XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Wowzers, do I love this one. Is this one critical? Law or Sect. What does that mean? Could it be the case that even back when these articles were written, that they had to acknowledge that there were those who deemed salvation dependent on ones denomination?
FIRST!!!
It doesn’t get much clearer than this one. “I am the way…no man comes to the Father, except through me.”
They could not possibly have realized how very offensive this article would become, yes, even within their own sect. And we saw none save Jesus only. How dearly we cherish his name alone for our salvation.
Why would this be offensive?
And I’ll add Acts 4:12 for agreement.
“that they had to acknowledge that there were those who deemed salvation dependent on ones denomination?”
Yes, this is exactly what the C of E was doing here- believe this our way (the 39 articles) or you are out of fellowship.
Why do people find this unusual – we all do it.
My question – and I always take the heat – would you commune with a person who calls themselves a “Christ follower” (said in my best liberal, emergent church voice) who also denies this statement?
For the pastors out there, would you commune this person?
Honestly, I only understand the last sentence, which is common to all of Christianity. Could someone tell me what the deal with this is?
So beautiful… Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation.
And then there’s the Law… whatever form it takes. It may be the OT law, or some other law that calls itself Christian morals, or articles of church membership, or anything else, even well meaning, that seeks to enslave us to a standard of right living.
Salvation dependent on ones denom? Thats a loaded question. š
Methinks that some today still believe some aspect of that… though they may conceed salvation is possible in THAT group…but stressing that their group is where people should be “if they want to really grow/experience all that God has for them”.
My question ā and I always take the heat ā would you commune with a person who calls themselves a āChrist followerā (said in my best liberal, emergent church voice) who also denies this statement?
I could hang out and share the person of Jesus with this person, but obviously, we are going to have to discuss salvation through Christ ALONE.
It may not boil down to someone saying that they depend on Christ’s work ALONE for salvation. They may mention it a number of ways – “I attend church at the Kingdom Hall”…was one such occurance that happend to me once. We had discussed our faith and having it in our workplace, and then asked him where he went to church….yep, that really happend like that. I never was able to get through to him after that… š
What difference does it make if someone calls them self a Christ Follower, a Jesus Freak or a Christian?
Your question should just be would you take communion with someone that denies this statement? Period.
There doesn’t need to be two conditions (name and denial) in order to get at your point.
Also, I think we’ve covered that “would you take communion with….” Question about 100 times before.
Josh,
Salvation in no other name is the great offense of the Gospel in the mind of secular hearers. That IS the offense. It is also the claim of the Gospel.
Oh, gotcha. Absolutely agree.
London,
Do me a favor and do not tell me how to word my questions. Also, you seem a little petty if you count things to report back.
Of course it makes a difference. A Buddhist who denies Christ is the only way is much different that a proclaiming Christian who denies that Jesus is the only way.
Since you proclaim “Also, I think weāve covered that āwould you take communion withā¦.ā Question about 100 times before.” I don’t recall you ever giving an answer –
So would you commune with this person? Yes or No is fine (in America you can commune with whomever you want.)
Paps,
Hanging out and communing with are 2 different things – that is why I ask would you commune? I can and have hung out with people who belong to a witches coven – that is no biggie to me at all.
But I would never partake in their communion rites nor would I invite them to mine.
But anyone can say they are a Christian and then start ticking down the list all of the “essential” christian doctrines they deny.
So, if we say this article is essential… well how essential?
“Hanging out and communing with are 2 different things ā that is why I ask would you commune?”
You are absolutely right, and as I thought I made clear(perhaps I didn’t), I could not commune with anyone who denied that salvation is by Christ Alone. No question, we have nothing to commune over, if we cannot agree that the act of communion itself is a declaration of of His finished work, not just having some bread and wine/juice.
If someone thinks that we have to be good…or follow a list of rules….or something else instead of believing in Jesus alone for salvation….we don’t have in common what you think we have in common.
Is that clear? Or am I talking without making sense… again? š
A quick history lesson is in order to clarify.
