Deltaguitar-Salvation Requires More Than Faith!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Never effectively dealt or answered Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will) or John Owens (Death of Death in the Death of Christ).

LOL, thanks Dave. I'll have to go back to those classics too. I tend to see "both sides of the coin," I was telling Mizpeh a while back. I think there's a fundamental paradox involved that we don't really have language to completely encompass.

From my Apostolic background, however, the "Evangelical" point of view was liberating once I got a handle on it. It's a view that exalts Christ and lifts Him up as Savior to a greater degree than my own "works based" viewpoint had.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think they are intentionally leaving Jesus out of the equation. Most of them are dealing with the doctrine from the perspective of someone else that already believes in Jesus as the savior but has not taken the next "necessary steps"

Unfortunately though, because so many of us are in that mentality that often in discussion and in preaching that part of of the equation get's left out. My fear is that it filters down to those that only hear the "rest of the equation"

True. I remember Hearing David Bernard and JL Hall talk about this. Both of them pointed out the need for "us" to include more discussion about Christ and the work at Calvary as being the key focus of our salvation. Sounds obvious to some, but when you go back and listen to our preaching and teaching you do see that link missing altogether all too often.

We should never assume everyone in our audience "understands" the importance of The Gift (Ephesians 2:4-10). We need to hammer away on that theme and drill it into our collective heart and soul. We are His workmanship! He did the work. He is the Craftsman. He is the Architect. He is both Author and Finisher.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Some folks think faith in Christ is understood. Without faith in Christ, why would one repent, be baptized, ask for the gift of God's Spirit?

Because that's what their daddy did? And his grandma before him, and so forth?

My 6 times great-grandfather was an Anglican minister from Scotland. This was during the period of the reascension of the Anglican "High Church" after the English Civil Wars. Only problem was, my ancestor was something of a religious rebel and a "Separatist." He left Scotland, either on his own or under force, I don't know, and tried to find a place for himself and his family in Ulster. For whatever reasons, that was a fairly brief stay.

He came to the American colony of Virginia in the 1700's and later moved to North Carolina. He founded what must have been among the first inter-racial churches in North America. His brand of "Separatism" didn't accord well with the Quakers or Friends, and he didn't seem to hitch up with the Presbyterians and Congregationalist either. He seems to have been a "G.I.B." as some would say - a Good Independent Brother.

His son (my namesake), grandson, great-grandson (another namesake) and the next two generations were all ministers. They left a string of churches and the family name along a path from North and South Carolina, through Tennessee and into Arkansas and Oklahoma, roughly following the "Trail of Tears" by coincidence, though my great-grandmother and her mother-in-law were both Cherokee themselves.

For whatever reason, both my paternal grandfather, the son of a minister and my father were rather devoted atheists. I was never told of the heritage I had except a few brief references to my great grandfather having been a "minister." Everyone but my uncle seemed to almost snicker about that. My great grandmother, the grand daughter of people who walked that "Trail of Tears" lived until I was well into my teens. She spoke fondly of her husband but never breathed a word about religion or God or anything supernatural to me whatsoever.

These thoughts cross my mind as I consider that first sentence in this post. When I was 11 years old I got ahold of Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth and I studied that book inside and out with the only Bible I could find at the time - a Rheims Douay Catholic Bible. I used Lindsey's book as a template for exploring and understanding the Bible for myself for the very first time in my life. I remember distinctly that at about that same time my father was reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

I guess we all have underlying presumptions about our faith. I thought "Dispensationalism" was the same thing as "Bible Prophecy" until late in my twenties. And even then I thought it was the only "correct" view for many years to come.

The one thing we can never presume however is Jesus Christ.

We are buried with Him.
We are raised with Him.
We are planted in the likeness of His death.
We shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.
We are crucified with Him.
We are dead with Christ.
We live with Him.
Death hath no more dominion over Him.
He died.
He died unto sin.
He liveth.
He liveth unto God.
We are alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-11.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The one thing we can never presume however is Jesus Christ.

We are buried with Him.
We are raised with Him.
We are planted in the likeness of His death.
We shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.
We are crucified with Him.
We are dead with Christ.
We live with Him.
Death hath no more dominion over Him.
He died.
He died unto sin.
He liveth.
He liveth unto God.
We are alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-11.

I actually 'liked' parts of Rands' book...(LOL) She was a great thinker.

I'm reminded of that old song "Jesus paid it all. All to Him I owe...." The only thing I have to contribute is my sin.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The one thing we can never presume however is Jesus Christ.

