anyway, in which case they are idolaters, and we ought to keep no company with them. This is strictly an either/or issue, which does not just strike at the heart of Christianity, but is the essence of Christianity itself: for the confession of Christ as the Son of God is the very foundation of the church itself, as our Lord said upon Peter's profession.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

I know that I trust in creatures all the time, more than I should: even reading this thread made me think how today I have had thoughts that depended and looked to creatures for benefits of salvation more than to God. I think that maybe what Andres said, that he maintains this position against the teaching of the church, and the Word of God, is the vital point (but I'm not sure)? I wonder if a person can be regenerated without understanding even these things clearly (otherwise what hope is there for little children), but that God does not leave those He calls in that condition, and they will receive and respond to God's Word as they come into further contact with it?


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> I know that I trust in creatures all the time, more than I should: even reading this thread made me think how today I have had thoughts that depended and looked to creatures for benefits of salvation more than to God. I think that maybe what Andres said, that he maintains this position against the teaching of the church, and the Word of God, is the vital point (but I'm not sure)? I wonder if a person can be regenerated without understanding even these things clearly (otherwise what hope is there for little children), but that God does not leave those He calls in that condition, and they will receive and respond to God's Word as they come into further contact with it?



Heidi, this could get into a  , but I see a big difference in children who don't completely understand every passage of scripture with a person who actively chooses to reject scripture.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Andres said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > I for one think so. Speaking to a friend ( who is a methodist), he tells me that he believes you can "read the entire bible and still come out believing Jesus is NOT God". I highly disagree. He continues by saying that we are never told we need to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. One passage does come to mind. John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Unless you believe that ego eimi you will die in your sins. The same term God uses in Exodus 3:14. Are there any other verses that can be used to show that a belief in the deity of Jesus is a must in salvation?
> ...


 
I totally agree Andrew. Just one thing, I dont think they would say " He is a normal man"... What they( Arians, Jehovah Witnesses) really think of Jesus is really messy to begin with. They say he is a small god, according to John chapter 1 verse one ( according to their translation).You show them Isaiah Isaiah 43:10, and that has to rule out! But according to them, you have two gods, and they say no! there is only one God. Sloppy logic, sloppy theology, im glad to be a reformed baptist....


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

Andrew -- just to note that that is actually, the distinction I was trying to make: that some people reject Scripture, while some people may not have had much access to it or sound teaching yet? (This man being one of those who reject it.)


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> I know that I trust in creatures all the time, more than I should: even reading this thread made me think how today I have had thoughts that depended and looked to creatures for benefits of salvation more than to God. I think that maybe what Andres said, that he maintains this position against the teaching of the church, and the Word of God, is the vital point (but I'm not sure)? I wonder if a person can be regenerated without understanding even these things clearly (otherwise what hope is there for little children), but that God does not leave those He calls in that condition, and they will receive and respond to God's Word as they come into further contact with it?


 
Mhmmm. I think there is a difference between children who dont fully understand it. And the heretics who read scripture and still deny it!


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2010)

The average arminian, if you pin them down, puts a lot credit in the final analysis on themself. They chose, they asked, they responded. Now I know Arminians who are saved- I used to be one- but they don't grasp election and salvation being ALL of God instantly. Isn't that trust in a creature too? Isn't the entire Arminian doctrine in the final analysis trust in man to some extent? But we know we have brethren among them.

If a messianic believes in the virgin birth, the sinless life of Jesus, his atonement on the cross as the blood sacrifice to take away sin, the resurrection and the second coming, well, I can't say he isn't saved. He isn't trusting in a creature any more than David and Isaiah trusted in a goat or lamb or pigeon. They trusted in God Himself to forgive sins, knowing that the blood of the lamb was acceptable, if they had faith in God that it stood in their place and took the death they deserved. And if now they think Jesus is that lamb, I won't say they are going to hell. 

I have a problem with anybody who thinks the temple will be rebuilt and they'll go back to animals. That sort of messianic does exist. But if they see Jesus as the final blood sacrifice who stands in their place, innocent and sinless, well, they are trusting God, not a creature. 

Look, I read Cross of Christ by Stott and why Jesus had to be God, not just a perfect sinless second Adam (the view I am describing). Yeah they are wrong. But so are Catholics and Arminians. I just think you can't prove somebody isn't regenerated right now if they are under bad teaching. They have a reasonably biblical understanding of atonement and propitiation which is more than I can say for some evangelicals. Their view isn't common but it is not real rare either. Pray for them. I think Reformed folks are too quick to define what the doctrinal signs of regeneration are. You can be saved and be a mental whack job. It can take decades sometimes to sanctify doctrine.

