Does believing play a part in Salvation ?

[savedbymercy]

Acts 16:31

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Paul wrote once 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Belief of the Truth is a Salvation experience God has chosen the Elect to,His Beloved !

But , here is the question to carefully ponder, are those who believe, saved because they believed, or do they believe because they are / were saved ?

If we agree with the former "saved because they believed" that is Salvation by Works, that is a claim that God saved me based upon what I did in the flesh. Believing is a work because this is what defines a work, the Greek word used commonly is ergon and means:

érgon (from ergō, "to work, accomplish") – a work or worker who accomplishes something. 2041 /érgon ("work") is a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire (intension, purpose).

Notice that a work is that action or deed that carries out an inner desire , intention, purpose.

Now what is it to seek the Lord ? Is that not an inner desire ?

For instance the Word Seek in Heb 11:6

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Its the greek word and verb :

ekzēteō and means:


I.to seek out, search for


II.to seek out, i.e. investigate, scrutinise


III.to seek out for one's self, beg, crave


IV.to demand back, require


I.to seek in order to find

A.to seek a thing


B.to seek [in order to find out] by thinking, meditating, reasoning, to enquire into


C.to seek after, seek for, aim at, strive after



II.to seek i.e. require, demand

A.to crave, demand something from someone

The word is translated desire as in inner desire Lk 9:9

9 And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.

Now according to the definition of ergon, thats a work, an inner desire !

And this Seeking of Heb 11:6 is an intricate part of what Faith is , and what Believing is.

But now if we agree with the latter , that is "they believe because they are / were saved " Then thats Salvation by Grace , because we believe through Grace Acts 18:27 !

I recommend a article to be read that will give some understanding on what it means to believe and be saved, which is scriptural, versus the deceptive lie, to believe and get saved which translates into works salvation :

Must One Believe to "Be Saved?"

In a word, YES, but not for the reasons most people think. However, those who believe in what is called High Calvinism or Unconditional Election and Predestination or Particular Redemption such as the Primitive Baptists, some times say, No, you don't have to believe in order to be saved. This difficulty arises from a misconception, sometimes in both Calvinists and Arminians, about what it means to be saved.

First, the Bible makes a distinction between being saved eternally (eternal life) and being saved in time (conversion). That does not mean that eternal salvation and salvation in time are mutually exclusive. The fact is one begets the other. Salvation is a broad term that encompasses both eternal life and conversion. Therefore, those who experience eternal life will likewise experience conversion. But confusion arises when a failure is made to distinguish the meaning of a small but significant word be.

Most modern Christians, because of false theology, think the scriptures teach that to be means the same thing as to get. However, there is an important difference between the two. If the Bible taught that one must believe in order to get saved, then salvation would be by our own effort. But the Bible teaches one must believe in order to be saved. The word be indicates a statement of fact. The word get indicates a condition to be met.

What's the difference? Mark 16:16 states, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Clearly this scripture is talking about salvation in both its temporal and eternal aspect. Many Christians today have been taught that scriptures such as this one mean you must believe in order to get saved. But that is not at all what Christ said. The term "shall be saved" is translated from the Greek word sodzo. In this passage the verb sodzo is in the Future Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood. The Online Bible says, "The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact." Because sodzo is written in the indicative mood, it means the salvation Christ has under consideration is not and cannot be a condition to be met. It means that belief is the evidence or assurance of salvation not the means to obtain salvation. It means that everyone who has been saved or will "be saved" will believe in Christ as a matter of fact. Thus, as this scripture demonstrates, belief is necessary because of salvation not to get salvation.

If Christ had rendered sodzo in the imperative mood, then one would be correct in saying you must believe in order to get saved. The Online Bible defines the imperative mood as that which, "expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding." A good example of a scripture with an imperative command is found in the Great Commission. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Mathew 28:19. "Teach" is from the Greek word matheteuo. This verb is written in the imperative mood and expresses a clear command to the disciples to teach the nations Christ's doctrine.

Another example of sodzo is found in Ro 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And again in Ro 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In both of these scriptures sodzo is rendered in the indicative mood. Therefore it is a statement of fact that anyone who confesses belief in Jesus and His resurrection, calling upon His name from the heart, will be saved. Because the mood is indicative, it is not the belief, confession or sincerity that results in the saving, either in time or in eternity. Jesus Christ is the Saviour. He saves with the power of his shed blood and by grace alone delivers the sinner from death. Belief, confession and sincerity from the heart are all the result of Christ's saving work not the cause or means to obtain that saving work.

The recipients of this sovereign saving work of Christ are referred to in the scriptures as my sheep, His People, my people, the chosen, the elect and Israel (spiritual). John 10:27, Mathew 1:21, II Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 1:4, II Timothy 2:10, Romans 9:6-24.

It is true that one doesn't have to believe in order to get saved but the Bible teaches a person must believe to be saved.

Elder James Taylor

http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/articles/MustOneBelieveToBeSaved.htm

I challenge anyone to review what this article states, and to provide refutation if they can, because if this point isnt grasped, we are in Eternal Peril !

