At what point in our salvation is the blood of Christ applied?

[mailmandan]

Does this mean that Jesus died to take the punishment for our sins and that anyone who believe in him is forgiven of all their sins because Jesus took the punishment for them? Or is it saying that if you believe that he died to take the punishment for our sins then you are forgiven them? Awhile back someone on here told me that you have to believe on Jesus' name to be saved, basically all the things about him that are true and not just in him, so I'm just trying to figure out what this verse is saying. (feel free to ignore)

Jesus did die to take the punishment for our sins. 2 Corinthians 5:21 - For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Through believing in His name, we not only believe all the facts about Jesus but we also trust in Him as the allsufficient means of our salvation through His death, burial and resurrection. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

 

[mailmandan]

Oh, I get it.

I have met many who push faith alone regeneration theology, you are no different.

A theology based on broad assumptions and not one biblical proof text.

A theology based on a line of reasoning you would never use on any other subject.

I feel no need to respond to this question since:
1. You have not given me the courtesy of answering my question.
2. Why should I explain to you what you "mean by salvation through faith".
3. It does not matter what you think is meant by "faith" since biblical it is not by faith alone.

We are saved through faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) The opposite of that would be salvation by faith and works.

 

[LeeLoving]

Jesus did die to take the punishment for our sins. 2 Corinthians 5:21 - For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Through believing in His name, we not only believe all the facts about Jesus but we also trust in Him as the allsufficient means of our salvation through His death, burial and resurrection. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Do you have to believe in his name to be saved, or is it just believing in him that saves someone? Like would it just be enough if someone believed Jesus was the Son of God to be saved? The language in John 3 seems like you just need to believe in him.

 

[sawdust]

You see this as a oxymoron because you accept faith alone regeneration theology.

Faith alone regeneration theology is an assertion based on conjecture, a surmised understanding without even a single proof text.

John 3:16
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

That doesn't sound like conjecture to me. And as I said earlier it is never faith alone, it is grace that saves working through faith which comes from the word (Rom.10:17) therefore, salvation is never our doing but the Lord's.

You can't have salvation without forgiveness and you can't have forgiveness without the blood of Christ ergo if God keeps His word, (and He does), then when you believe you are forgiven which means the blood must be applied.

 

[sawdust]

Do you have to believe in his name to be saved, or is it just believing in him that saves someone? Like would it just be enough if someone believed Jesus was the Son of God to be saved? The language in John 3 seems like you just need to believe in him.

Believing in His name doesn't mean believing in a title, it means believing in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[LeeLoving]

Believing in His name doesn't mean believing in a title, it means believing in the person of Jesus Christ.

Oh, I know that. Like the things about him that are true. Someone awhile back told me you need to believe on his name in order to be saved, like believe a lot of the things about him that are true, in order to be saved. It's really throwing me for a loop because John 3 seems to be saying that you just need to believe in him.

 

[TrustandObey]

We are saved through faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

Regardless of how strong or sincere a person's faith may be, it is not by faith alone that mankind is redeemed.

Hence your need to present general statements on faith and not an actual verse that states your assertion.

The discourse in James 2:14-25 is unequivocal in its meaning and no conjecture about the definition of faith will change this.

You sound like Bill Clinton when he was trying to defend his (rightly understood) definition of the word "is".

 

[TrustandObey]

It's really throwing me for a loop because John 3 seems to be saying that you just need to believe in him.

John 3 states that we need to believe in Him, it does not say we "just need to believe in Him".

Just is a modifying adverb and is not used in John 3 for a reason. If it was, it would contradict much of the Bible.

We should be cautious of our personal bias when reading the Bible. Most false theologies are based on this error.

 

[mailmandan]

Regardless of how strong or sincere a person's faith may be, it is not by faith alone that mankind is redeemed.

Hence your need to present general statements on faith and not an actual verse that states your assertion.

The discourse in James 2:14-25 is unequivocal in its meaning and no conjecture about the definition of faith will change this.

You sound like Bill Clinton when he was trying to defend his (rightly understood) definition of the word "is".

Either you believe we are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) or else you believe we are saved by faith and works. I believe the former and apparently you believe the latter.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims (key word) he has faith but has no works (to evidence his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith.

So, when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. So, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3)

 

[mailmandan]

Do you have to believe in his name to be saved, or is it just believing in him that saves someone? Like would it just be enough if someone believed Jesus was the Son of God to be saved? The language in John 3 seems like you just need to believe in him.