Prufrock, if I hadn't watched a UPC oneness girl and her hub become full blown 5 point John Piper lovers ( took many years) I might agree. But they denied the trinity and she was saved when I met her. She loved the Lord very much and He opened their eyes.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Andres said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > I know that I trust in creatures all the time, more than I should: even reading this thread made me think how today I have had thoughts that depended and looked to creatures for benefits of salvation more than to God. I think that maybe what Andres said, that he maintains this position against the teaching of the church, and the Word of God, is the vital point (but I'm not sure)? I wonder if a person can be regenerated without understanding even these things clearly (otherwise what hope is there for little children), but that God does not leave those He calls in that condition, and they will receive and respond to God's Word as they come into further contact with it?
> ...


 
Beat me to it...Grrrr


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

Heidi, you raise a very good point in your first sentence, and I hope you'll listen to me blather on for a bit more in an attempt to comment. We *do* indeed trust in creatures all the time (I'm reminded especially of the WLC's answer to the sins against the first commandment, which include the "use of unlawful means, and *trusting in lawful means*"); but this is through our weakness and frailty: and God is pleased to accept our imperfect, _yet sincere_, faith and obedience *because* it is offered in Christ in whom it is perfected and made pleasing to the Father. The one, however, who has never come to God in Christ, whose heart has not yet been enlightened, and who is truly and at heart an idolater has not the benefit of Christ's mediation by which the shortcomings and faults of his faith and obedience are made acceptable.


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> Andrew -- just to note that that is actually, the distinction I was trying to make: that some people reject Scripture, while some people may not have had much access to it or sound teaching yet? (This man being one of those who reject it.)


 
 my apologies for reading over your post too quickly. You are correct indeed.


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > a mere housewife said:
> ...


 
I'm quick on the draw brother. No need to growl at me.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 14, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Heidi, you raise a very good point in your first sentence, and I hope you'll listen to me blather on for a bit more in an attempt to comment. We *do* indeed trust in creatures all the time (I'm reminded especially of the WLC's answer to the sins against the first commandment, which include the "use of unlawful means, and *trusting in lawful means*"); but this is through our weakness and frailty: and God is pleased to accept our imperfect, _yet sincere_, faith and obedience *because* it is offered in Christ in whom it is perfected and made pleasing to the Father. The one, however, who has never come to God in Christ, whose heart has not yet been enlightened, and who is truly and at heart an idolater has not the benefit of Christ's mediation by which the shortcomings and faults of his faith and obedience are made acceptable.


 
I suppose then at some point I should start another thread to ask if it is possible to accept Christ, and to offer ourselves to God through Him, in a way that is deeper or behind intellectual assent and works *out* to it as we are given more knowledge (as would seem to be the case with infants). I'm sure that's phrased confusingly too, and I know it's somewhat off track for the thread -- though this kind of question always does raise the question of how consistently we can hold to God being able to regenerate infants (I do, and I don't want to have two different ideas about what is necessary to salvation functioning in my mind.)


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 14, 2010)

Fundamental to this whole discussion is that faith displayed by Abraham. Abraham *believed God* and it was counted to him for righteousness. When man does not believe the testimony that God has given of His Son, he makes God a liar (1Jn 5:10) and demonstrate their unbelieving heart and unregenerate soul. God has revealed the deity of His Son in His Word. He grants saving faith to all whom He has called and regenerated.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Prufrock, if I hadn't watched a UPC oneness girl and her hub become full blown 5 point John Piper lovers ( took many years) I might agree. But they denied the trinity and she was saved when I met her. She loved the Lord very much and He opened their eyes.



Lynnie, how would you know she was saved? Warmth and zeal and wonderfulness are not infallible indicators - not to men who look on the outward appearance, but cannot see the heart, certainly. The fact is that it is not only the Reformed who say that certain doctrines are fundamental, and where they are not received there is no salvation. Paul did that fairly early, in 1 Corinthians 15, and John did that as well in 1 John. If you deny the Son, you don't have the Father. If you deny that Christ is come in the flesh, you are an antichrist.

To the original question, a saving confession of Christ is confessing Him as Lord: when you look at Romans 10, it's pretty clear in the way he uses Joel, that involves confessing that Christ is God. Confusion and ignorance and unfortunate forms of expression notwithstanding, if you are to believe unto salvation you must believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord of glory.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 14, 2010)

Q: Does one need to believe in the deity of Jesus to be saved?
A: Yes

Luke 9:18-21 Matt 16:13-17


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> Q: Does one need to believe in the deity of Jesus to be saved?
> A: Yes
> 
> Luke 9:18-21 Matt 16:13-17


 
Thanks Rich. But these verses dont directly teach that you need to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. Just that Jesus is the Messiah... Jehovah witnesses would knodd their heads in agreement. Am I missing something in these verses? I think John 8:24 is clear that we do need to believe in His deity.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 14, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Q: Does one need to believe in the deity of Jesus to be saved?
> ...


