Jesus the Messiah died for me.

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Is it possible that the idea Jesus died for our sins was not really an integral part of His message but rather an emphasis of someone else's interpretation of Jesus' message? Did Jesus ever really say those words? Could a person simply have highlighted certain parts of His message in a way that promoted the popular Roman belief that a man could become a God and the Jewish belief in sacrifice? Wouldn't that kind of popularity be beneficial and useful? If we just read the four gospels by themselves would we have the same view of the story of Jesus? Would we be influenced by the rest of the NT and encouraged to remember another person's explanation or what someone else wanted us to remember, even a person who really did not know Jesus while he was alive?

Since you have refused to answer where you have gotten
your theological ideas from, it's difficult for anyone to have a
conversation with you. Nobody knows where you're coming from?

I think you like it that way? Evidently, you're not a "true believer"
in Christianity and seem to be searching for your own truth. Since
God's Grace offered to mankind is the only real truth, your searching
will end at a dead end eventually. God, according to the Bible, only
offers one way to eternal life and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ.
All other ways will lead to death and judgement.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I would love to but that would take a long time. I think being a Christian is good but it is not my ultimate identity. My ultimate identity is the soul. There is no way I would trade the soul for anything. The realization is that we are all children of God because we all have infinite divinity in the soul which is the root of our intrinsic value. It doesn't do me much good to try to get that value through being a Christian. Again, being a Christian is fine but not at the expense of the infinite and eternal identity.

Once you reject Christ and leave this world, your identity will be
a soul under the judgement of God and subsequently, you'll be a
resident of the Lake of Fire through eternity. By the way, according
to the Bible that same, Lake of Fire will be the residence of Satan
and his fallen angels as well.

 

[brewmama]

Since you have refused to answer where you have gotten
your theological ideas from, it's difficult for anyone to have a
conversation with you. Nobody knows where you're coming from?

I think you like it that way? Evidently, you're not a "true believer"
in Christianity and seem to be searching for your own truth. Since
God's Grace offered to mankind is the only real truth, your searching
will end at a dead end eventually. God, according to the Bible, only
offers one way to eternal life and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ.
All other ways will lead to death and judgement.

I got that impression too. I quit a while back.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Since you have refused to answer where you have gotten
your theological ideas from, it's difficult for anyone to have a
conversation with you. Nobody knows where you're coming from?

I think you like it that way? Evidently, you're not a "true believer"
in Christianity and seem to be searching for your own truth. Since
God's Grace offered to mankind is the only real truth, your searching
will end at a dead end eventually. God, according to the Bible, only
offers one way to eternal life and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ.
All other ways will lead to death and judgement.

Yes. One of many interpretations. I apologize as I don't recall anyone asking me where I got my theological ideas from. I got them mostly from the wisdom of my soul. It is one with infinite intelligence and communicates to me by way of feeling. One must be willing to listen not with the ears or the head or the mind, but rather, the heart, the center or core of our being. I had to get very very quiet to the point where my personality was thoroughly dissolved into a vast and empty void. There was much heavy resistance. It could have easily taken a lifetime and more.

To be perfectly honest, I had reached such a low point in my life that I was actually trying to throw myself into what I thought to be hell. That was what I was fully expecting. I felt like I was descending into the most unimaginable deepest black abyss and something told me there would be no way of going back. I just knew Satan was going to come eat me for dinner. I thought that would be better than to continue with the worthless feeling of my life. Yet Satan never came so I kept going back because I really wanted to go to hell (I don't recommend this, it is not a good place to be at all, trust me). In fact I remember cursing out Jesus and God, sticking up both my middle fingers up at them together and totally giving up all faith and hope. I went back and did this multiple multiple times trying to throw myself away like a piece of garbage into hell but in the end, I got the opposite.

I had to be willing to give up on the need and the desire and the craving to hold onto my beliefs including belief in myself and my identity, belief in my body, belief in my mind, belief in my thoughts, belief in what I took to be the reality of my surroundings, belief in the use of my sense of smell, touch, sound, sight, balance, taste, belief in the foundation and solidity of my environment, belief in the bible, my religion, my job, my car, my family, my relationships, the oxygen I breath.... This was a very painful process that no one will want to go through unless they are forced.