This article was written against Roman Catholicism on one hand…which said salvation is found only in the church of Rome.
It was also a backhanded swipe at the Puritans who believed that the Anglicans had not taken the Reformation far enough away from Rome.
It was also an affirmation of the Reformed doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone against both the historical Judaizers and the works righteousness of Romanism.
To the question of communion…
I would commune with the Lutheran, the Anglican, the CCite, and the Catholic who is trusting in Christ for salvation.
Four of us, possibly all five of us, are wrong about what happens when we take the elements.
God in His grace will either memorialize Himself, consubstantiate, transubstantiate, be present spiritually, or be in, with, and under the elements, despite our errors.
MLD,
I’ve answered the question about who I would and wouldn’t take communion here before at least three times.
I don’t owe you any more snswers.
You are just trying to instigate problems based in your own prejudice on how people refer to themselves.
A Christ follower is not a Buddist so your further effort at trying to exclude people doesn’t interest me.
And I wasn’t counting, just used 100 as a way to say we have covered this ground enough times.
You see conmunion as a way to exclude people, I see it as a way to include them.
Jesus is the host, we are just guests. Neither of us were hired in to be security guards of it.
“I would commune with the Lutheran, the Anglican, the CCite, and the Catholic who is trusting in Christ for salvation.”
No question… same here.
I think that the question MLD has asked has merit – What about someone who does not agree with this statement, but wants to have the claim to be a “Jesus Freak, Christ Follower…etc” – does THIS person have any claim to the central question of slavation by Christ alone? If a person denies salvation by Christ alone, I would maintain that we cannot have any meaningful communion with them. We can discuss hockey or Walking Dead or music or anything else, but when it comes to the person and work of Christ – that’s where we diverge – thats where we divide – thats where its my duty to point out to this person that their salvation is faulty.
And usually these folks are the nicest people – makes it hard to tell them that they are wrong.
Paps – as usual you have it correct. My point was not to make this a communion question, but what does it mean when we say something is essential? I use communion only that it represents true Christian intimacy and unity.
But Paps, your #14 puts you in my camp that you also believe in closed communion.:-)
Michael, it is deeper than that. It’s not just what we put in our mouth – it is WHY we are putting it in our mouth. We would all be standing there for completely different reasons.
That is like saying whether you believe in Christ alone or not, it does not matter because God accepts it all – as long as the words Christ are in the statement.
Thanks MLD.
I get your point in using communion as representative of Christian fellowship. Yes, I use the term of Christian fellowship as same – its only what we have in common with our faith that makes it fellowship, and not the activity we do or the idea that everyone who names the Name is in the faith.
For a discussion on closed/open communion, I am open to have people from outside our particular Baptist church to share in communion when we partake, but always with the warning thats its ONLY to the believer in Jesus and that the unbeliever eats/drinks to their shame. And yes, the pastor says that every time we have communion.
The only problem I have a with a discussion around believing in Jesus alone for salvation…I go back to my #7. š
“I get your point in using communion as representative of Christian fellowship.”
I just want to be clear, and I may just be misunderstanding you, – but I don’t use the term communion to represent Christian fellowship. The very act of the Lord’s Table, for the forgiveness of sin IS Christian fellowship.
Going to the movie with a Christian friend (even if it is a Christian movie) is not the same, although both may use the word “fellowship.”
London,
My view is not to exclude at all. We want to include everyone, but we want to be sure that they know what they are being included in. We are doing a very particular, singular thing – it’s not a catch all.
Communion = Christian fellowship = narrowly defined.
When I speak of Christian fellowship, the most narrow defintion of is the liturgy or service of the church. Sure, we can speak of going to a movie or a sharing a meal as fellowship, but the most basic, most holy fellowship is when we share the ordinances of the faith.
I think that MLD are speaking Toe-may-toe…. Toe-mah-toe.
And London, the gospel is open to all, but true communion is not just amongst ourselves….there is the One with whom we remember… and He is alive.
