Evidence that Jesus admitted to being (the son of) God?

[Glenburne]

When Paul witnessed to the Philippian jailer and the jailor asked how to be saved, Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your house." No mention of baptism. If baptism is the way to be saved, Paul should have said that in a straightforward way, or he was guilty of misleading the jailer. Yes, the jailer was baptized afterwards, but there is no suggestion in that text that salvation is received through baptism. Neither is there even a mild suggestion of it in the vast majority of texts on salvation. If baptism is our means of salvation, there should be.

The fact is, that in ancient times baptism was a means of public identification with Christ. Persecution would often begin after baptism rather than after a person's belief in Christ because baptism made Christianity no longer a personal opinion. The person in question had basically made an announcement through his baptism: he or she intended to actively follow Christ. The issue at hand was commitment. The authorities understood this, and thus would begin persecution at that point.

[Zella]

Paul told the Phillipian jailor to believe because that was the next step that he needed to take. That is why Peter never told the people on the day of Penticost that they needed to believe; they already believed and what they needed to do next was repent and be baptized. If you are telling someone how to get to Texas from Maine you are going to tell them they need to go southwest. So that person heads southwest and ends up in Oklahoma and asks someone there how to get to Texas that person is going to give them much more specific directions, such as what interstate is the best to take. If the traveler asks someone in a town a few miles north of Texas how to get to Texas, that person is going to give them very specific directions. The direction givers were all telling the traveler the same thing but they were telling him what he needed to know at the time.

[EveningStar]

I don't know how to address the attitude that if it doesn't specifically appear in the Bible, it must not be so. Mum always says if something doesn't feel quite right, it probably isn't. And I get a bad feeling about dismissing every possiblity that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. The Bible doesn't mention North America, you know. It doesn't mention stem cell research either. Sometimes you have to just sit down and think and rely on your God-given common sense and conscience.

There is, for instance, a service called "lifeline" offered by American landline phone companies. This service is used by people who absolutely cannot afford a monthly fee for phone service and need to pay as they go, so that if they needed 911 service, police, fire or medical they wouldn't just die and be swept under the rug. However invariably if you go to the phone company sites where they list "basic services" and "premium services", the lifeline service is not mentioned. That's because people in general are not supposed to rely on this...only those who need it find out about it from their social services counselor as part of getting assistance.

I'm sure of this as I am there is a God in Heaven that some methods of working around things exists for the person who desperately wants to be a Christian but doesn't have enough minutes of life left to be baptized or take communion. They're not on his website (the Bible) but they are available to those who die in desire to know Christ on a case by case basis at God's discression.

I'm also sure that God would be acting not in his best interests to advertise that publically, so as to prevent people who DO have the opportunity to do things the official way from wimping out. Special last chances are reserved solely for the people who merit them and need them. Because you're reading this thread, you don't need them....and yet...this question brings another question to the forefront...which is whether God loves justice more than mercy or vice versa. That is of interest to us all.

Some people may think God judges by identifying the people he wants to keep out of Heaven. I think he looks for the people he wants to let in and uses any excuse to do so. Maybe that's what they mean by "God is love." I can't prove any of this. I can, however, say that the Lord works in mysterious ways, and part of that mystery is that you can no more prove me wrong than I can prove you wrong.

Anyhow if I sound like I'm venting, maybe I am. I recently parted ways with NarniaWeb's forum because their "Christianity and Narnia" forum was a "Calvinist Club and Narnia" forum and other points of view (and we're talking commonly held ones) were hammered down under a pile of memorized Bible verses as if Bible verses were made for hammering. There I was a youth minister being talked to as if I were more youth than minister, shown the error of my ways. That got old fast. I'm willing to talk here because disagreeing with a popular member is not proof of Bible ignorance. There are other reasons to disagree other than (1) refusing the Bible or (2) not understanding it.

Salvation in religion is like salvation on the operating table. To save the patient takes a skill that exceeds the understanding of the guy on the table. Sign the release form (turn it over to God) and agree to settle the charges (Christlike life) and let God handle the details. And like all physicians, he can and will depart from usual proceedure if you're not the usual patient.

[inkspot]

Originally Posted by ES

this question brings another question to the forefront...which is whether God loves justice more than mercy or vice versa. That is of interest to us all.