We are buried with Him.
We are raised with Him.
We are planted in the likeness of His death.
We shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.
We are crucified with Him.
We are dead with Christ.
We live with Him.
Death hath no more dominion over Him.
He died.
He died unto sin.
He liveth.
He liveth unto God.
We are alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-11.

Did you research your geneology yourself? The line of ministers was broken with your grandfather. I wonder what happened?

These verses from Romans 6 are the symbolic picture of what Acts 2:38 represents to an obedient believer.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Did you research your geneology yourself? The line of ministers was broken with your grandfather. I wonder what happened?

These verses from Romans 6 are the symbolic picture of what Acts 2:38 represents to an obedient believer.

I started by myself but didn't get far. I had a picture of my great-great grandparents and remembered his name. From there I plugged into some online genealogy sites and found the work of distant cousins. They filled in most of the blanks for me.

I don't know what broke things down. They were never wealthy people. The far right column on the census forms are for the number of slaves owned. Nobody in my family ever seemed to have been slave holders despite being in the South going back to the 1600's. That coupled with all of the "half breeds" makes it seem like there was some social ostracism, though I can only speculate. They were also in church fellowship with free blacks and slaves. It's all listed in one of the church's minutes.

They all found their way up into the Ozarks to sit out the Civil War. Then, later, on to the "new" Oklahoma oil fields and farther West.

My grandfather's generation was interesting. The oldest was born in Arkansas. The next in Oklahoma. My grandfather was born back in Arkansas and his sister was born in Oklahoma. It seems like they were following boom and bust in the oil fields until moving West in the 1920's just ahead of the Dust Bowl. Otherwise, they might have been blown as far as California with the "Okies," and then I'd be a real mess.

[pelathais]

There's an interesting story concerning my brother's name. He's Tom. There is no "Thomas" along the whole paternal line, however for about the last 4 or 5 generations the men have had the middle name of "Tom" or Thomas. The father was known by his first name, the the "junior" was called Tom or Tommy. That carried all the way through to my dad who named his first born "Thomas" and dispensed with the zig-zagging nature of the names.

In the church minutes of a church in North Carolina dated between 1796 and 1804 - my namesake, who was about early twenties and who also was the "preacher's kid," is listed as being censured by the church for drinking "spirituous liquors." It appears that he and a "free black brother" name "Tom" got hold of a bottle and sowed some wild oats together. "Tom, a free black" is named as being censured at the same time for the same reason.

It was in the following generation that the name "Thomas" enters the family record. Apparently a real friendship had been made between the two wayward and backsliding young men that is carried down to this day in the family's history.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Some folks think faith in Christ is understood. Without faith in Christ, why would one repent, be baptized, ask for the gift of God's Spirit?

Makes perfect sense to me.

I hear the argument frequently: "You're preaching 3-steps , but you're leaving out Christ".

But nobody could go through the "3 steps" without faith in Christ.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

These verses from Romans 6 are the symbolic picture of what Acts 2:38 represents to an obedient believer.

That's an important application. However, we still must recognize that it was "Him." He died. He was buried. He rose again.

That doesn't just "open a door" for me to symbolically copy the mode of His suffering and death. What He did gives me life in the first place.

I know that no one is denying that. It's just that we so often have left that as an unspoken assumption that other people don't understand our message at all. How do you think the "charge" of Christianity Without the Cross became so popular? It's because after listening to us talk and preach, many people simply came away with that impression.

And, from my own experience among Apostolics, this has been the case as well. When I began to start to get a hold of the importance of Jesus Christ and the Sovereignty of God in securing my salvation I was stirred. I began to really preach Jesus, and Him crucified.

Sadly, in my own church my pastor and others would sometimes interrupt my preaching to "provide balance." I was preaching, "It's All in Him..." and not just "the fullness of the Godhead," all our hope, all our dreams and all of our salvation. It's all in Him!

That's not a popular message. I really thought that I was carrying out Brother Hall's and Brother Bernard's advice. But I soon learned that this was a message that was not welcome entirely among us.

I gotta go. I have a "UPC gig" this week and some down time coming up. My wife's after me to finish packing. God bless you all.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Makes perfect sense to me.

I hear the argument frequently: "You're preaching 3-steps , but you're leaving out Christ".

But nobody could go through the "3 steps" without faith in Christ.

That is the right road. We DO the things we DO because we believe in Jesus. If Jesus says we must be baptized to be saved for instance we then arise and get baptized because of our faith in his words.