This could get a little deep but see post #6,624 from the link below:

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ed-osas-debunked.201128/page-332#post-5139915

 

[TrustandObey]

John 3:16
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

That doesn't sound like conjecture to me. And as I said earlier it is never faith alone, it is grace that saves working through faith which comes from the word (Rom.10:17) therefore, salvation is never our doing but the Lord's.

You can't have salvation without forgiveness and you can't have forgiveness without the blood of Christ ergo if God keeps His word, (and He does), then when you believe you are forgiven which means the blood must be applied.

You don't seem to know the meaning of conjecture. Conjecture is neither bad nor good, it is simply the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Your conjecture may be correct but only if backed up with reasonable evidence not more conjecture.

IOW, bringing up more verses that state the need for faith and ignoring the verses that state the need to obey is not a winning argument.

 

[lrs68]

Is it at the point of faith? Satan would have you believe that’ faith” is the “end”, when actually, it is the beginning. Is it when we repent? When we actually “confess” Christ seems like a good place

We know Jesus shed His blood in His death on the cross. Romans 6:3, God says, Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His DEATH?Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into DEATH that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of life.”

From this scripture, I would say that we come into contact with the blood of Jesus when we are baptized into His death ( where His blood was shed).

This is in perfect harmony with what Ananias tells Saul in Acts 22:16–“ And now, what are you waiting for? Arise, and be baptized and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS.”

When actual Repentance takes place as we are accepting the Gift of Salvation into our life.

 

[Mem]

Oh, I know that. Like the things about him that are true. Someone awhile back told me you need to believe on his name in order to be saved, like believe a lot of the things about him that are true, in order to be saved. It's really throwing me for a loop because John 3 seems to be saying that you just need to believe in him.

This is how I look at it. All sins are forgiven so everyone is branded as no longer owned by sin but by Jesus, his blood bought them, and everyone is a sheep 'allowed' back into the house. But everyone that doesn't come into the house is still in danger of being torn up by the sheep, that is, susceptible to an eternal death. The shepherd calls all the sheep in and all that answer his call he will in no wise casts out, but he also will not 'make' them come through the gate into the house. Even though they are free to come in, those that refrain from entering he considers 'not his sheep' since they do not trust him enough to enter the gate he is holding open for them.

It might be that they love their 'freedom' and consider coming into the house as going into captivity when in reality it is entering into safekeeping (It is for this reason that it must be of a free choice because otherwise it would fall under the categorical crime of false imprisonment) But, if at any time they do decide to come in, he will never cast them out each time they approach the gate. Notwithstanding that the shepherd's father does 'drag' them to him by use of the proverbial hook of adversary influences which cause them to seek refuge, it happens often that at the precipice of peace and safety, a sheep feels 'secure' enough to then foolishly think, 'oh that wasn't so bad, "I" got through that hazard well enough "I" surely am capable of fending for myself' and goes back into the wilderness for another rinse and repeat cycle.

Those that actually do go in have actually 'repented,' a godly repentance, but the others have only displayed a worldly repentance.

 

[sawdust]

Oh, I know that. Like the things about him that are true. Someone awhile back told me you need to believe on his name in order to be saved, like believe a lot of the things about him that are true, in order to be saved. It's really throwing me for a loop because John 3 seems to be saying that you just need to believe in him.

I get that but at the end of the day one will ask "who is this person I am to believe in?" And it will be answered by who He claims to be ie. Son of God, Messiah, Saviour etc and what He has done, died for our sins, rose form the dead etc. so how can you believe in someone if you have no knowledge of who they are or what they have done? To believe on His name is to believe in His person and it requires knowledge, not simply of a "given name" which was relatively a common name in Jesus' day.

Paul gives us the basis of the Gospel to be believed unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,

 

[sawdust]

You don't seem to know the meaning of conjecture. Conjecture is neither bad nor good, it is simply the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Your conjecture may be correct but only if backed up with reasonable evidence not more conjecture.

IOW, bringing up more verses that state the need for faith and ignoring the verses that state the need to obey is not a winning argument.

You mean the need to obey by believing the Gospel, the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation?

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Ephesians 1:13
And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,

Looks to me like we are saved and sealed when we believe.

Funny how you accuse me of ignoring verses that call for obedience which you fail to supply but ignore the verses I show you saying we are saved when we believe. I love irony.