Some people may think God judges by identifying the people he wants to keep out of Heaven. I think he looks for the people he wants to let in and uses any excuse to do so.

These are concepts in my other threads about "What Does God Mean?" and "Justice vs. Mercy," and so they are quite relevant to me, and I agree with what you say here: God wants people in, and though Jesus is the only way in, I think He casts as wide a net as possible to bring people through Jesus into the kingdom.

If we're talking narrowly about baptism, then we're being silly. Baptism is the thing you do because you love Jesus and you know that He believed in baptism, so you want to do everything just as He does. If you're thinking, "I won't be saved until I get baptized!" then you're doing just the thing He wouldn't do, which is to make what should be a joyful celebration of your new life in Him into some kind of hurdle to be jumped through in order to be joined to Him.

It's no hurdle. It's no sacrifice. It's what you do because you love Him and want to do it. If you consider it in some other light, then no amount of baptism is going to "save" you anyway.

[Glenburne]

I'm aware that the Bible doesn't address every subject directly, i.e. stem cell research or North America. But since the Bible's main theme is salvation--a subject it discusses from numerous angles and in numerous contexts--assuming that God has left out a major part of the plan of salvation is on shaky theological ground. Especially since if we assume wrong about salvation, our eternal destiny is at stake.

I don't want to "hammer" anything into anybody, but the issue is that serious. (C. S. Lewis would back me up here.) If God has made exceptions, we will find out about them in heaven--and rejoice. In the meantime, we must base our beliefs on the information God has specifically revealed through His Word, not on our hopes of what will be or our opinions of what should be.

[Zella]

Originally Posted by Glenburne

I'm aware that the Bible doesn't address every subject directly, i.e. stem cell research or North America. But since the Bible's main theme is salvation--a subject it discusses from numerous angles and in numerous contexts--assuming that God has left out a major part of the plan of salvation is on shaky theological ground. Especially since if we assume wrong about salvation, our eternal destiny is at stake.

I don't want to "hammer" anything into anybody, but the issue is that serious. (C. S. Lewis would back me up here.) If God has made exceptions, we will find out about them in heaven--and rejoice. In the meantime, we must base our beliefs on the information God has specifically revealed through His Word, not on our hopes of what will be or our opinions of what should be.

I agree with that. Like I said, I believe that if someone sincerly wishes to obey the gospel, God is going to make a way for them. He is quite capable of doing so and that would get rid of the problem all together.

[EveningStar]

Glenburne, that's the only concession I asked for. The idea of "IF" there are concessions you would rejoice. Some people are so adamant they would rather eat a bug than admit the possibility. It's ok that it's unlikely to you as long as you don't insist you have proof it's impossible.

Salvation is a deep and complex subject, and the Bible does cover it in some depth and complexity. But I consider that depth and complexity like a medical textbook, the best available standard of care to take the very ill and make them completely well. The standard of care that every ill person should seek. There is no excuse relying on first aid when a real doctor is available.

I clearly don't teach Boy Scouts how to be doctors when I put them through first aid merit badge. They do relatively little...splinting broken bones, performing basic CPR, tending sunstroke. Thing is, and I want to clarify this so that there is NO MISTAKING MY MEANING, first aid is that little bit of care you get in the nick of time that can save a life in the absence of professional medical care. In the presence of a REAL DOCTOR the first aid provider steps away and does not presume to act or even supervise.

In referring to saving a life, I refer to saving an eternal life. And in certain situations the eternal life is in immediate and present danger. So immediate and so present that by the time full medical care arrived, the patient would be dead. When I talk about things like Baptism by Fire, I refer to God's use of first aid to save someone that wouldn't live to make it to the hospital (Church).

Nobody's asking you to be comfy with this belief. Because of the depth of your knowledge of theology and your opportunities, you don't qualify for first aid. You have a doctor. You're in the hospital. So am I. So are most if not all people in this thread.

When it comes down to it, my main problem, and where I differ with some folk, is in how God views justice. I'm going to give you a little parable to explain my feelings. I hope it helps without insulting anyone.

