By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 13 October 2012
Edit Thread
insomniac17 said:
richardhutnik said:

Try seeing it this way: If Christ didn't do that which Christ did, then those who would believe in him would perish.  It explains why it is essential for those who believe.   This doesn't mean the means of being saved is believing, just that what Christ did is essential to those who would believe.  It is in keeping with what Paul wrote about if Christ didn't raise from the dead, Christians are the most deserving to be pittied.

I don't understand why it would say "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" if there is still only a chance of eternal life after belief.

I see it as an if then sort of statement. There isn't any restriction or caveat attached to that verse. It just says that whoever believes won't perish but will have eternal life. I don't see any other requirements for the eternal life, and that's why I interpreted it the way I did. And I had this confirmed by other Christians that I have spoken with... is this a divisive issue among Christians?

Let me try to explain what I mean when I say that the path to salvation is to accept the sacrifice of Jesus. What I mean by this is not just saying the words, "I accept Christ's sacrifice." To accept this sacrifice means that you have accepted that Jesus is the Son of God, you have accepted his message and his word as truth, and you strive to live perfectly according to the word of God. All fall short, but believers must only ask, and their sins will be forgiven. Does that sound more accurate to your understanding?

Perhaps I will understand your view better after I have gone through the entire Bible.

The text goes and explains why it was needed for those who believe don't perish.  It isn't there to explain HOW one ends up getting it.

What you said is better for describing it, but ends up getting real close to salvation by human effort, or sincerity of effort, rather than the works being a fruit of God in the life of a person active by the person trusting.  And also a matter of trust, the real faith that matters, is devoid there.  That is faith as mental affirming, rather than trust.  The problem by telling people they need to accept a message is the real matter of who accepts what is in the wrong area, and the isuse of real faith (trust) is missing also.  And this is the issue I have with it.  Maybe others but this is what is at the top of my mind now on the subject.