The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Hoovie]

Just as I am without one plea,

But that thy blood, was shed for me...

a few find their way up front. Even more slip out the back...

[Jeffrey]

"Oh whyyyyyyyy not tonighttttttttt, oh, whyyyyyy not tonightttttttttt....."

:sing

ha. Oh, you may not be old enough to be my mother, but you just took me back on that one. hahaha.

[*AQuietPlace*]

ha. Oh, you may not be old enough to be my mother, but you just took me back on that one. hahaha.
It took me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back, too! When I was very, very young.

[Pressing-On]

But they won't work together when people say that they have ""purchased" their own salvation (as TheLegalist said earlier). It won't work. You will fall into the trap that Paul warns us about - you will "frustrate the grace of God..." unless you understand that salvation is a gracious gift.

You may even sink so low as to compare our gracious Lord to someone who dispenses salvation like "sticking a sucker in a bumb's (SIC) mouth..."

The whole theology of the "Christianity Without the Cross" movement is twisted askew because the cross is missing. You haven't "rolled it all up" at all unless you see that we are justified by our faith in what Jesus Christ did freely for us.

I can tell that you guys don't really want to talk about it. That is something you should have considered before jumping into the thread. But now that you're here (off and on) - why not accepting that free gift? It's yours simply for the asking. All of the work has already been done and the full price has been paid!

:thumbsup
Talk about what, Pel? Something I don't see nor believe? How can I talk about that?

The Bible says we are saved:


If we call on His name
By His life
By Hope
That He was raised from the dead
By His grace
Having a love of truth
By His mercy


All of these elements involve all that He is, all that he offers, all that He has done, all that He calls us to do.

How can you only center on the cross alone? It's the basis of our faith, but it does not save us alone. If it saved us alone, we wouldn't have need to read: II Thess 1:8; I Peter 1:17.

I believed when I was daubing Holy Water on my forehead, chest and shoulders. I believed when I was kneeling at confessional. I believed when I was talking Communion. I believed when I was lighting a candle for a prayer. I wasn't saved.

[pelathais]

Approaching the organ bench and warming up some good mood music :)

"Oh whyyyyyyyy not tonighttttttttt, oh, whyyyyyy not tonightttttttttt....."

:sing
I actually got fired from a position I held at a "Three Stepper" church for making that kind of an appeal.

The pastor was using position and influence to hide the fact that his buddy pastor was sneaking into our town for weekends with his secretary. The pastor's wife had demanded a meeting with "three other ministers as witnesses" so they could watch as she excommunicated me and barely restrained herself from slapping me across the face (Instead she just raked her nails across my nose).

In the end, one of their loudest complaints was that I "talked to them like they were sinners..." That is, I used the same appeals as above in asking them to repent and turn their lives over to God.

That, and they complained that I was "hindering revival..." After I was kicked out the truth about the adulterer was found out and more than half the church left. Then the whole place went on this slow spiral of death until a new pastor was finally found. Several good men came, took one look around and beat it out of town! It took years to find someone who would take the church.

Then the "new guy" kicked the old pastor out... cleverly, and without coming right and saying it. In fact, over time he has shown the former pastor more respect than the old guy ever deserved. Once he got the place cleaned up they started to see new souls again. Turns out all I was "hindering" was a bunch of sleeping around.

*** One note: I've told this story several times on here over the past 3+ years. My personal identity is known, even before I used my real name as a screen name. I'm not making any of this up.

If you don't get the cross right, you won't get anything else right either. If you haven't gotten the cross right, you need to go back to the cross and get yourself right.

Taking the Cross out of Christianity isn't an option. Either Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners and could do nothing for ourselves, or we are still lost.

[Jeffrey]

Talk about what, Pel? Something I don't see nor believe? How can I talk about that?

The Bible says we are saved:


If we call on His name
By His life
By Hope
That He was raised from the dead
By His grace
Having a love of truth
By His mercy


All of these elements involve all that He is, all that he offers, all that He has done, all that He calls us to do.

How can you only center on the cross alone? It's the basis of our faith, but it does not save us alone. If it saved us alone, we wouldn't have need to read: I Thess 1:8; I Peter 1:17.

I believed when I was daubing Holy Water on my forehead, chest and shoulders. I believed when I was kneeling at confessional. I believed when I was talking Communion. I believed when I was lighting a candle for a prayer. I wasn't saved.

Wow...

[Michael The Disciple]

pel said

Taking the Cross out of Christianity isn't an option. Either Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners and could do nothing for ourselves, or we are still lost.