Most importantly I had to give up my life-long quest to find the answers as to what I had felt was missing all my life. I knew there was something but I couldn't even begin to put this feeling into words at the time. It was 90% unconscious. The problem was that giving all this up had to be done with perfect honestly and it couldn't be faked. God knows what is in our hearts so there is no way to fool Him. Once I gave up the desire to find the answers, after a very very very very very very very very very prolonged Dark Night of the Soul if you will, I woke up to the realization that I AM ONE WITH THE ANSWERS. It was like taking myself to be a single drop of water and then suddenly realizing I was actually an entire ocean surrounding the drop of water instead. It is incredible but true.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Once you reject Christ and leave this world, your identity will be
a soul under the judgement of God and subsequently, you'll be a
resident of the Lake of Fire through eternity. By the way, according
to the Bible that same, Lake of Fire will be the residence of Satan
and his fallen angels as well.

Then why did I get the exact opposite of what you have described?

 

[Ben Masada]

Is it possible that the idea Jesus died for our sins was not really an integral part of His message but rather an emphasis of someone else's interpretation of Jesus' message? Did Jesus ever really say those words? Could a person simply have highlighted certain parts of His message in a way that promoted the popular Roman belief that a man could become a God and the Jewish belief in sacrifice? Wouldn't that kind of popularity be beneficial and useful? If we just read the four gospels by themselves would we have the same view of the story of Jesus? Would we be influenced by the rest of the NT and encouraged to remember another person's explanation or what someone else wanted us to remember, even a person who really did not know Jesus while he was alive?

Very much possible because Jesus declared that he had come to fulfill and to confirm the Law and the Prophets down to the letter and, it is only obvious that he would not contradict the Prophets of the Most High. (Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20)

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Very much possible because Jesus declared that he had come to fulfill and to confirm the Law and the Prophets down to the letter and, it is only obvious that he would not contradict the Prophets of the Most High. (Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20)

Please keep in mind I'm not trying to negate anybody's viewpoint. I'm just saying there is more than one way to see things. Again, Jesus' message had very little to do with Him dying for our sins. That idea was magnified by someone other than Jesus. Go back and read the 4 Gospels and mark his words and you will only find a few instances of Him saying something to that effect, but then we get to the rest of the New Testament and the whole thing is in your face like it was the most important part of His message. It wasn't. We can believe what we want to believe but I am going to find out the truth for myself, not according to what someone else says. It's easy to take for granted that the so-called authorities have answers that are unchallengeable. That kind of attitude is embedded in the Christian culture and we don't really question it. That is how the adversary remains undetected. And how can we defeat an enemy if we don't know where to look or how to find its existence?

 

[meshak]

Please keep in mind I'm not trying to negate anybody's viewpoint. I'm just saying there is more than one way to see things.

Jesus' word is very simple and clear basically when it comes to basic principle.

You don't seem to know what Jesus teaches. You don't have much of convincing argument, friend.

 

[meshak]

You seem to be playing religious game.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Jesus' word is very simple and clear basically when it comes to basic principle.

You don't seem to know what Jesus teaches. You don't have much of convincing argument, friend.

I think you're basing your argument not on your own conviction but on the conviction of someone who has taught you. This is a manipulation tactic of the enemy. It is a seamless process that is very difficult to detect. The enemy doesn't want us to know what it's doing because that would threaten everything we believe. And losing our beliefs would make things worse by plunging us into what is infinite and eternal. Here is the avoidance of God staring us right in the face. Do we not recognize that God is infinite and eternal? Why are we so scared of this? How come we do NOT see that we are avoiding God? Why are we so stuck in denial about it? Why are we so proud that we are good at avoiding what is infinite and eternal? I think we unconsciously like to avoid God but we don't realize what we are doing. The personality does its job a little too well, wouldn't you agree?

 

[bling]

His death was a substitutionary death. He paid the punishment for our sin, our transgressions.

