That is the point. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (truly) believes on Him might have everlasting life, for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world. He who believes in Him is not condemned,.
Clarifications On My Original Comment
I appreciate this scripture valiant posted, and I "think" I agree with the main point he was trying to make:
that Jesus died to
eternally save those who believe... not to partially save us, or almost save us, or save us for a while.
We're on the same page.
My point, in my original comment, was only to say it's possible to RECEIVE CHRIST, without UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING he does.
I realize this little point can turn into a slippery slope.
But you can certainly KNOW CHRIST without KNOWING EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM.
The Reasoning
The reason why, when people get saved, we often teach them the principles of "assurance", is because NEW BELIEVERS DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THESE PRINCIPLES.
Now, if you have ever taught a believer about assurance, because he didn't understand... you are immediately placed into the logical paradigm that "
understanding of assurance is NOT necessary for salvation."
It works like this:
1. If we teach new believers about the doctrine of assurance, because they don't fully understand it...
2. Then they must be ABLE to be saved without fully understanding it.
3. Therefore an individual may not understand assurance, or may doubt it, and yet be quite saved.
4. Therefore there ARE saved people who don't understand assurance, and "understanding" assurance is not a condition of salvation.
* If premise #1 is true, then the rest of the points naturally, and logically follow.
* If this reasoning is logical, then it would also follow that we should be gracious to those who don't understand, or who don't agree, about assurance... as this particular bit of understanding does not DETERMINE your salvation.
The Problem We Have
We clearly have a problem regarding "what exactly" and "how much exactly" you need to believe in order to be saved.
This problem isn't new or impossible to navigate.
But its still a serious issue.
This problem of "precisely how much doctrine we must believe and understand in order to receive Christ" is a very serious issue.
1. Just exactly how much do you truly need to understand about
Christ to receive Christ?
2. Just exactly how much do you truly need to understand about the
work of Christ to receive Christ?
This is a REAL issue.
Cults often believe in "something" they call Christ, but it isn't the biblical christ at all.
If you believe in "something" you call Christ, but it's a COMPLETELY, TOTALLY UNBIBLICAL Christ, who isn't even God incarnate... then you aren't really trusting in the real Christ at all.... so you can't possibly be saved by him.
This would be like trusting in a car to get you to the mall, then you hop on a pogo stick because think a pogo stick is a car!
This is what we find in many cults.
And the cults aren't getting to the mall.
: )
So this IS a real issue.
What you DO believe ABOUT Christ, and ABOUT salvation IS a real issue.
It's a real issue we need to think about, and understand.
So we have our dilemma:
Just PRECISELY how much, and how little, must we truly understand, to truly receive Christ?
This is where most Christians attempt to differentiate the "essentials" from the "non essentials".
Most Christians, and most denominations, do fully agree on these "essentials."
But there is still a problem.
There is a problem of an "edge."
When we define these essentials, like all definitions, they have an "edge"... a place where the definition can be stretched no further, and so it must stop... and we sometimes disagree on where precisely this "edge" must lie.
So, when we come right up to the "edge" of these essentials, we may disagree on just where precisely some of those edges are.
I understand this is important.
I understand we can agree on the "essentials", and still disagree on where precisely we find the exact edges of those essentials.
I understand this, and I'm not going to attack anyone over this.
Nonetheless, I think my section above called "The Reasoning" is simple, biblical, and logically sound.
I think it is solid.
I think it stands, and I think it speaks of some nuanced areas where we really need to be gracious.
God Bless.