Strawman alert!

No one has suggested taking the cross out of Christianity. Its JESUS who saves not the cross.

Whatever he says about being saved or being a Christian would be correct. He obviously says there is more.

The apostle John made this statement:

8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8

They agree to do what?

Save us. Make us a new creation.

[Jeffrey]

Strawman alert!

No one has suggested taking the cross out of Christianity. Its JESUS who saves not the cross.

Whatever he says about being saved or being a Christian would be correct. He obviously says there is more.

The apostle John made this statement:

8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8

They agree to do what?

Save us. Make us a new creation.


Jesus saves us by the cross. Jesus without a cross would not save you, unless you were Divinely elected by the Almighty I suppose.

[pelathais]

Talk about what, Pel? Something I don't see nor believe? How can I talk about that?

The Bible says we are saved:


If we call on His name
By His life
By Hope
That He was raised from the dead
By His grace
Having a love of truth
By His mercy


All of these elements involve all that He is, all that he offers, all that He has done, all that He calls us to do.

How can you only center on the cross alone? It's the basis of our faith, but it does not save us alone. If it saved us alone, we wouldn't have need to read: I Thess 1:8; I Peter 1:17.

I believed when I was daubing Holy Water on my forehead, chest and shoulders. I believed when I was kneeling at confessional. I believed when I was talking Communion. I believed when I was lighting a candle for a prayer. I wasn't saved.
You've moved past the cross too quickly.

I center on the "cross alone" (as you put it) because everything else flows out from the cross.

I don't know if there's a typo in your first scripture reference, but yes, you (or the Thessalonians) probably shouldn't be "sounding out" about their faith all over ancient Greece until they got the doctrine of the atonement correct.

And... 1 Peter 1:17 (concerning works) is predicated by 1 Peter 1:18-10:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Peter has to "take them back to the cross" to remind them about the "why" that goes into their works.

[Pressing-On]

You've moved past the cross too quickly.

I center on the "cross alone" (as you put it) because everything else flows out from the cross.
I believe that, but I don't center on the cross alone. I just believe everything flows out from there. Many of the posts have been making it sound as though that is all we need to do - believe that He did die on a cross. There is more to believing. That's like people claiming to be Christians when they do not live a Christian life. They have no dedication to the Lord, but they are not Atheists. It doesn't add up.

I don't know if there's a typo in your first scripture reference, but yes, you (or the Thessalonians) probably shouldn't be "sounding out" about their faith all over ancient Greece until they got the doctrine of the atonement correct.
It was a typo. It should be II Thess 1:8, not I Thess. But you had one referencing "copulation", in an earlier post, so I don't know what that was about. LOL!

And... 1 Peter 1:17 (concerning works) is predicated by 1 Peter 1:18-10:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Peter has to "take them back to the cross" to remind them about the "why" that goes into their works.
Yes, this is true, but there are works involved - faith without works is dead. It's not the issue of who is forcing "unbiblical" works. It is about there are works to be done on our part, according to the Word of God.

[Jeffrey]

I believe that, but I don't center on the cross alone. I just believe everything flows out from there. Many of the posts have been making it sound as though that is all we need to do - believe that He did die on a cross. There is more to believing. That's like people claiming to be Christians when they do not live a Christian life. They have no dedication to the Lord, but they are not Atheists. It doesn't add up.

That's all we need to do to accept by faith his work for us. That's it. Nada. Nothing else.

However, as a result of this faith, we believe certain things about Jesus. There is also eschatological realities that have taken place (Paul says we are "dead in sin and alive to Christ"). So none of this replaces our responsibilities as children of God. We are talking about the conversion experience only. More expanded, we could say conversion-initiation (that would help TL)



Yes, this is true, but there are works involved - faith without works is dead. It's not the issue of who is forcing "unbiblical" works. It is about there are works to be done on our part, according to the Word of God.

We'll get to works and the challenge of "real faith." The thread subject is discussing our way in. We have to know our "way in" before we can talk about our "way around."

[pelathais]

Strawman alert!

No one has suggested taking the cross out of Christianity. Its JESUS who saves not the cross.

Whatever he says about being saved or being a Christian would be correct. He obviously says there is more.

The apostle John made this statement:

8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8

They agree to do what?

Save us. Make us a new creation.
Thanks for opening your post with an "alert" warning us about its content. :ursofunny

Everyone who has had trouble saying "Amen!" to the opening post is guilty of taking the cross out of Christianity.