Penal Substitution (PS) is:
1. Unfair in that the innocent is tortured and the guilty is allowed to go free undisciplined and it would not matter if the innocent was willing or not.
2. God is shown punishing Jesus without cause.
3. The guilty misses out on all the benefits of being fairly/justly disciplined.
4. Not an example we should follow.
5. Does not need man’s faith to complete the process of atonement, yet faith is needed?
6. Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all use the analogy of a ransom, so PS has the “ransom” being paid to God, but God is not the kidnapper, and the ransom analogy would have the payment being made to someone who does not deserve to be paid anything yet PS would say God deserves to be paid, so it is not a ransom. (I do not agree with the “Ransom Theory” of atonement either.)
7. PS puts the problem being God and not man’s problem, so Christ is trying to fix something for God, so God can forgive, but God forgave sin prior to Christ going to the cross.
8. The sacrifices in the Old Testament where not “substitutes” for the people (they could be a bag of flour), but were directed toward God.
9. Under PS there is no part humans play, while in the only atonement sacrifices that did result in God’s forgiveness (Lev. 5) there was a part the sinner played.

What about God willing letting Christ to go to the cross:
1. It is totally part of God’s character to do all He can to help willing individuals and allowing those individuals to experience all the benefits of being disciplined without being killed is a huge benefit to them.
2. Jesus says: “If there be any other way, let this cup pass from me…” which tells us there is no other way and this is something Jesus did not want to do, so the Father empathizing with Christ would show the Father does not “want” him to do it, but the father’s will is that He do it, because there is “no other way” to help us with our need for discipline.
3. There was a time prior to Christ going to the cross that God and Christ forgave sin without this discipline. Even a wonderful parent can run into a situation where they cannot discipline (punish) their repentant children and that was the time before the cross. The “punishment” for most intentional sins was death or banishment which was just but too severe for the Jews to implement most of the time. Lesser sins like the unintentional sins did have atonement and would be forgiven. Paul does talk about this Ro 3: 25 “…because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” in my understanding it was because there was no alternative punishment to death and/or banishment, that would allow the transgressor that repented to live and remain .
What about the “joy”? "...who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame..." Jesus did it for his future joy.”
1. Jesus did not want to go to the cross, Jesus says: “If there be any other way, let this cup pass from me…” Jesus was very willing to be obedient to death and God was willing to experience the pain with Christ, but was that out of unconditional Love for humans or some future conditional benefit?
2. We can take pleasure in sharing in the suffering that Christ bore, but is that to gain anything more than what we have already been given (is it not out of gratitude)? This becomes part of our witness to help others, like all Paul went through. To suggest Deity (Christ) gains anything more than is His already from going to the cross, seems unexplainable. Deity shows His Love and worthiness for man and is helping man and that is where I see Deity being happy. (It is in giving and not getting.)
3. Deity takes pleasure in helping humans and the cross helps humans receive all the benefits of just punishment and remaining alive, we also know that God is just/fair and has a sacrificial Love for us.
How is PS a ransom system since Christ, Paul and the Hebrew writer all describe it as a ransom?
1. Do we agree God is paying the ransom, Jesus’ death on the cross is the payment, and we are the ones being held captive and we are set free?
2. The question is who is holding us captive?
3. Who places any value on this type of a payment (who would benefit from taking this payment)?
4. How can some humans remain lost? Was the payment not great enough to save everyone? Did the person holding the hell bound person not willing to accept the payment?
5. If you say God is paying himself, that would mean God is holding us captive, so how would that work since he can just let us go? If God is paying Himself, what value does God place in a tortured, humiliated and murdered Christ (that makes God out to be blood thirsty)? If God is paying himself, why wouldn’t everyone be set free? If God is paying himself, that means God has a “need” to be satisfied and I do not see God needing anything, so what is the problem? If God is paying himself why all the teaching on this being for us, since it is being made to God for some reason?
6. If the ransom is being paid to satan, there is lots of other problems: why would God owe satan anything, why can’t God just over power satan, why wouldn’t everyone be set free, where is it discussed in scripture the payment is for satan, when did satan get raised to such status, did satan capture humans or did humans make a free will choice to join him, and how does Jesus’ death help satan?
7. If the ransom is being paid to those humans that accept the ransom: would that explain why some are not paid for, the value of what Christ did on the cross is for our sake and so we take value in what Christ did, we are the ones holding ourselves captive to sin (we can only blame ourselves), and what happened with the cross is centered on our need

 

[meshak]

I think you're basing your argument not on your own conviction but on the conviction of someone who has taught you.

