Requirements for salvation according to different verses

[roseproject]

So, I noticed that different scripture verses spell out different requirements for salvation…

Romans 10:9- that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 3:5- Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

John 6:53- Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

(If there are others mentioned elsewhere in the bible, I forgot. Sorry ^^’)

Certain denominations seem to stress one over the other (the classic altar call/ the “prayer to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior” comes to mind). Like, some seem to think that confessing with your mouth is all you need. Or, baptism without eating of the flesh and blood of Christ.

I guess the question is why does the bible seem to word these verses in such a way that one or the other is all that you need? “Unless you confess with your mouth, you will be saved.” “unless they are born of water.” “Unless you eat of the flesh and blood, you have no life.” As if one verse is including the other. You know what I mean?

God bless

Roseproject

 

[EvangelistVictor]

Romans 10:9- that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 3:5- Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

John 6:53- Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

We need all these for salvation and must be taken as a whole. They all point to Christ. Confession of the mouth in Christ allows for the receiving of the Holy Spirit after water baptism. And eating his flesh and blood celebrates the Eucharist every Sunday.

 

[roseproject]

Of course

I just wonder if, for an example, the Romans whom Paul was addressing would’ve understood that you also require baptism and the partaking of the Eucharistic feast for salvation.

 

[porthos11]

I always find it amusing whenever the question of salvation arises, Matthew 25 is often forgotten.

And just to be negative, I’ll cite the second part, starting with verse 41:

Depart from me ye cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels for… you gave me no food…gave me no drink…did not welcome me…did not clothe me…did not visit me…whatsoever you did not do to the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away to everlasting punishment.

All of these: confession with the lips, reception of the sacraments, and good works done in the state of grace are necessary for salvation. It’s not either/or.

 

[roseproject]

Aha, I knew I was forgetting an important verse xD Thank you!

 

[Vico]

…Romans 10:9 … John 3:5 … John 6:53 …

Matthew 7:21

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father, who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Haydock Commentary on John 5:38

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

Ver. 58. As the living Father hath sent me, his only, his true Son, to become man; and I live by the Father, proceeding always from him; so he that eateth me, first by faith only, by believing in me; and secondly, he that eateth my body and blood, truly made meat and drink, though after a spiritual manner, (not in that visible, bloody manner as the Capharnaites fancied to themselves) shall live by me, and live for ever, happy in the kingdom of my glory. (Witham

 

[po18guy]

A: All of the above.

Scripture is a seamless garment. Trouble ensues when verses are isolated and taken out of context.

 

[MT1926]

Of course

I just wonder if, for an example, the Romans whom Paul was addressing would’ve understood that you also require baptism and the partaking of the Eucharistic feast for salvation.

From a Catholic perspective of course they would have. This is where the “Oral Tradition” would have come into play. We don’t look at the Bible as an instruction manual that contains everything we need to understand.

The Romans would have understood Baptism, Confession, Eucharist etc. Because it would have been a part of the Oral tradition present and practiced in their Churches, long before they had a complete Bible.

God Bless

 

[roseproject]

So you’re saying, that within the context of which audience the speaker was speaking to, they would’ve understood the (unmentioned in the particular verse) the other requirements of salvation?

So, “unless you confess with your mouth, you will be saved”, for instance, is indeed true in the context that the other requirements aren’t neglected?

For the record, I do believe in all the requirements for salvation Sometimes, seeing verses by themselves can be misleading without some context.

 

[Vonsalza]

If different verses identified different requirements for salvation (and I very much agree that they do), then they would seem to exist in a state of inter-dependence upon one another rather than in conflict.

As it pertains to the specific verse, the salvific requisite mentioned would then be targeted at the needs of the audience in a specific message - rather than being a complete soteriology unto itself.

 

[guanophore]

So you’re saying, that within the context of which audience the speaker was speaking to, they would’ve understood the (unmentioned in the particular verse) the other requirements of salvation?

The New Testament was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. Christians learned the faith from the Apostles and elders. The NT came later - the first letter about 20 years later and the last last as much as 70 years. So none of the early Christians learned what they needed from the Scripture.

The Church in Rome was likely started by diasporic Jews who were in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. They heard the Gospel from Peter.

Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It would be decades before any NT was written, so how did they learn?

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT had ever been written.

 

[fhansen]

What your OP really highlights-again-is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is bankrupt. It’s impossible to know the faith with any kind of certainty without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Church which was established by God for that very purpose, to preserve, teach, and spread the gospel that she received firsthand, at the beginning.

 

[roseproject]

Amen to that!

 

[MT1926]

So you’re saying, that within the context of which audience the speaker was speaking to, they would’ve understood the (unmentioned in the particular verse) the other requirements of salvation?

Well here is the thing, you say withing the context the speaker was speaking. What I am getting at is from a Catholic perspective we believe what was spoken was everything. We don’t believe what was written is everything.

Take for examples Galatians. Which is the first book written by St. Paul long before Romans was written. If you look at the very first chapter we see St. Paul writing that he is astonished that some Galatians are turning away from the Gospel. This is how we see the Epistles of St. Paul, many of them being letters of correction not letters that spell out the complete requirement for salvation.

So, “unless you confess with your mouth, you will be saved”, for instance, is indeed true in the context that the other requirements aren’t neglected?

Yes agree. Here is the thing that many tend to ignore. I would say easily 95% of people were illiterate back then. They had no way of reading St. Paul’s letters let alone taking them out of context. The faith would have been taught to them as a progressive continuous teaching. People back then knew how to obey authority. They would have never said hey what you talking bout with this Baptism, you already said all I had to do was confess with my mouth and I was already saved.

Times have changed, the human race no longer understands what it means to be obedient. We have been blindly taught to question everyone, even those placed in authority above us. It is a sad sad world we live in which I am afraid will only get worse.

For the record, I do believe in all the requirements for salvation Sometimes, seeing verses by themselves can be misleading without some context.

Amen, that is why I am so thankful for the guide Jesus left us in the Catholic Church.

God Bless