 

[JamesL]

Good grief, did that ever get boring after the first six sentences

 

[Don]

Refutation is rather simple; and in fact, is provided by the author of the article, in the article itself:
>The term "shall be saved" is translated from the Greek word sodzo.* In this passage the verb sodzo is in the Future Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood.<
The author then focuses on the indicative tense (statement of fact), while ignoring the future aspect.

In other words, the verse is correctly translated as "shall be saved," indicating a statement of fact about a future event.

Further statement of fact is the predecessor to the future event: "He that believeth." The predecessor statement of fact is then followed by a statement of future fact: "shall be saved."

The author of the article makes his primary mistake by assuming that "non-elect" err by assuming this verse is an imperative. The only imperative to this verse is the understanding of its simple truth: he who believes shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.

It's like saying "if you stir up a nest of rattlesnakes, you will get bit. If you don't stir up the nest, you won't." There is no imperative there; just a simple statement of fact. Yet, any intelligent being understands the innate imperative: don't stir up the nest.

Such is Mark 16:16 -- any reasonable person understands the simple statement of fact; yet also understands the innate imperative: if we don't believe, we will be damned.

So a choice is obviously inherent in this statement of fact. There is no statement of "only the elect shall believe and shall be saved"; the statement is "he that believeth." It is also preceeded by the verse that says "preach unto every creature."

One could still make the case for the calvinist understanding of "the elect" because no mere human knows which ones God has ordained to be "the elect"; and thus, the calvinist is exercising obedience by going out into the world and preaching to every creature.

But this post is about the article that was offered with a challenge to refute; and I think I've done that.

 

[Aaron]

Does believing play a part in Salvation ? Reply to Thread

Does one breathe because he is living, or is he living because he is breathing?

Salvation is all the work of Christ.

 

[robustheologian]

Faith is necessary for salvation...however regeneration is necessary for faith.

 

[convicted1]

Faith is necessary for salvation...however regeneration is necessary for faith.

:thumbs::applause::thumbs::applause:

 

[savedbymercy]

Faith is necessary for salvation...however regeneration is necessary for faith.

And Justification of life is needed before regeneration ! Rom 5:18 !

 

[savedbymercy]

Does believing play a part in Salvation ? 2

But now if we agree with the latter , that is "they believe because they are / were saved " Then thats Salvation by Grace , because we believe through Grace Acts 18:27 !

The point is this believing is evidence of the Saving Work of the Spirit . Recall that an aspect of Salvation, a vital part of it, is belief of the Truth, which comes as a Result of the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through[in] sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This is also what Paul means in Titus 3:5

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Notice how Paul said they were saved ! It was by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is another way of saying Sanctification of the Spirit. The Saving by the Spirit is for the belief of the Truth !

So when the Spirit saved person believes, they believe because they were saved, or they believed because of Grace Acts 18:27 because the Spirit is also the Spirit of Grace Zech 12:10

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I highlighted that word pour here because its the same word Paul used here in Titus 3:5-6

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

That word shed the greek word ekcheō means :


I.to pour out, shed forth


II.metaph. to bestow or distribute largely

This Pouring out of the Holy Ghost referenced here in Titus 3:6 is the same as the pouring out of the Spirit of Grace in Zech 12:10, which saved us, in order to believe the Truth.

So belief of the Truth, or Believing is the result of , the evidence of being saved by the Spirit, because of what Christ has done for them by His Work of the Cross on their behalf ! So believing plays a part in Salvation, to evidence the Spirits Saving Role in Ones Salvation, we cannot believe the Truth until saved by Him !

 

[savedbymercy]

don

The author then focuses on the indicative tense (statement of fact), while ignoring the future aspect.

Thats a Lie, the author mentioned the future tense at the very outset !

What's the difference? Mark 16:16 states, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Clearly this scripture is talking about salvation in both its temporal and eternal aspect. Many Christians today have been taught that scriptures such as this one mean you must believe in order to get saved. But that is not at all what Christ said. The term "shall be saved" is translated from the Greek word sodzo. In this passage the verb sodzo is in the Future Tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood.

He stated quite clearly that the verse is about both a temporal aspect as well as a future eternal aspect !

So you just out right lied on the author, please apologize for your unfair representation of what the author stated !

 

[JamesL]

And Justification of life is needed before regeneration ! Rom 5:18 !

justification of life is bodily resurrection.

good grief, man.

Go back to the beginning of chapter 5, Paul says THREE TIMES - having been justified

And in verses 9-10 having been justified by His blood, we SHALL BE saved by His life. This is our justification of life, when we are raised. He is the first fruits, we are to follow

we shall be saved from physical death


Now chase that down a rabbit trail, and then employ your dodge tactic

 

[savedbymercy]

Good grief, did that ever get boring after the first six sentences

They say men would not be able to endure sound Doctrine ! 2 Tim 4:3


For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not think James issue was enduring doctrine. It was enduring bloviating.

 

[Don]

don

Thats a Lie, the author mentioned the future tense at the very outset !