Nope, I am a Christian and Christians are Jesus' followers. We base our faith according what Jesus teaches.

 

[Jacob]

Penal Substitution (PS) is:
1. Unfair in that the innocent is tortured and the guilty is allowed to go free undisciplined and it would not matter if the innocent was willing or not.
2. God is shown punishing Jesus without cause.
3. The guilty misses out on all the benefits of being fairly/justly disciplined.
4. Not an example we should follow.
5. Does not need man’s faith to complete the process of atonement, yet faith is needed?
6. Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all use the analogy of a ransom, so PS has the “ransom” being paid to God, but God is not the kidnapper, and the ransom analogy would have the payment being made to someone who does not deserve to be paid anything yet PS would say God deserves to be paid, so it is not a ransom. (I do not agree with the “Ransom Theory” of atonement either.)
7. PS puts the problem being God and not man’s problem, so Christ is trying to fix something for God, so God can forgive, but God forgave sin prior to Christ going to the cross.
8. The sacrifices in the Old Testament where not “substitutes” for the people (they could be a bag of flour), but were directed toward God.
9. Under PS there is no part humans play, while in the only atonement sacrifices that did result in God’s forgiveness (Lev. 5) there was a part the sinner played.

What about God willing letting Christ to go to the cross:
1. It is totally part of God’s character to do all He can to help willing individuals and allowing those individuals to experience all the benefits of being disciplined without being killed is a huge benefit to them.
2. Jesus says: “If there be any other way, let this cup pass from me…” which tells us there is no other way and this is something Jesus did not want to do, so the Father empathizing with Christ would show the Father does not “want” him to do it, but the father’s will is that He do it, because there is “no other way” to help us with our need for discipline.
3. There was a time prior to Christ going to the cross that God and Christ forgave sin without this discipline. Even a wonderful parent can run into a situation where they cannot discipline (punish) their repentant children and that was the time before the cross. The “punishment” for most intentional sins was death or banishment which was just but too severe for the Jews to implement most of the time. Lesser sins like the unintentional sins did have atonement and would be forgiven. Paul does talk about this Ro 3: 25 “…because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” in my understanding it was because there was no alternative punishment to death and/or banishment, that would allow the transgressor that repented to live and remain .
What about the “joy”? "...who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame..." Jesus did it for his future joy.”
1. Jesus did not want to go to the cross, Jesus says: “If there be any other way, let this cup pass from me…” Jesus was very willing to be obedient to death and God was willing to experience the pain with Christ, but was that out of unconditional Love for humans or some future conditional benefit?
2. We can take pleasure in sharing in the suffering that Christ bore, but is that to gain anything more than what we have already been given (is it not out of gratitude)? This becomes part of our witness to help others, like all Paul went through. To suggest Deity (Christ) gains anything more than is His already from going to the cross, seems unexplainable. Deity shows His Love and worthiness for man and is helping man and that is where I see Deity being happy. (It is in giving and not getting.)
3. Deity takes pleasure in helping humans and the cross helps humans receive all the benefits of just punishment and remaining alive, we also know that God is just/fair and has a sacrificial Love for us.
How is PS a ransom system since Christ, Paul and the Hebrew writer all describe it as a ransom?
1. Do we agree God is paying the ransom, Jesus’ death on the cross is the payment, and we are the ones being held captive and we are set free?
2. The question is who is holding us captive?
3. Who places any value on this type of a payment (who would benefit from taking this payment)?
4. How can some humans remain lost? Was the payment not great enough to save everyone? Did the person holding the hell bound person not willing to accept the payment?
5. If you say God is paying himself, that would mean God is holding us captive, so how would that work since he can just let us go? If God is paying Himself, what value does God place in a tortured, humiliated and murdered Christ (that makes God out to be blood thirsty)? If God is paying himself, why wouldn’t everyone be set free? If God is paying himself, that means God has a “need” to be satisfied and I do not see God needing anything, so what is the problem? If God is paying himself why all the teaching on this being for us, since it is being made to God for some reason?
6. If the ransom is being paid to satan, there is lots of other problems: why would God owe satan anything, why can’t God just over power satan, why wouldn’t everyone be set free, where is it discussed in scripture the payment is for satan, when did satan get raised to such status, did satan capture humans or did humans make a free will choice to join him, and how does Jesus’ death help satan?
7. If the ransom is being paid to those humans that accept the ransom: would that explain why some are not paid for, the value of what Christ did on the cross is for our sake and so we take value in what Christ did, we are the ones holding ourselves captive to sin (we can only blame ourselves), and what happened with the cross is centered on our need