Keep going on to 1 John 5:11, to find out what the "witnesses" are testifying to.

Since NOW mentioned it earlier as well, can anyone tell us just how the cross is NOT sufficient to save us? In other words, "What does the blood of Jesus Christ lack when it comes to paying the penalty for our sins and making the needed atonement with God?"

AND - what must we add to supply what the blood of Jesus Christ lacks?

[Pressing-On]

That's all we need to do to accept by faith his work for us. That's it. Nada. Nothing else.

:nah

You can't word it that way when there are other commands to be obeyed to become a part of the New Covenant Church. You can't say, "That's ALL you need to do - period." :nah

[pelathais]

:nah

You can't word it that way when there are other commands to be obeyed to become a part of the New Covenant Church. You can't say, "That's ALL you need to do - period." :nah
The thread is dealing with salvation. "What must we do to be saved?"

Jeffery sums it up well.

Now, "What must we do since believing on the Lord?" That's another thread.

[Pressing-On]

The thread is dealing with salvation. "What must we do to be saved?"

Jeffery sums it up well.

Now, "What must we do since believing on the Lord?" That's another thread.
You can't stop at just believing. There is more involved. It sounds too much like and end all. There is action involved as well.

In Acts 2 Peter tells them to "call of the name of the Lord and they would be saved." He proceeded in that chapter to tell them everything associated with that name in order to explain what they had just seen and heard.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

Gotta run!

[mfblume]

Sounds like people are going to believe what they initially stated in this thread, and nothing said can change them. So why discuss it? lol

[Jeffrey]

:nah

You can't word it that way when there are other commands to be obeyed to become a part of the New Covenant Church. You can't say, "That's ALL you need to do - period." :nah

None of the rest is HOW nor a pre-requisite to be justified. It's not "all you need to do" unless the rest of the sentence was "to be His."

[Jeffrey]

Blume, same statement right back at you.

I sincerely believe people will change their mind when they see the discussion.

What a relief to realize God draws and calls us, we respond in faith by trusting and believing. That is the story throughout Scripture. God called men who were undeserving (Abraham a pagan, Moses a murderer, Noah a drunkard, Paul a murderer), chose them, they responded to his freely offered grace. To you and I we have the complete picture. The way in is still the same though. It has never changed.

What a relief to know nothing is contingent on my deeds, performance, nada. lol People hate hearing that for some reason, so I'm wanting to reiterate it again. Consider it for a moment. Your soul will feel freed.

I know, I know... I lost some of you already. You're thinking about how some will "get away" with something. HELLO! We've ALL gotten away with EVERYTHING! WHAT A GOSPEL! We want to control this thing. So as a qualifier to you -- of course, this grace has brought us not only death with Christ, but life with Him as well. In it the reign of sin in our lives is broken, so that we can resist a life identified by sin.

But gone are the days of looking over my back, like God would take me at any moment and I'd have some unconscious sin that I forgot to repent about. That's not what this relationship is all about. He's been after us since the beginning. He likes to impress and loves to hear us boast. What a spit in the face when we try claim any part in the gift he gave us.

[pelathais]

You can't stop at just believing. There is more involved. It sounds too much like and end all. There is action involved as well.

In Acts 2 Peter tells them to "call of the name of the Lord and they would be saved." He proceeded in that chapter to tell them everything associated with that name in order to explain what they had just seen and heard.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

Gotta run!
Of course there's "action" after getting saved... that's the point of salvation. "The life I now live..." Galatians 2:20-21.

But how did we get that life? That's the point of this thread. We didn't earn it, we didn't deserve it, we didn't work really, really hard to get it... It was a free gift!

[Jeffrey]

Of course there's "action" after getting saved... that's the point of salvation. "The life I now live..." Galatians 2:20-21.

But how did we get that life? That's the point of this thread. We didn't earn it, we didn't deserve it, we didn't work really, really hard to get it... It was a free gift!

I always said we didn't deserve it, but deep down inside I felt I was earning it. It was an "I'll pay you back" to God. I would have never articulated that, but that's how it was growing up. When it hit me that I didn't deserve, couldn't earn it, and He loved me still, I still remember how overwhelmed I was. It was even more powerful than the day I was baptized in the Spirit. My heart was anew. My relationship took on a new fervor. I was freed from chains I put on myself that He never intended.

[pelathais]

Sounds like people are going to believe what they initially stated in this thread, and nothing said can change them. So why discuss it? lol
Because it's the power of God unto salvation? (Romans 1:16-18).

