[r9etb]

Historically, that "something" has been outlined in the various creeds of the faith. That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, was both God and man, lived a perfect life, was crucified, died and on the third day rose again. That he suffered the righteous wrath of God in our place to pay the sin debt we owe God and that he imputes his righteousness to us.

All good and true ... but that's really just a list meant to define the limits of an organized religion. They are not the means of salvation.

Jesus was not concerned with checking off the boxes. In fact, he most strongly opposed the folks who demanded it.

Perhaps salvation is much simpler matter than organized religion would like it to be.

Remember: the thief on the cross was saved despite his ignorance of those doctrines. The Samaritan woman at the well, likewise.

It was nothing more or less than the way they responded to Jesus that saved them.

Think about it....

[Pete]

It was nothing more or less than the way they responded to Jesus that saved them.

A couple of things. First, clearly each of those people believed in Jesus. That is why they were saved. But, note, that was before his death and resurrection and before God provided the New Testament.

Paul makes it clear that there is a specific Gospel that must be understood and that it can only be understood if it is preached. Thus the call to evangelism in the Great Commission.

There are many people who have heard of Jesus but that does not mean they have believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth. My fear is too little understanding rather than too much.

I don't believe that a correct understanding of doctrine is a check list. It isn't equivalent to legalism (saved by what we do rather than what we believe).