There is a difference between redemption and atonement.

As for punishment, this is that He took the blame and was unjustly punished.

As for substitution, we have this verse, whether substitution is the right word or not.

1 Peter 3:18 NASB - 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus the Messiah died for me?

Jesus the Messiah died for me?

No, he did not. The prophets of the Most High declared by inspiration of the Most High that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20) Personal salvation is not achieved by one being sacrificed for another. Personal salvation comes only through repentance and return to the obedience of the Law of the Most High. That's what Jesus himself implied in his parable of the Richman and Lazarus that to be saved, one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Jacob]

No, he did not. The prophets of the Most High declared by inspiration of the Most High that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20) Personal salvation is not achieved by one being sacrificed for another. Personal salvation comes only through repentance and return to the obedience of the Law of the Most High. That's what Jesus himself implied in his parable of the Richman and Lazarus that to be saved, one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

Do you believe Jesus the Messiah died?

The for me part is not the same as recognizing everyone should die for their own sins. But Jesus had no sin. So, we do say He died for us as He did not die for His own sin. Because, if He had no sin, who did He die for or whose sins did He die for?

When a lamb was sacrificed for Passover, was it sacrificed for any wrong it had done? No.

Are you familiar with the idea of atonement?

The view of recognizing the seriousness of sins is also there. But atonement is a reality too.

Hebrews 10:4 NASB - 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

 

[Ben Masada]

Please keep in mind I'm not trying to negate anybody's viewpoint. I'm just saying there is more than one way to see things. Again, Jesus' message had very little to do with Him dying for our sins. That idea was magnified by someone other than Jesus. Go back and read the 4 Gospels and mark his words and you will only find a few instances of Him saying something to that effect, but then we get to the rest of the New Testament and the whole thing is in your face like it was the most important part of His message. It wasn't. We can believe what we want to believe but I am going to find out the truth for myself, not according to what someone else says. It's easy to take for granted that the so-called authorities have answers that are unchallengeable. That kind of attitude is embedded in the Christian culture and we don't really question it. That is how the adversary remains undetected. And how can we defeat an enemy if we don't know where to look or how to find its existence?

If there is more than one way to see things, are you implying that there is more than one truth? The Truth like the Almighty Himself is of an absolute Oneness. It means that there is only one truth.

Now, are you implying that the Prophets of the Most High were lying when they said that no one can die for the sins of another? Isaiah said "To the Law and the Prophets; if someone does not speak according to that word, it is because there is no truth in what he or she said. (Isa. 8:20)

 

[Prizebeatz1]

If there is more than one way to see things, are you implying that there is more than one truth? The Truth like the Almighty Himself is of an absolute Oneness. It means that there is only one truth.

Now, are you implying that the Prophets of the Most High were lying when they said that no one can die for the sins of another? Isaiah said "To the Law and the Prophets; if someone does not speak according to that word, it is because there is no truth in what he or she said. (Isa. 8:20)

Not necessarily. That is one out of many possible interpretations. What I'm saying is that there is one truth but many ways of seeing that truth. I'd like to take things a step further by suggesting that if there is only one truth then we have to be included in that truth as well.