He stated quite clearly that the verse is about both a temporal aspect as well as a future eternal aspect !

So you just out right lied on the author, please apologize for your unfair representation of what the author stated !

I will not apologize, because I did not lie. I quoted the author verbatim in my post. YOU have now lied about me.

After quoting the author verbatim, I then made my statement that although the author mentions the future tense, he focuses on the present tense. By this I mean exactly what I said in my post: The author started with the statement that many people confuse "be" with "get"; and then devotes most of his writing regarding the imperative tense. He further takes away from the future tense with his statement: "Because the mood is indicative, it is not the belief, confession or sincerity that results in the saving, either in time or in eternity."

The author sets up his premise by strongly stating: "Most modern Christians, because of false theology, think the scriptures teach that to be means the same thing as to get." The verses in question mention "shall be" or "will be"; not "to be." By using "to" instead of "shall" or "will," the author shapes his argument on an imperative rather than the future indicative.

So please. review my points with me. When I quote something you've posted, or the author of an article you linked to posted, give me credit that I've done so. I swear, sometimes I believe English is a second or third language for you....

 

[savedbymercy]

don

I will not apologize

I knew you wouldn't, you dont care how you spew out false statements. It reminds me of this Prov 30:20

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.


Bearing False witness is a wickedness before God Ex 20:16

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Prov 25:18

A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

I showed you were that Gentleman did not ignore the future tense as you falsely stated !

 

[Don]

don



I knew you wouldn't, you dont care how you spew out false statements. It reminds me of this Prov 30:20

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.


Bearing False witness is a wickedness before God Ex 20:16

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Prov 25:18

A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

I showed you were that Gentleman did not ignore the future tense as you falsely stated !

And I showed you exactly why I stated that he did ignore the future tense. Address that, instead of spewing false accusations and lying about me.

See, here's the difference between you and me: I made the statement, and then provided my reasoning. You just call me a liar, and quote only part of what I wrote instead of actually reading the rest of it and addressing the whole context. As such, you're making false statements about me. So who's actually the liar?

Or is it that you can't respond to what I wrote, and therefore are resorting to childish playground responses?

 

[Don]

I'll put it another way, SBM, in order to give you a 'way out': There's a difference between being wrong, and lying. If I'm wrong, then show me my error; as in, I gave several paragraphs about why I think the author of that article ignores the future tense. Give us an explanation of why my conclusion is wrong. If you're convincing enough, then it's upon me to admit I was wrong.

Lying is the deliberate telling of falsehoods. That also requires proof, not just a statement.

 

[savedbymercy]

don

And I showed you exactly why I stated that he did ignore the future tense. Address that, instead of spewing false accusations and lying about me.

You stated that he IGNORED the FUTURE TENSE !

The author then focuses on the indicative tense (statement of fact), while ignoring the future aspect.

He did not ignore it, he acknowledged it, his point was to indicate another part of speech, i dare say that has been ignored. You flat out Lied on him so that the truth he is highlighting will be obscured ! I bet you would not have said a word if someone else appealed to that same verse to Highlight the future tense and stated nothing about the indicative mood !

You intentionally made that statement to the discredit of that man !

 

[Don]

don

You stated that he IGNORED the FUTURE TENSE !

He did not ignore it, he acknowledged it, his point was to indicate another part of speech, i dare say that has been ignored. You flat out Lied on him so that the truth he is highlighting will be obscured ! I bet you would not have said a word if someone else appealed to that same verse to Highlight the future tense and stated nothing about the indicative mood !

You intentionally made that statement to the discredit of that man !

You're more interested in winning this argument than you are in the truth.

I quoted the author's statement of future indicative tense; I then stated that after the author made this statement, acknowledging future tense, he (the author) then focuses on everything but the future tense of the statement. (see those words "after" and "then"? Those are temporal words, indicating a point in time. I didn't say he ignored the future tense; I said he identified it as future tense, then ignored the future tense in his support of his own premise)

I supported that statement by showing the author's focus on the imperative tense, which supports the author's opening premise that non-elect people believe in an imperative statement rather than an indicative.

I did not lie about anything. YOU challenged anyone to refute the author's statements. I have done so. Instead of doing the same and refuting my statements, and showing me to be in error, all you do is accuse me of lying -- when it's obvious that I quoted the author's statement about future tense in the first place, and thus haven't lied about anything.

Just because you don't like to hear the truth, doesn't make it any less the truth. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong; and especially doesn't mean it's a lie.

 

[Revmitchell]

You're more interested in winning this argument than you are in the truth.

Bingo!:thumbs:

 

[savedbymercy]

don

You're more interested in winning this argument than you are in the truth.

You are more interested in slandering and misrepresenting your neighbor than the Truth ! You outright lied and said:

The author then focuses on the indicative tense (statement of fact), while ignoring the future aspect.

He did not ignore it, but acknowledged it, and then proceded to Highlight an most neglected part of the word, the indicative mood, and the word to be !

The problem is, what he highlighted condemns your false views and exposes that you believe in Salvation by works, by keep the Law , by doing a condition ! Deal with it !