“I think that MLD and I are speaking….”
and forgot the smiley…. š
My fellowship is with all of Gods elect wherever they find doctrine and practice that appeals to them.
Salvation is of Christ, not a sect.
Off to work.
Papi,
I agree with communion gospel is open to all communion is just for us. I just define “us” differently than MLD seeing how I’m not Lutheran.
I think “us” is a broader category than what some of the denominations believe and I have never given a quiz to anyone before having communion with them.
I grew up in a baptist church that, like you described, always said that communion was open to any believer and gave the warning about taking it in an “unworthy manner” and making sure you were not bringing condemnation on yourself by doing so.
It was left to be between the person and God to determine if they were in a “good spot” with forgiveness etc. i prefer to leave it that way, between God and the other person. I trust God to speak to them about it, rather than me (or someone else) deciding for them.
It’s His table, I trust Him to sort out who is and isn’t invited.
You have to read closely what MLD is saying here about communion, it is fellowship and salvation with Jesus.
He said this, “The very act of the Lordās Table, for the forgiveness of sin IS Christian fellowship.”
You see he and the Lutheran’s he stand in fellowship with associate the act of “communion” as fellowship with Jesus HImself and to deny this connection is to not understand the body and blood of Jesus, as they interpret Paul’s description in 1 Cor 11. Additionally to not understand communion in the same manner he/they do makes one guilty of the body and blood of Jesus as they interpret Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
This is a big distinction between MLD and any others who do not agree with the position of his Lutheran sect.
You will never win or sway MLD on this subject or the their method of baptism, to him and them they are essentials of salvation and faith.
The difference may come that we (I include any of us who have a high view of the Supper) believe that Jesus gave us pastors for a reason, and that reason was not just to preach, but to prepare people for the Supper – which includes extensive training.
Look, Jesus did not institute the Supper with all believers – he limited it to the twelve he had personally taught for 3 years and was comfortable that they knew what he meant – and I think he expected them to do the same.
So, to bring it back to the topic, the teaching must continue if they have the Christ Alone wrong.
1 Cor 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
I believe communion is vertical and horizontal. The bread, in addition to Jesus’ body also has a connection to the one Body of Christ, the Church. We are never called the blood of Christ though, and thus the vertical aspect.
Thus, anyone in the Body of Christ is welcomed at our communion table. I would have a hard time seeing in Scripture how I could agree someone is part of the Body of Christ (i.e. a saved brother or sister) and yet not welcomed to the Table.
We are one bread…one body – so says Paul.
Amen, Pastor Steve!
And I will bet that the “we” in that verse is a very tight knit group of Corinthian believers, and not just anyone who walked in off the street making a claim to be a follower of Christ was allowed at the table without first being vetted pretty extensively.
Sure MLD, they probably vetted by asking if they were sleeping with their mother in law, suing their brethren, and bickering about who the best apostle was. Plus, you apprently had to be glutted and a little drunk first…
If so, then you’re in! š
Jesus vetted in a theif and cowardly betrayer. Good thing denominations have come up with a better system. š
@ 32 – Paul was not art of the Corinthian tight-nit body, and he knew that his letters were being passed to other churches to be read. This is written, intentionally, to be universal.
I wonder where Judas fits in this communion that you all are discussing?
Was he not at the table? Did Jesus exclude him? We know from scripture that Jesus was aware of what was about to take place.
I don’t remember Jesus refusing to eat with sinners as the high and holy, self righteous clergy of His day did. Yet we find it just fine to exclude anyone who doesn’t live up to what we think defines a Christian today.
London’s #34 … when the model for communion, our Lord’s last supper was administered, wasn’t Judas given the bread and wine? if i’m wrong somebody correct me, if i’m right somebody explain the rationale there, please?
Reuben,
How is “accursed” defined in this article? Is it to be excommunicated, denied communion but allowed to participate otherwise, stoned as a heritic or shunned in some other way?