 

[bling]

There is a difference between redemption and atonement.

“Redemption” has to do with the kidnapper accepting the ransom payment and setting the child of God free to go to the arms of the Father.

“Atonement” is the process by which the child of the Father can be made righteous/holy/justified. Atonement seems to be the disciplinary experience the child and the father share (go through together) that results in the child being lifted up spiritually to a higher relationship with the father then they had prior to the rebellious disobedience.

As for punishment, this is that He took the blame and was unjustly punished.

The innocent are not unjustly blamed or punished for the guilty, since that is totally contrary to the justice described in scripture and taught by Christ.

You are having God seeing to the unjust torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, because God cannot “punish” the deserving, who made up such an unjust rule?

As for substitution, we have this verse, whether substitution is the right word or not.

1 Peter 3:18 NASB - 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

This verse is saying exactly what happened, but it does not explain the system by which it works. Christ is the last needed atonement sacrifice for sin, but the atonement sacrifice of the Old Testament were never thought to be replacing the sinned (a bag of flour did not replace the sinner). We, the unjust, totally need to be disciplined (translated punishment in most places in scripture) and Christ, the just, is certainly being unjustly tortured, humiliated and murdered, but was that done by God’s order or did God and Christ allow wicked people to do it?

Look carefully at the scripture since it does not say: “to bring God around to forgiving us” or was it done to “help God” in anyway, but it was to help us go to the father’s side (the ransom was paid to redeem us, the children of God to go to God). God would not place value in having the blood of His son poured out of His body and would have personally preferred it remained flowing through Christ’s veins. It is I that want that (ransom) blood outside of Christ’s body and flowing over me and in me flowing over my heart.
God is not in need of anything in the redemption process, but humans are the needy ones. Those “sins” Christ withstood being punished for are my sins so he suffered because of me and for me.

 

[Jacob]

“Redemption” has to do with the kidnapper accepting the ransom payment and setting the child of God free to go to the arms of the Father.

“Atonement” is the process by which the child of the Father can be made righteous/holy/justified. Atonement seems to be the disciplinary experience the child and the father share (go through together) that results in the child being lifted up spiritually to a higher relationship with the father then they had prior to the rebellious disobedience.


The innocent are not unjustly blamed or punished for the guilty, since that is totally contrary to the justice described in scripture and taught by Christ.

You are having God seeing to the unjust torture, humiliation and murder of Christ, because God cannot “punish” the deserving, who made up such an unjust rule?



This verse is saying exactly what happened, but it does not explain the system by which it works. Christ is the last needed atonement sacrifice for sin, but the atonement sacrifice of the Old Testament were never thought to be replacing the sinned (a bag of flour did not replace the sinner). We, the unjust, totally need to be disciplined (translated punishment in most places in scripture) and Christ, the just, is certainly being unjustly tortured, humiliated and murdered, but was that done by God’s order or did God and Christ allow wicked people to do it?

Look carefully at the scripture since it does not say: “to bring God around to forgiving us” or was it done to “help God” in anyway, but it was to help us go to the father’s side (the ransom was paid to redeem us, the children of God to go to God). God would not place value in having the blood of His son poured out of His body and would have personally preferred it remained flowing through Christ’s veins. It is I that want that (ransom) blood outside of Christ’s body and flowing over me and in me flowing over my heart.
God is not in need of anything in the redemption process, but humans are the needy ones. Those “sins” Christ withstood being punished for are my sins so he suffered because of me and for me.

I'm not sure about your terminology and understanding of Theological terms and concepts, but it seems you believe Jesus died for you. I believe Jesus died for me too.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Jesus is the Messiah and He died for me. In Him we have forgiveness of sins. In Him I have been granted the free gift of eternal life.

What Jesus did I cannot. I have no way to save myself. In Him I have been saved.

If I do everything possible that I can do, it is still not enough. But what Jesus did is enough. What He did is sufficient to save me.

I can't add to my salvation in Him. I can't make myself more saved. If salvation were by what I can do then I would not be saved because it would not be enough.

Do you have to trust in Him to be saved?