 
You are right, they are not direct. They imply the origin of faith and revelation of who Jesus is. I guess this would just add another facet to his questioning.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 14, 2010)

I can't believe we have people actually arguing that you do not have to believe Christ to be God in order to be considered possessing saving faith.

The Nicene Creed is the BAREST of confessional statements that the church has broadly used to describe the faith. Those who do NOT uphold the Nicene creed can NOT lay claim to saving faith. If one denies the deity of Christ, you deny Christ. One who believes thus denies Him to be God, and declares Him to be a mere man! This cannot be more fundamental! 

If a person denies Him to be God, then he is CALLING Jesus Christ A LIAR. One who does this is accusing Him of SIN. If one denies Christ, then he does NOT have the Father - he does not have salvation. He is presently lost.

It matters not whether someone eventually does come to a correct understanding of Christ's deity - if at the moment they are convinced that Christ is NOT God, then they are NOT presently in a state of salvation, period. They MAY, if they are elect, eventually come to the correct understanding - but if they do not know Christ as God, they are unsaved. That future potentiality which, if they are elect, WILL come to pass, is irrelevant when considering their present state. 

It is also TOTALLY irrelevant WHY they have this wrong understanding. The point is that God in His good pleasure has decreed that this state of understanding is where the person is. GOD has not revealed Himself to them, if they deny Christ's divinity. Whether they have this wrong understanding because they have NEVER heard the truth, or because they HAVE heard it and deny it, is completely irrelevant. They are presently lost if this is their confession. 

This doctrine is one of the fundamental requirements of the Nicene Creed - even more fundamental than the confessional standards of this board. I can't be any firmer.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 14, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> I can't believe we have people actually arguing that you do not have to believe Christ to be God in order to be considered possessing saving faith.
> 
> The Nicene Creed is the BAREST of confessional statements that the church has broadly used to describe the faith. Those who do NOT uphold the Nicene creed can NOT lay claim to saving faith. If one denies the deity of Christ, you deny Christ. One who believes thus denies Him to be God, and declares Him to be a mere man! This cannot be more fundamental!
> 
> ...


 
It is totally insane...And its not even non-christian denominations, its people within Christian denominations that fall into this lie. Sad indeed.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> The average arminian, if you pin them down, puts a lot credit in the final analysis on themself. They chose, they asked, they responded. Now I know Arminians who are saved- I used to be one- but they don't grasp election and salvation being ALL of God instantly. Isn't that trust in a creature too? Isn't the entire Arminian doctrine in the final analysis trust in man to some extent? But we know we have brethren among them.
> 
> If a messianic believes in the virgin birth, the sinless life of Jesus, his atonement on the cross as the blood sacrifice to take away sin, the resurrection and the second coming, well, I can't say he isn't saved. He isn't trusting in a creature any more than David and Isaiah trusted in a goat or lamb or pigeon. They trusted in God Himself to forgive sins, knowing that the blood of the lamb was acceptable, if they had faith in God that it stood in their place and took the death they deserved. And if now they think Jesus is that lamb, I won't say they are going to hell.
> 
> ...



If the Spirit will lead into all truth, then the Deity of Christ is not optional. Lynnie, there is absolutely no way a regenerate of God will worship a block of wood or a pole for a long period of time. It is impossible. Unless you agree with some primitive baptists who do believe this. It is a hollow log doctrine of regeneration. 

If this UPC girl denied the trinity, she was as unregenerate as Judas was.


----------



## etexas (Jan 14, 2010)

I think it was Packer who said: If he needed not to be both fully man and fully God, ANY decent man could have gone to the cross!!! Wow! The context was this is absurd! He had to be man and God. GOD with us!


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> The average arminian, if you pin them down, puts a lot credit in the final analysis on themself. They chose, they asked, they responded. Now I know Arminians who are saved- I used to be one- but they don't grasp election and salvation being ALL of God instantly. Isn't that trust in a creature too? Isn't the entire Arminian doctrine in the final analysis trust in man to some extent? But we know we have brethren among them.