London,
“Jesus vetted in a thief and cowardly betrayer. Good thing denominations have come up with a better system”
That’s right, when Jesus was on earth he could \ would do those things… and then he left us pastors to do the vetting from then on.
“when the model for communion, our Lordās last supper was administered, ”
These are not synonymous terms or events
Anyone else think “Jesus left us pastors” to vet out people from taking communion???
How about qualify people to take communion?
Or we can go with the typical part of “but if you accept Jesus into your heart right now, you can join us in taking communion today.”
I still ask, why wasn’t the greater christian population invited to take communion with Jesus? People like his mother, brothers and sisters?
I guess individual churches can choose to do it anyway they want.
MLD, don’t tell me how to ask my question. š
@ 42 – Who were the “greater Christian population” right before the Crucifixion?
Josh, All the followers of Jesus besides the twelve. Unless you are going to make a case it was just them.
I will make the case that there were not many more, and some in the room weren’t followers either.
Communion does one of 2 things to those who receive it – it forgives your sin or it condemns you. I think Jesus was satisfied with the results of all the partakers. But the question is, why did he close this communion to some “christian” folks and not serve it like he did the feeding of the 5,000?
MLD, Wasn’t Jesus giving revealing a truth to his disciples that night….instituting communion, that from that night always, we were to remember Him as we partake of His body and blood.
Upper room and feeding of 5000….apples and oranges.
That’s my take on your question. If I am wrong, I am certainly open to correction.
I don’t know. You’d have to read a lot into the scriptural account to pretend to know the reasoning.
You could just as easily ask, why didn’t He do the Bread multiplication thing in the smaller group? No answer is given for either question, so we should probably stop short of building doctrine based on our conclusions to those particular questions.
moderation work-around:
āāwhen the model for communion, our Lordās last supper was administered, ā
These are not synonymous terms or eventsā
ā¦ well, okay ā¦ āāwhen the model for communion ( termed loosely, (but should be definitive enough to pin down the time and place), AT our Lordās last supper was administered, ā ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ did the āeventā upon which we base holy communion (known by other names, but no hair splitting, please) ā¦ occur after Judas left the room? ā¦ not making a case for anything ā just wondering about that āunworthilyā warning of 1 Corinthians 11:27 ā¦ is it a warning or is it an enforcement issue?
better yet, ignore this post, even tho i am posting it ā ignore it, cuz im going to
well … to put the locomotive back on the rails … since i seem to have derailed the train š
“For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.” AMEN
interesting ponder: “must” versus “can” … hmmm …. necessary versus possible?
“must” (dei)
Strongs says
1) it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper
a) necessity lying in the nature of the case
b) necessity brought on by circumstances or by the conduct of others toward us.
c) necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end
d) a necessity of law and command, of duty, equity
e) necessity established by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies
1) concerning what Christ was destined finally to undergo, his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension
must be in there somewhere, eh?
oh, well – i ponder, ponderously … thank you, Rueben
Em, I love your ponderous pondering! š
From This article ****POTENTIAL TRIGGER ISSUES ABUSE****
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2013/02/04/anons-story/#comments
Is this post which is a repost from a previous blog comment thread I feel it is important to share the entire story for context and I do not think the author would mind.
“Iām just going to share a little story and some minor commentary at the end.
One Superbowl Sunday, I was at a prominent SGM (then PDI) memberās house. There were dozens of others in attendance, lots of teens and younger adults. Remote controlling and commercial censoring were in full effect, snacks were in abundance, and everything was so biblicalā¦as biblical as recently invented sports events centered around electronic devices can be. During a commercial break, I was sexually assaulted against an exterior wall of that house.
I was thirteen.
Not a single one of those appointed to āwatch overā anything, much less my soul, noticed a thing when I and the perpetrator went back inside the house. I doubt it would have mattered anyway. My family was in the outer circle, despite decades of $$$ and attendance. I started ārebellingā thereafter and refused to attend any church functions, and my parents surprisingly didnāt seem to mind (despite them not knowing the reasons for my rebellion). They severed ties with PDI/SGM 2 years later.