I don't flatter myself by thinking that I could change anybody's mind who is hard headed enough to jump into a fray, but there are others that wonder and have questions. Given the nature of the fellowships many of us have been through, I know asking questions isn't really encouraged in a lot of places.

So, I'll chime in. Salvation is a free gift. You can't work for it because you didn't even deserve the chance to earn it in the first place.

Romans 5:15-19 (NKJV)

But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.

For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

[Neck]

Strawman alert!

No one has suggested taking the cross out of Christianity. Its JESUS who saves not the cross.

Whatever he says about being saved or being a Christian would be correct. He obviously says there is more.

The apostle John made this statement:

8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8

They agree to do what?

Save us. Make us a new creation.

Paul wanted to know Jesus Christ and him Crucified, there is no power in the "Name of Jesus" without the Cross. Jesus would have been a sinless man who then did not complete the purchase for man's sins.... The Cross of Calvary is the defining act of the 'Ages'.

[Jeffrey]

Free gift. Free gift. Free gift.

I don't make you jump through hoops to give you a free gift. It's yours!

Dr. Paul of Tarsus, thy words are powerful.

[Jeffrey]

Paul wanted to know Jesus Christ and him Crucified, there is no power in the "Name of Jesus" without the Cross. Jesus would have been a sinless man who then did not complete the purchase for man's sins.... The Cross of Calvary is the defining act of the 'Ages'.

And in light of the upcoming Easter celebration, the cross was validated at the Resurrection. We were not just justified, but now we have a future!

[Neck]

And in light of the upcoming Easter celebration, the cross was validated at the Resurrection. We were not just justified, but now we have a future!

Amen!

[*AQuietPlace*]

I always said we didn't deserve it, but deep down inside I felt I was earning it. It was an "I'll pay you back" to God. I would have never articulated that, but that's how it was growing up. When it hit me that I didn't deserve, couldn't earn it, and He loved me still, I still remember how overwhelmed I was. It was even more powerful than the day I was baptized in the Spirit. My heart was anew. My relationship took on a new fervor. I was freed from chains I put on myself that He never intended.
:thumbsup

[Hoovie]

I love that last verse Pel!

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

[Jeffrey]

You know what's funny about Paul? As smart as he was, and as prophetic a gift he had as an Apostle of the church, his hermeneutics were pretty sloppy at times! lol I think he'd flunk any of our university's Hermeneutics 101! Seriously... proof-texting nightmares, symbolism where he wished. Very much an ad hoc theologian. But we get his point quite clearly, so thankfully he was clear in that.

[pelathais]

I love that last verse Pel!

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Philippians 2:8

We keep getting ourselves drawn back to the cross.

[Pressing-On]

Sounds like people are going to believe what they initially stated in this thread, and nothing said can change them. So why discuss it? lol
Agreed! :thumbsup

[pelathais]

You know what's funny about Paul? As smart as he was, and as prophetic a gift he had as an Apostle of the church, his hermeneutics were pretty sloppy at times! lol I think he'd flunk any of our university's Hermeneutics 101! Seriously... proof-texting nightmares, symbolism where he wished. Very much an ad hoc theologian. But we get his point quite clearly, so thankfully he was clear in that.

There was a methodology employed in antiquity that is quite foreign to our modern way of doing things. I began to get a glimpse of the "ancient method of hermeneutics" after an atheist threw Matthew 2:15 in my face.

"Matthew was a terrible 'Bible student'!" he railed. "The original verse [Hosea 11:1] wasn't a 'prophecy!' It was a history!"

True enough, Hosea was reminding his original audience that God had called His "son" "out of Egypt" at a time many centuries [I]after the fact, thus it was a history. However, the ancients viewed those events in which God had a direct hand as being a pattern or a "shadow" of things that would happen whenever the hand of God was seen to move again in the affairs of men.

Thus, when the Son of God was to be hailed from a foreign land, what other land would He be called from then Egypt? As Moses was in the wilderness, so also was the Son (Matthew 4:1).

I think that this is key also to understanding the necessity of baptism for the believer. As Jesus was buried following His death, so also must the believer be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism. If we are to follow Him in the new life that He gives us, we must first begin at the same "place" where His own new life began.

