The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by notofworks

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

That's what I been saying, so I agree with you!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm sorry, there is no book (Romans) that gives such an exhaustive description of salvation. That's not "continuation" language. He is writing to believers, explaining, in didactic, sometimes theological, and always descriptive terms of salvation-history. Nothing gets as exhaustive or as clear.

He is writing to believers - that is the point. I never said that Acts was exhaustive. That was your words. I merely implied that it laid out the foundation.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He is writing to believers - that is the point. I never said that Acts was exhaustive. That was your words. I merely implied that it laid out the foundation.

When you say "everything about salvation" is there, I guess I took liberty to use the word "exhaustive.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

?

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think your good friend, Jeffrey, believes Peter and Paul taught different ways of salvation because of Luke's emphasis. Did Paul preach any thing different than what Peter preached in Acts 2? See Galatians 1 and 2.

What I'm trying to say is that Peter and Paul preached the same message. They did not disagree on the message. Paul may have not been quoted by Luke as preaching Acts 2:38 VERBATIM but we can see that Paul taught the same things.....believers were baptized in water immediately and filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues. The message had to be the same since their is only one gospel and one faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Yes, Ma'am!!! Thanks for joining in. I was wondering where I was for a while. LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think your good friend, Jeffrey, believes Peter and Paul taught different ways of salvation because of Luke's emphasis. Did Paul preach any thing different than what Peter preached in Acts 2? See Galatians 1 and 2.

What I'm trying to say is that Peter and Paul preached the same message. They did not disagree on the message. Paul may have not been quoted by Luke as preaching Acts 2:38 VERBATIM but we can see that Paul taught the same things.....believers were baptized in water immediately and filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues. The message had to be the same since their is only one gospel and one faith that was once delivered to the saints.

REALLY??? That's what I believe?

Actually, I think you'll have a hard time connecting tongues to being saved. You make the mistake of thinking Acts is the most broad interpretation of "how to" be saved (which it isn't a how-to book at all), and fitting all of Paul's incomplete writings into the broadest book. Let Luke speak for himself. Let Paul speak for himself. They aren't disagreeing or contradicting! They are giving unique thoughts and ideas on a myriad of subjects.

Listen, I'm only stating what any Hermeneutics professor would say. Pennies like Hermeneutics, but not when it takes the Sacred Cow (called Acts) down to an equal footing with all of scripture.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

When you say "everything about salvation" is there, I guess I took liberty to use the word "exhaustive.

Yes, Jeffery, I notice that you often do take liberties. LOL! But, I seriously see how you read it that way.

Most people that I talk to, in real life, pick up on where I'm going in a conversation. I don't have to explain everything in detail like I do here. It's good practice though. LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

Actually, we could fit it all into Abraham, if we want to go back further.

It's amazing to think that Paul's detailed explanations of how salvation works, that he missed MAJOR details from Luke (details which Luke never articulated were for "how to" be saved by the way).

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Drunks are always nice. Even those drunk in the Holy Ghost. I heard an elderly preacher say, "You don't need to get a divorce. You just need to get drunk!" Of course, he was speaking of being drunk in the Holy Ghost.

It is interesting that I attended a prayer conference recently. I honestly have never cared for camp meetings, etc. Just didn't want to deal with the people. I came to find out, for the first time, that the people who are actually praying are easier to get along with. Who would have thunk? LOL!

Totally different atmosphere. Only people that are serious about praying are going to show up at a prayer conference. What a peaceful place and peaceful people. I have a whole new perspective! LOL!

FIRST... let me say... My husband is NOT a drunk. Sorry if I gave that impression. LOL. Nor do I think that people sitting on barstools are necessarily DRUNKS. (Some may be... but most of the drunks I know stay home and drink their brains out.)

Second, drunks are NOT always nice. Matter of fact, they aren't even usually nice.

But I do agree with you on the prayer conference thing. It's nice to get with people who are serious about "getting with God."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

All Galatians is speaking of is the Jews coming against the New Covenant by keeping and trying to enforce the law of circumcision when Jesus talked about receiving His Spirit, which is a circumcision of the heart.

A game changer they did not want.

Can you elaborate on 4)?