Which name of the Lord do we call on?

[York]

It appears there are many fixated on the idea that we must believe in 'Jesus Christ' to be saved.

We have Abraham calling on the name of the Lord before Jesus' time. And we don't whether he 'looked forward to Jesus' day and was glad'at the time of his calling thus.

Then we have the name of Jesus. But Jesus has many names.

Which name (and why) must we call on - if you are not of the view that calling on any of the names of the Lord constitutes calling on the name of the Lord?

 

[civic]

Joel 2:32
32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Will be delivered;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the Lord has said,
Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.

Here we see Paul quote this OT passage about YHWH and apply it to Jesus who is the One and Only Lord according to the N.T. Jude 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 8:6

Rom 10:9-13
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

So a person must confess Jesus is YHWH(Lord) to be saved. Confess means to agree with so the person confessing Jesus is Lord is in agreement that He is YHWH. Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord ( YHWH) will be saved.

hope this helps !!!

 

[travelah]

It appears there are many fixated on the idea that we must believe in 'Jesus Christ' to be saved.

We have Abraham calling on the name of the Lord before Jesus' time. And we don't whether he 'looked forward to Jesus' day and was glad'at the time of his calling thus.

Then we have the name of Jesus. But Jesus has many names.

Which name (and why) must we call on - if you are not of the view that calling on any of the names of the Lord constitutes calling on the name of the Lord?

Well, among Protestants, the Lordship of Jesus Christ is pretty important.

 

[York]

Thanks for the response and the effort to highlight things.

Whilst I don't disagree that Jesus is Lord and calling him Lord saves, a question or two.

Who did people in the Old Testament times call on when they were saved by callng thus? They didn't say 'Jesus is Lord'.

Whilst a person might be saved by calling Jesus Lord, they are also saved (Abraham at least was) by believing what God said (in Abraham's case, believing a promise re a physical heir. What do you think about that?

If there are various 'formats' to a response to God that saves, how do we decide that only a particular form of words works? Or is it that there is an underlying principle involved and the words aren't really what its about?

 

[civic]

Thanks for the response and the effort to highlight things.

Whilst I don't disagree that Jesus is Lord and calling him Lord saves, a question or two.

Who did people in the Old Testament times call on when they were saved by callng thus? They didn't say 'Jesus is Lord'.

Whilst a person might be saved by calling Jesus Lord, they are also saved (Abraham at least was) by believing what God said (in Abraham's case, believing a promise re a physical heir. What do you think about that?

If there are various 'formats' to a response to God that saves, how do we decide that only a particular form of words works? Or is it that there is an underlying principle involved and the words aren't really what its about?

Jesus is the human name given when The Eternal Son who is YHWH became a man.

 

[York]

Well, among Protestants, the Lordship of Jesus Christ is pretty important.

Be that as it may. They're only questions I'm asking.

One wouldn't want one's holding Jesus' Lordship as important stand in the way of arriving at the best theology one can arrive at.

 

[York]

Jesus is the human name given when The Eternal Son who is YHWH became a man.

Er..okay. So about them questions I asked?

And another..

What's the name of God the Father?

 

[Theo1689]

Jesus is the human name given when The Eternal Son who is YHWH became a man.

What's the name of God the Father?

Really?

His name is YHWH.

 

[York]

Really?

His name is YHWH.

So, God the father and God the son have the same name?

Who did Old Testament people call on when they called on the name of the Lord? The father or the son?

 

[Theo1689]

So, God the father and God the son have the same name?

There is only one God.
His name is YHWH.

Seriously, it's not a difficult concept to understand.

(And if you don't want to hear the answers, don't waste our time asking the questions.)

Who did Old Testament people call on when they called on the name of the Lord?

There is only one God.
His name is YHWH.

The father or the son?

The Old Testament people were not aware of a distinction between "father" and "son".
That revelation came later.

 

[civic]

Er..okay. So about them questions I asked?

And another..

What's the name of God the Father?

the Father, just as the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

God is the Father, the Son , the Holy Spirit- our Blessed Triune God.

 

[York]

There is only one God.
His name is YHWH.

Seriously, it's not a difficult concept to understand.

(And if you don't want to hear the answers, don't waste our time asking the questions.)