Why bring this up? I think itās quite telling that despite the micromanagement of ābiblical livingā, horrible things have not only slipped under the radar of those ācaring for our soulsā (etc., barf) but have been actively hidden, squashed, silenced.”
Me ***Apparently as I understand it CJ Mahaney was reposting some article about how to biblically watch the stupi um super bowl in a “Biblical” (TM) way. Now my first response to this was actually to want to shove my finger down my throat and try to barf the stupid out but that does not seem to work for me. This is almost a perfect (sadly) anecdote of the American Religion, efficiency and protecting a department of the franchise at the cost of the company. I heard it once expressed concerning some state organizations that take care of the mentally or developmentally disabled. One frustrated employee blurted out “You can beat them to death as long as their shoes are on the right feet.” Jesus said “straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.”
This just resonates with me as it is so true on so many levels.
The last part of the post is
“The pending lawsuit is long-deserved. I hope it ruins the entire organization financially and every single perpetrator and co-conspirator financially, mentally and physically.”
I cant tell you just how this was so opposite of what I wished to similar events though not done to me in at a “church” setting. I made calculated efforts which took years if not decades to reconcile with many whom I had been hurt by and those that I thought I had hurt. That is the rub for me, nothing seemed to tick off my fellow Christians as to my wanting to reconcile quickly and fully. Some told me it made them sick about what a compromising man pleaser I was. After being referred to on several occasions as Jesus Vomiting me out of His mouth, dog returning to its vomit and other digestive metaphoric I learned to just keep myself below the raydar. I post in my veiled pseudonym for personal reasons hope that is ok.
An aside one of the verses that moved me so many times during my active days in the industry was 1 cor 13. Other then being used as a proof text for the succession of the Spiritual Gifts this passage should be ripped out of God’s Eternal word on the grounds of it being inconvenient and ineffective. I will grant that, and I have tried to patiently live up to that spiritual calling but failed, daily. I have actually prayed God give me the spiritual ability to plow over those that get in my way instead of being the insufferable puke seeking reconciliation and restoration.
One verse struck me “love keeps no accounts of wrongs suffered.” Now if that is not apostate then I dont know what is, one should not only keep accounts of wrongs suffered one should patiently plan for retribution with calculation and divine blessings after much prayer. I mean I know people who held a grievance against me for decades because I spoke to long at a communion service. I mean they actually literally hated me, with a divine hatred, which of course justified it.
The fact I remember it proves I have not mastered that which I accuse others of, that makes me a hypocrite. Which I am, I keep track of many wrongs suffered and no I do not love those that caused them. I will admit I do not wish them to burn in eternal hell, something I am trying to repent of, with little success, but I dont forgive and I often remember. As is proven in my many rantings on this site. In some ways I want to see justice or some type of acknowledgement just for sanity. I E that I did not invent the entire episode / episodes. Something in the news today struck me, this x officer killed some other officers and has attacked other people as well. He posted a long discussion enumerating his complaints. I will not post the link but I read the entire post and about 2 dozen news articles reporting on the events and the man hunt. He seems to have some real valid concerns but they are clouded or blotted out because of the violence and grief caused.
My several events becoming violent never occurred to me the worst I got is I would pray for them to be convicted. I am sure that reflects poorly on my manhood and my masculinity as one should always be willing to throw-down at a moments notice. Well call me effeminate or a wuss. I hate violence and outside of defending the lives of my students, other people, my country I would not become violent. I am still up in the air about becoming violent about defending myself, as there is not much to defend but that is a different post.
A strange aside, I dont know if I would ever own a weapon personally but to be honest I would pray there was a well armed and trained Alex type near by if I ever needed him / them. Does that make any sense?
PS Alex that was meant as a compliment
CK @ 52 … Em died and went to Santa Barbara …actually, that is the title of the book i am working on now – but Em is gone from here … but thanks for loving her ponders … š
I think I kill more threads on PP than anyone else in my present manifestation as brian or the other one.