Everything happens according to the shadow of God's previous interactions with man (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). If you're ever stuck in a rut and need some sense of direct, don't ask "WWJD." Ask, what DID Jesus do?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Sounds like people are going to believe what they initially stated in this thread, and nothing said can change them. So why discuss it? lol
Well, that would pretty much shut down the board. ;)

[berkeley]

Paul had A.D.D.

[Jeffrey]

There was a methodology employed in antiquity that is quite foreign to our modern way of doing things. I began to get a glimpse of the "ancient method of hermeneutics" after an atheist threw Matthew 2:15 in my face.

"Matthew was a terrible 'Bible student'!" he railed. "The original verse [Hosea 11:1] wasn't a 'prophecy!' It was a history!"

True enough, Hosea was reminding his original audience that God had called His "son" "out of Egypt" at a time many centuries [I]after the fact, thus it was a history. However, the ancients viewed those events in which God had a direct hand as being a pattern or a "shadow" of things that would happen whenever the hand of God was seen to move again in the affairs of men.

Thus, when the Son of God was to be hailed from a foreign land, what other land would He be called from then Egypt? As Moses was in the wilderness, so also was the Son (Matthew 4:1).

I think that this is key also to understanding the necessity of baptism for the believer. As Jesus was buried following His death, so also must the believer be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism. If we are to follow Him in the new life that He gives us, we must first begin at the same "place" where His own new life began.

Everything happens according to the shadow of God's previous interactions with man (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). If you're ever stuck in a rut and need some sense of direct, don't ask "WWJD." Ask, what DID Jesus do?

Very interesting indeed! Thanks for that info!

Jesus did the same when he cited Scripture, and He WAS the Word.

That answers a lot. I heard a theologian discussing "ancient hermeneutics" before. It would be worthwhile to read about since we interact with that often. Unfortunately, some use that as an example to carelessly employ their own hermeneutic. But I simply don't give them the liberty afforded Christ and the Apostles.

[Jeffrey]

Paul had A.D.D.

HE DID!! HA. Of course there was no BACKSPACE or DELETE key either. So when you got to writing, you best keep on going. His pen couldn't keep up with his mind at times. All in all, what a brilliant, and God-anointed man!

[Pressing-On]

Fair enough. You've never heard it.

Are we taking everything personal suddenly? Please don't. I don't know you.

Before you blow a hole through your head, look up "crisis experience." It's very common in theological circles, and is NOT a pejorative term.
I looked up your "crisis experience" terminology to get the gist of what the term is implying. We don't believe nor teach the "second blessing". My husband was under that teaching growing up in the COG as his grandfather was his pastor.


Many Pentecostal denominations hold to what is called the second blessing. This doctrine suggests that there is a difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is received at the time of salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit received at a later date. The claim is that salvation is the first blessing but that to be empowered for ministry (to receive your Holy Spirit gifting), it is necessary to have the "second blessing" which is referred to as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Here is one explanation of this doctrine:

-------------
Perhaps the most important immediate precursor to Pentecostalism was the Holiness movement which issued from the heart of Methodism at the end of the Nineteenth Century. From John Wesley, the Pentecostals inherited the idea of a subsequent crisis experience variously called "entire sanctification,"" perfect love," "Christian perfection," or "heart purity." It was John Wesley who posited such a possibility in his influential tract, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (1766). It was from Wesley that the Holiness Movement developed the theology of a "second blessing." It was Wesley's colleague, John Fletcher, however, who first called this second blessing a "baptism in the Holy Spirit," an experience which brought spiritual power to the recipient as well as inner cleansing. This was explained in his major work, Checks to Antinominianism (1771). During the Nineteenth Century, thousands of Methodists claimed to receive this experience, although no one at the time saw any connection with this spirituality and speaking in tongues or any of the other charisms.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Doctrinal-1.htm

[rgcraig]

I looked up your "crisis experience" terminology to get the gist of what the term is implying. We don't believe nor teach the "second blessing". My husband was under that teaching growing up in the COG as his grandfather was his pastor.

:ursofunny I don't think it's "his" crisis experience terminology - - looks like a pretty old term to me.

[*AQuietPlace*]

You don't have to believe in "second blessing" to use the term "crisis experience".

[Sam]

and some holiness folks believe in a third blessing

They testify of being
saved
sanctified
and baptized in the Holy Ghost

[rgcraig]

You don't have to believe in "second blessing" to use the term "crisis experience".

That's right.

What always confused me in the past was if we believe "all three are one", then when you repent and ask Jesus in your heart (as my SS teacher would say), didn't the HG move in too?