If someone believes that he saved himself, that God owed him salvation in return for his trust in Christ, then that person is trusting in himself and not God. You jolly well can say that such a person is not saved. Happily most Arminians are woefully inconsistent in their beliefs and actually do trust in Christ who saved them through no good or no thing in themselves. This is the only reason there are Arminians who are saved - they do not actually believe, when it comes down to it, that they are responsible for initiating their own salvation. Again, though, I repeat - if someone believes their salvation is a response by God to their own autonomously-originated faith, and that God owes them salvation because they did the right thing, it is right to question whether they actually have saving faith. No Arminian that I've ever talked to actually holds to that error, though. 



> If a messianic believes in the virgin birth, the sinless life of Jesus, his atonement on the cross as the blood sacrifice to take away sin, the resurrection and the second coming, well, I can't say he isn't saved.



Why can't you? In order for salvation to come through Christ he HAD TO BE GOD. If one is trusting in
someone he wholehartedly believes is merely a man (even if he believes that God sent that mere man to
be the one sacrifice) then one is trusting in a false Christ. He who believes in a Christ that is merely a man believes in a Christ that lied when he claimed to be God. Those who trust in such false Christs are NOT saved because they are trusting in an invention of man's imagination, and not the Christ of God. 



> He isn't trusting in a creature any more than David and Isaiah trusted in a goat or lamb or pigeon. They trusted in God Himself to forgive sins, knowing that the blood of the lamb was acceptable, if they had faith in God that it stood in their place and took the death they deserved. And if now they think Jesus is that lamb, I won't say they are going to hell.



Then you have a major quibble with the Bible, the Reformed Confessions, and the ecumenical creeds of the church. Your claim is that someone who believes in a Christ that was not sinless can be saved. Your claim is that one who believes in a fictitious Christ can be saved. You should recognize that your statement denies what all three of these standards teach about saving faith.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 14, 2010)

It is one thing when a pastor teaches heresy. You can assume he is reprobate.

But when somebody under him is young and hungry and hears about Jesus saving us from our sins and being the saviour, it doesn't mean the young person isn't regenerated, especially when he grew up Jewish and heard all his life that the Lord our God is one God. The teachers show him verses about the second Adam, the son of man, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It might be a while until he gets to the verse where Jesus says before Abraham was I am, and even when he does get to that and ask questions, the leaders can twist and explain and distort so well that the person just accepts it. But in the meantime he knows Jesus is His saviour and the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and on some level he loves Jesus.

I have seen people in error/heresy for years who came out, and in some cases it took 20 years. 

What about this passage from Jude:

_17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 

20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. 

*22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. *_

I guess the way I see this is that if I talk to somebody like the OPs methodist friend, I am not going to just automatically say to myself that he isn't saved. Nor will I say to myself that a oneness Pentecostal or a certain type of messianic is not saved. No, I want to snatch them from the fire and save them from the error. And I can talk to them with the faith of knowing that God has brought many people out of denying the trinity, both modalists and messianics. 

Personally I think you may be confusing reprobate teachers and pastors who lead people astray with the sheep who belong to the fold but might be falling off a cliff at the moment. I think you are giving up too fast. I don't know the OPs friend and he might be hardened and unsaved, but on the other hand he might have been under the spell of some JWs and he could come out. Jehovah's witnesses can become orthodox. It happens. 

I guess the reformed position here must be that the ordo salutis means that regeneration has to be concurrent with sound doctrine in this area? Regeneration can preceed understanding the 5 points, it can preceed all kinds of sound doctrine, it preceeds a lifetime of sanctification of the mind, but it can't preceed belief in Jesus as God, that must be simultaneous? Not trying to be contentious here, I'd like to know. Not saying you'll convince me that God isn't patient with some confused messianics, but just trying to figure out what the position is. Thanks.

_If this UPC girl denied the trinity, she was as unregenerate as Judas was. _

No offense but this attitude is disgusting. This girl and her husband are now active members of a Reformed Baptist Church. She loved the bible and the Lord but was under the UPC from the start. (So was a friend of my son who is now a Trinitarian and having endless fights with her Mom who thinks you are not saved unless you speak in tongues. )

If I hadn't loved this girl and had hope in the sanctifying work of the HS, I never would have talked to Vern Poythress and gotten advice from him in how to deal with her...advice that led to her finally admitting two ( three took longer). She was no Judas, she was a sheep. But it took maybe ten years from the day we met to the day her oneness hub was a five pointer.

I really think people confuse false teachers and sheep. The whole point of false prophets leading the sheep astray is that they are SHEEP not goats who are being led astray. Reprobate teachers are one thing, misled sheep another.