I have a no-kill shelter. Dogs that are badly off go there to avoid being put down. But I also have a rule...only dogs that have been vaccinated for rabies before they came are eligible to be admitted. In comes a wonderful puppy with eyes to melt the coldest heart. He hasn't had his shot. I have a dozen unused doses in the refrigerator. Now I know that this dog has always been indoors and has never been out where he could have picked up the disease. The reason for the rule does not apply but the rule is the rule. So I point down the hall toward the door marked "Protective equipment with Oxygen must be worn at all times." Kill him.

I wouldn't. Trust me, I wouldn't. I would have given the little fellow the shot even if I'd had to pay for it out of pocket.

I would hate to think that made me more merciful than God himself. I was made in God's image. I would like to think my weakness for innocent little puppies with large brown eyes is part of that image. That I got it from Dad...my HEAVENLY Dad.

We talk of God being so wonderful and so loving. Folks, wonderful people have wonderful characteristics. Loving people love a lot. You aren't wonderful and loving because of your rank and office. God isn't "officially" loving in the absence of compassion, "certified" wonderful in the absence of wonder. He's the most loving and wonderful creature in the universe, and EVEN I am wonderful and loving enough to give a poor sucker a break if I feel he's the victim of circumstances.

[Beloved]

Originally Posted by Zella

No, but it is baptism that saves us and perhaps knowing Jesus died is not esential to understanding why, it is certainly helpful.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Baptism DOES NOT SAVE ANYBODY. (Let alone bathing an infant who has no clue what is happening to him, let alone participating in the decision.) The prime example is the thief on the cross who was saved *SOLELY* by his faith in Jesus' saving of his sins. Nobody baptised him while he was crucified. Sorry. Baptism is a SIGN of our faith, a proclamation of our Salvation, but it IS NOT the means of our salvation. Never has been, never EVER will be.

[EveningStar]

I for one would rather do too much than not enough. However I think God is reasonable.

I've seen a Boy Scout who was confined to a wheelchair. When people were asked to "all rise", salute and recite the pledge, he remained seated as he must. That does not count against him when his "Scout Spirit" is evaluated during a Board of Review. That's what I call reasonable.

There are things we do that are avenues of grace. Whether you believe in a wide array of sacraments, two, or just the death itself of Christ Jesus, God did something that extended his freewill gift of grace to you. But be not deceived, even if you think of this power as something bordering on magic, God can choose any avenue he wishes to extend that same power in the event of extenuating circumstances. Communion? Why God could turn the mountains into Christ's body and the oceans into his blood. We cannot and must not claim that God is powerless to bend his own rules. The very idea that Jesus died for YOUR sins instead of making YOU do it is proof that God bent some VERY big rules. And a God that would bend a huge rule and balk at bending a tiny one would seem capricious and nasty to me.

[Glenburne]

God didn't bend the rules in having Christ die for our sins. First of all, the New Testament tells us that God, in His ability to know everything, knew that the people he would create would fall. He planned "before the foundations of the world"--before there were any humans or human sins to forgive--to send Christ. Christ was destined to come before God made His first law for humans, the law forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Secondly, the earlier and higher laws determined by God's character were satisfied in Christ's death. God is just--thus, someone had to die, either sinners or someone sinless. Christ was that Someone, satisfying God's justice, righteousness, and wrath against sin. But God is also merciful--thus, Christ died to save us, even though we were God's enemies (in C. S. Lewis's terminology, the enemy pilots bombing behind God's lines). Through that God proved His love, grace, and mercy in a way that is defies our comprehension. In God, justice and mercy, wrath and love, holiness and grace are perfectly balanced and equally right--the earliest and highest laws of the universe.

The problem with doing "too much rather than not enough" is that in doing so people--being people--often place their faith in their baptism, communion, confessions, faithful bringing of macaroni and cheese to church potlucks--instead of in what Christ has done for them. We are saved through Christ's righteousness, not our own, and the New Testament is very clear than even the best works (bringing peanut butter pies to church dinners?) cannot save us. Paul discusses this in-depth in the book of Romans, chapters 1 through 7--"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Baptism, communion, etc. are good things--scripturally commanded things--but they are human works. Salvation only comes through Christ's righteousness, not our own, and a failure to emphasize this often leaves people resting on the merit of their works rather than Christ's.