Paul's added conditions

[Elijah John]

New International Version Romans 10.9

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

Contrasted to Jesus statement:

New International Version Matthew 7.21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven

For debate:

1) Where did Jesus ever teach what Paul is saying in Romans 10.9? Where did Jesus ever teach that calling him "Lord"or believing in the reality of his impending death and resurrection were conditions for salvation?

2) Didn't Jesus already teach what is necessary for salvation? (doing the will of the Father)?

3) If so, why should anyone listen to Paul's added conditions?

4) And if Paul added conditions to Jesus own "recipe for salvation", does that make Paul a liar or a false prophet? Or simply an opinionated theologian and preacher?

[Elijah John]

John 14.6 does not explain how Jesus is the Way, etc. So it has nothing to do with Jesus recipe for salvation except to say that Jesus is intregal to salvation. .

And I say it does have something to do with what Jesus had to say about salvation. I say that your statement that it has "nothing to do with it" is wrong.

Jesus is intregal to salvation. The OP seeks HOW to be saved...

Jesus explained this later when he said by doing his Fathers will and WHAT is his father's will? As has nicely been explained earlier

- God's will is that we LISTEN to Jesus. And what did Jesus say?

MARK 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. - KJV

JW

If you're saying the Father's will is to believe in Jesus, and to believe in Jesus is to do the Father's will, and to do the Father's will is to believe in Jesus and to believe in Jesus is to do the Father's will....that is circular.

Do you disagree that the Father's will is contained in the Law and the Prophets? And do you disagree that the "Law and the Prophets" is summarized by Jesus as treating others the way you would want to be treated?

Or are you saying the Father's will has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with believing the "right" things about Jesus.*

And you still haven't defined exactly what it means to "believe in Jesus.

Also, if you insist on rewriting the OP to suit your agenda, please explain exactly how John 14.6 relates to Paul's added condition of "believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead" in order to be saved.

-------

(*if this is the case, you highlight a very real problem with "believing-in-the blood" theology)

[JehovahsWitness]

If you're saying the Father's will is to believe in Jesus, and to believe in Jesus is to do the Father's will, and to do the Father's will is to believe in Jesus and to believe in Jesus is to do the Father's will....that is circular.

Yes, and are you suggesting that scripturally there is a problem with this? Do the will of God and you will believe the son; believe the son and you will do the will of God.

JOHN 5: 30
"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

JOHN 14:9
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

And you still haven't defined exactly what it means to "believe in Jesus.

To believe in Jesus means to put faith in him. To put faith in Jesus means to accept who he is, his position and his role in God's purpose. This would involve accepting everything he says as true, being ready to obey him no matter what the cost, following him (meaning to do our best to imitate him) and to submit to his authority as God's chosen representative, our Lord and our King.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

"Also, if you insist on rewriting the OP to suit your agenda, please explain exactly how John 14.6 relates to Paul's added condition of "believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead" in order to be saved. "

Wise words. He did not say believe with yr mind but with yr heart.

Heart goes beyond the mind that of thinking.

Heart knows.

[marco]

Heart goes beyond the mind that of thinking.

Heart knows.

I doubt that this would furnish students in an examination with good advice. It is demonstrably untrue, for the heart makes horrible mistakes, as we see when a person's misplaced love overlooks hurt.

Paul, in any case, encourages us to think.

[Elijah John]

To believe in Jesus means to put faith in him. To put faith in Jesus means to accept who he is, his position and his role in God's purpose. This would involve accepting everything he says as true, being ready to obey him no matter what the cost, following him (meaning to do our best to imitate him) and to submit to his authority as God's chosen representative, our Lord and our King.

Evangelicals and other Trinitarians would agree, except they hold that believing in Jesus also means believing he is God.

So it seems then, that "believing in Jesus" is open to interpretation.

Also, circular reasoning renders the proposition in question meaningless...at least in the case of that Johannine definition of the Father's will.

[Elijah John]

Wise words. He did not say believe with yr mind but with yr heart.

Heart goes beyond the mind that of thinking.

Heart knows.

Whether believing with one's heart or one's mind that God raised Jesus, that is still a condition for salvation that was added by Paul, and not taught by Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

To believe in Jesus means to put faith in him. To put faith in Jesus means to accept who he is, his position and his role in God's purpose. This would involve accepting everything he says as true, being ready to obey him no matter what the cost, following him (meaning to do our best to imitate him) and to submit to his authority as God's chosen representative, our Lord and our King.

Evangelicals and other Trinitarians would agree, except they hold that believing in Jesus also means believing he is God.

Since Jesus referred to God as Our Father, and said the greatest command is to love God, obviously believing in Jesus also means believing in God.

So it seems then, that "believing in Jesus" is open to interpretation.

Everything in the bible is open to interpretation. Jehovah through his holy spirit reveals the correct interpretation to those he loves in His own due time.

Also, circular reasoning renders the proposition in question meaningless...at least in the case of that Johannine definition of the Father's will.

I'm sorry I do not understand this statement, so I cannot respond.


JW

[polonius]

JW posted:

To believe in Jesus means to put faith in him. To put faith in Jesus means to accept who he is, his position and his role in God's purpose. This would involve accepting everything he says as true, being ready to obey him no matter what the cost, following him (meaning to do our best to imitate him) and to submit to his authority as God's chosen representative, our Lord and our King.

QUESTION: "accepting everything he says as true,"??? How do we know what Jesus really said?

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[tam]

And how does Thomas Bokenkotter know this is true?


What is his evidence? And is his conclusion based on that evidence, sound... or is his conclusion speculation? Theory, per se? (layman's meaning of the word theory; not scientific meaning of the word, theory)


Peace again!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[polonius]

And how does Thomas Bokenkotter know this is true?


What is his evidence? And is his conclusion based on that evidence, sound... or is his conclusion speculation? Theory, per se? (layman's meaning of the word theory; not scientific meaning of the word, theory)


Peace again!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

RESPONSE: His conclusion is probably based on the fact that the Gospels contradict each other to the degree that it cannot be maintained that Jesus sayings are the same.

Read the supposed dialogue carefully and make notes. Then compare the notes.


And moreover, do you really believe that saying written by non-witnesses 40 -60 years after they were supposedly said are really accurate?