There is only one God.
His name is YHWH.



The Old Testament people were not aware of a distinction between "father" and "son".
That revelation came later.

Grand. So people didn't need to call on 'Jesus Christ' to be saved.

Do they need to call on 'Jesus Christ' now or would calling on the name of the Lord suffice?

What about if someone believed God on a matter which didn't have particularily spiritual connotations. Like his promising to fulfill a driving need (Abraham had a driving need for an heir, but lets suppose that was just one manifestation of a driving need)


You might consider your tone, by the way. You've been here a long time I gather amd I know forums can be jading. But you haven't done much but snipe at me and haven't said much of substance to me that I can see. So a bit more respect and we might get on

 

[York]

the Father, just as the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

God is the Father, the Son , the Holy Spirit- our Blessed Triune God.

See my response to Theo above so.. (save for the respect bit which doesn't apply to yourself)

 

[Theo1689]

Grand. So people didn't need to call on 'Jesus Christ' to be saved.

People are not now living in the Old Testament.
They have knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the Lord.

Do they need to call on 'Jesus Christ' now or would calling on the name of the Lord suffice?

It is impossible to be saved if you deny Jesus Christ.

What about if someone believed God on a matter which didn't have particularily spiritual connotations. Like his promising to fulfill a driving need (Abraham had a driving need for an heir, but lets suppose that was just one manifestation of a driving need)

That's not why Abraham believed God.

You might consider your tone, by the way.

Take your own advice.

But you haven't done much but snipe at me and haven't said much of substance to me that I can see. So a bit more respect and we might get on

Okay... Start trying to show me some respect, and we'll see how that goes.

 

[travelah]

Be that as it may. They're only questions I'm asking.

One wouldn't want one's holding Jesus' Lordship as important stand in the way of arriving at the best theology one can arrive at.

It is important enough for many to say you are not in Christ if you deny it.

 

[civic]

See my response to Theo above so.. (save for the respect bit which doesn't apply to yourself)

Is the Son God ? Yes or no

 

[York]

People are not now living in the Old Testament

Tell that to every works religionist.

.
They have knowledge of Jesus Christ.

For the sake of simplicity lets suppose a 1st century AD aboriginal (ironic, the -original bit). He didn't have a knowledge

Jesus Christ is the Lord.

It is impossible to be saved if you deny Jesus Christ.



That's not why Abraham believed God.



Take your own advice.



Okay... Start trying to show me some respect, and we'll see how that goes.

It is important enough for many to say you are not in Christ if you deny it.

It doesn't matter whether it's Richard Dawkins behind this account. The questions/ queries are straight up straightforward - any Christian theology ought be able address them.

Like, could someone in late 1st century Austrlia call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

 

[York]

Is the Son God ? Yes or no

Yes

 

[Theo1689]

Tell that to every works religionist.

It's rather rude to tell people what to do.
If you want them to know that, then YOU tell them.

You should try to show me respect, instead of trying to boss me around.

For the sake of simplicity lets suppose a 1st century AD aboriginal (ironic, the -original bit). He didn't have a knowledge

Let's not.
It's stupid and shamefully self-serving of you.
Btw, "let's" is usually spelled with an apostrophe by literate people.

It doesn't matter whether it's Richard Dawkins behind this account. The questions/ queries are straight up straightforward - any Christian theology ought be able address them.

I'm not here to waste my time playing "20 Questions" with you.
Instead of playing stupid games, why don't you show me some respect.

If you don't even know what God's name is, may I respectfully suggest that you have nothing of value to teach me?

But if you suppose that you do, then stop playing games and simply proclaim what you want to proclaim. That is how you show RESPECT to people.

Like, could someone in late 1st century Austrlia call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

I'm sorry, I don't know what an "Austrlia" is.
Goodbye.

 

[travelah]

Tell that to every works religionist.


For the sake of simplicity lets suppose a 1st century AD aboriginal (ironic, the -original bit). He didn't have a knowledge







It doesn't matter whether it's Richard Dawkins behind this account. The questions/ queries are straight up straightforward - any Christian theology ought be able address them.

Like, could someone in late 1st century Austrlia call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

I'm not interested in engaging in apologetics to the world on this board. This is Arminianism and Calvinism.