 

[studier]

You mean the need to obey by believing the Gospel, the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation?

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Ephesians 1:13
And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,

Looks to me like we are saved and sealed when we believe.

Funny how you accuse me of ignoring verses that call for obedience which you fail to supply but ignore the verses I show you saying we are saved when we believe. I love irony.

The real irony is that every time someone provides a verse that speaks of belief they're also supplying a verse that speaks of obedience. There is no genuine belief in God apart from obedience to God.

 

[mailmandan]

You mean the need to obey by believing the Gospel, the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation?

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Ephesians 1:13
And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,

Looks to me like we are saved and sealed when we believe.

Funny how you accuse me of ignoring verses that call for obedience which you fail to supply but ignore the verses I show you saying we are saved when we believe. I love irony.

Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. Which is not to be confused with multiple acts of obedience/works which "follow."

Folks who teach we are saved by believing and obeying are teaching salvation by faith and works. Prior to my conversion several years ago while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I basically defined faith "as" obedience and any act of obedience accomplished I would simply call it faith. Back them I would have said faith "is" baptism, faith "is" multiple acts of obedience, faith "is" works which is a critical error that culminates in works salvation/works righteousness.

I once shared Ephesians 2:8,9 with a Roman Catholic and told him we are saved by grace through faith, not works and that Roman Catholic answered, "I know that." But as we discussed it further, I could tell he misinterpreted Ephesians 2:8,9 as saved by grace through faith "infused" with good works and just not saved by works of the law. That same Roman Catholic denied that the Roman Catholic church teaches salvation by faith AND WORKS and then he contradicted himself by sharing this with me below in blue.

We are saved by faith - as long as you properly define "Faith". Faith is not simply "believing". Faith INCLUDES: Being water baptized, eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass, works of mercy and charity, obeying his commandments etc..

His argument about faith being defined as and INCLUDES these works above (yet at the same time denying that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by faith and works) is just sugar-coated double talk and equates to salvation through faith (his version of faith) and works. Roman Catholics basically teach that we are saved by faith "infused" with works and I hear people who attend the church of Christ say that we are saved by faith "conjoined" with works. Both groups re-define faith to "include" works and end up trying to "shoehorn" works "into" salvation through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

The Greek words for faith "pistis" and believe "pisteuo" are two forms of the same word. "Pistis" is the noun form, "pisteuo" is the verb form. Nothing in the root meaning of either word carries any concept of works. If you believe in/have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, then you are trusting in Him alone to save you. Now although this belief/faith results in actions appropriate to the belief/faith (to one degree or the other/all genuine believers are fruitful, yet not all are equally fruitful -- Matthew 13:23) the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief/faith.

 

[LeeLoving]

Is the blood of Christ not applied when we have faith in it as it says in Romans 3:25?

Romans 3:25
King James Version
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

I.E. we believe Jesus died for our sins and then God sees him as a propitiation for our sins thus justifying us with regards to our sin.

 

[PaulThomson]

At what point in our salvation is the blood of Christ applied?)

What is the reality that applying the blood refers to? What did applying the blood indicate in the exodus?

Those who were believing YHWHs warning and were relying on His promise, applied the blood to their lintels and doorposts. Could we surmise that when we believe God's warnings in the gospel re judgment and rely on God keeping His promises made in the gospel, re deliverance from judgment, we are applying the blood?

 

[TrustandObey]

Funny how you accuse me of ignoring verses that call for obedience which you fail to supply but ignore the verses I show you saying we are saved when we believe. I love irony.

We by no means should ignore any scripture.

It is the labeling of pet general verses into all-encompassing assertions of human redemption that is the issue and this is what you are doing.

The gospel cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker.

Your verses do not express:

That Jesus is God incarnate or the necessity to believe that He rose from the dead.

The need to confess verbally that Jesus is Lord.

The absolute need to repent.

The need for the remission of sins through baptism.

The command to stay faithful unto death.

These commands are not optional nor are they natural events in the life of a Christian.

There are "Christian" groups who accept your general verses but not the need for some or all the the above.

IOW, I believe even you accept at least some of the above things that are not listed on your verses.

In the end it is faith alone regeneration theology that is wrong. Is faith part of the regeneration process, of course. It is the false notion that we need to whittle down the gospel into a bumper sticker format that is heresy.