**********
todd: 
_Your claim is that someone who believes in a Christ that was not sinless can be saved. Your claim is that one who believes in a fictitious Christ can be saved._

Just for the record they believe he was sinless. He was the spotless lamb, the second Adam. Born of a virgin, the atoning sacrifice for sin, died and was resurrected and coming again. Pretty much the whole works except for divinity.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 14, 2010)

Lynnie, I think the heart of the problem here is that you are looking at the _process_ by which God brought them to faith, and you are attempting to lay claim to their regeneration at some point along in that process, when in fact that is something you can never know in this life. Trying to say they were regenerate all along, or mid-way through that process, or at any other particular point in that process while they were still holding heretical beliefs, leads to all manner of problems. We can only rely on the clear statement that "Jesus is LORD" as an expression of a vibrant, living faith. We cannot judge the heart.

Doesn't that make sense? You can see that, can't you?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 14, 2010)

Lynnie, two points, and this thread is done.

1. "The whole works except for divinity" leaves you with exactly as much as "the whole works except physical resurrection" or "the whole works except true humanity" or "the whole works except sinlessness". Nothing: dead in your sins, of all men most miserable.

2. You are pitting _your judgment_ of (not just who now is but also) who was regenerate against clear affirmations of the word of God. 1 John is replete with statements about beliefs that are inconsistent with being a child of God (as well as about conduct and attitudes). Heresy is a sin. See, for instance, 1 John 1:8; 2:22; 4:2,3; 5:10-12. As far as the error goes, of course false teachers do much damage; but review 1 John 2 in its entirety. Does the anointing of God permit His elect to be drawn away into damning error? No, because those who are God's are kept by His power through faith unto salvation.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

In addition to Wayne's excellent comments above, I would only add this:

You bring in an excellent teaching by quoting Jude, Lynnie -- when we see our brethren stumbling in the faith (either "theoretically" or "practically"), we absolutely _must_ have compassion on them, making a difference; and respond much more sternly to those, for instance, who are leading them astray. We need to note, however, that these statements apply to our brethren, or to those in the church. Those who have not yet come, and made a profession of at least the fundamentals of the faith (which includes God manifested in the flesh for the purgation of our sins) fall into a different category. Now, if we take the case of your Messianic Jews who do not yet know of the real Christ, we certainly should approach them with compassion and set before them the true faith; if they embrace it, then praise God! If they do not embrace it, it does not by any means indicate that we ought to stop pleading patiently and earnestly with them according to our position in life, but it also means that we do not count them brethren in the faith: rather, we continue to plead with them with the goal that they should become our brethren.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> I guess the *reformed position* here must be that the ordo salutis means that regeneration has to be concurrent with sound doctrine in this area? Regeneration can preceed understanding the 5 points, it can preceed all kinds of sound doctrine, it preceeds a lifetime of sanctification of the mind, but it can't preceed belief in Jesus as God, that must be simultaneous? Not trying to be contentious here, I'd like to know. Not saying you'll convince me that God isn't patient with some confused messianics, *but just trying to figure out what the position is.* Thanks.



Lynnie, I appreciate the fact that you're not trying to be contentious. In Reformed theology, our theologians spoke of certain "fundamentals" of the faith, or those things without which there can be no saving knowledge (for, even though we are not saved by knowledge, but faith, nevertheless there is still a certain knowledge which is required to believe). These were not simply things which could not be explicitly denied, but also of which one could not be ignorant. One of these articles is the Trinity; another is the doctrine concerning the incarnation and work of Christ. These are perhaps the two most "fundamental" in the Reformed system.



lynnie said:


> If I hadn't loved this girl and had hope in the sanctifying work of the HS, I never would have talked to Vern Poythress and gotten advice from him in how to deal with her...advice that led to her finally admitting two ( three took longer). She was no Judas, she was a sheep. But it took maybe ten years from the day we met to the day her oneness hub was a five pointer.


 
Praise God for your love of her, and your patience in setting the word of God before her that she might come to salvation! Truly, would that we all had your zeal for those around us. But as Wayne very helpfully noted, though she did indeed (at some unknown time) pass from death into life and is one of Christ's sheep, we cannot know the "when" of it: all we can know is the objective matter contained in scripture. Remember that just because someone does not have faith _now_, this does not mean that they are reprobate or not elect -- it just means that they do not yet have faith; and likewise, though someone may have shown signs of a zeal for God (see Rom. 10:1!) earlier in their life, and just because they may later have come to a true saving faith (even as the apostle Paul did), this does not mean that they had this true faith all along. Therefore, we cannot use the subjective experience of the manner in which individuals came to faith to empty faith of any actual content. Does this make sense?


----------