So, in a way, I can see how this "second blessing" is taught without being taught. The real HG doesn't reside until you speak in tongues.

[*AQuietPlace*]

That's right.

What always confused me in the past was if we believe "all three are one", then when you repent and ask Jesus in your heart (as my SS teacher would say), didn't the HG move in too?

So, in a way, I can see how this "second blessing" is taught without being taught. The real HG doesn't reside until you speak in tongues.
But according to our teaching, Jesus doesn't necessarily come in when you ask him to. He doesn't come in until you've spoken in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

and some holiness folks believe in a third blessing

They testify of being
saved
sanctified
and baptized in the Holy Ghost

Yes, I've heard that as well. I think terminology can be problematic in many ways. I think many times it does the Word of God a major disservice. One-Stepper and Three-Stepper is more terminology that shouldn't be used, IMO.

[mfblume]

Because it's the power of God unto salvation? (Romans 1:16-18).

Inapplicable. When debates occur like this, both sides simply do not change. But there is a benefit. Unbiased readers (there are always SOME, if few) will get a good taste of both sides to make their decision.

So, I'll chime in. Salvation is a free gift. You can't work for it because you didn't even deserve the chance to earn it in the first place.

Yes, but when you say water baptism is not part of salvation as well as Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues, then you must, by the same token, claim repentance is not required. You are using the principle that WE DO NOTHING and BAPTISM is doing something. So is repentance!

The one step argument that claims the cross alone saves, and since baptism is a work then
baptism is not salvational is contradicted by its insistence on repentance.

[TheLegalist]

Inapplicable. When debates occur like this, both sides simply do not change. But there is a benefit. Unbiased readers (there are always SOME, if few) will get a good taste of both sides to make their decision.

Yes, but when you say water baptism is not part of salvation as well as Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues, then you must, by the same token, claim repentance is not required. You are using the principle that WE DO NOTHING and BAPTISM is doing something. So is repentance!

The one step argument that claims the cross alone saves, and since baptism is a work then
baptism is not salvational is contradicted by its insistence on repentance.

YEP! Basically you get a salvation sucker put in your mouth without cost or commitment of change.

Oh and God forbid it would be a salvation by works...... Baptism... oh my... why would you say such and make the cross meaningless. (sarcasm)

[mfblume]

YEP! Basically you get a salvation sucker put in your mouth without cost or commitment of change.

Oh and God forbid it would be a salvation by works...... Baptism... oh my... why would you say such and make the cross meaningless. (sarcasm)

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway. :)

People know repentance is not something we do as though we make ourselves righteous. Making ourselves righteous is what is so vile about works that the bible claims do not save us. So repentance is therefore not considered as salvation by works, so one steppers accept repentance as required for salvation. But baptism and Spirit infilling are the same sort of works that repentance is. They do not make us righteous, so one steppers need to stop saying demand for baptism and Spirit infilling are salvation by works. Again, REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM!

[TheLegalist]

That's right.

What always confused me in the past was if we believe "all three are one", then when you repent and ask Jesus in your heart (as my SS teacher would say), didn't the HG move in too?

So, in a way, I can see how this "second blessing" is taught without being taught. The real HG doesn't reside until you speak in tongues.

THe whole point of Acts 19 and 8 clearly show a certain expectancy that was expected when it came to the Spirit. Pauls comment clearly shows that reception of the Spirit is NOT AUTOMATICALY on belief.

[Pressing-On]

Of course there's "action" after getting saved... that's the point of salvation. "The life I now live..." Galatians 2:20-21.

But how did we get that life? That's the point of this thread. We didn't earn it, we didn't deserve it, we didn't work really, really hard to get it... It was a free gift!

I wanted to go back to this post, Pel. Although, I am getting ready to shoot out of here again. LOL!

This is what I am not understanding from you, Pel. You say that there is action, which is also works, AFTER getting saved? The Bible says, "Repent AND be baptized FOR the "remission/forgiveness" of your sins...."

How can you be saved if you are not forgiven? And if you are already forgiven because He died on the cross, then what is the point of repenting, being baptized and being filled with His Spirit?

It appears to me that Israel cannot be forgiven if they do not repent - "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

It is interesting that John is referenced as preaching the "baptism of repentance" to all of Israel. (Acts 13:24) In verse 38 he speaks of "forgiveness of sin", but he had already mentioned baptism in verse 24. More pointedly, "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.." (Mark 1:4) " And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (Luke 3:3)

Ephesians 1:7 does indeed say that we have the forgiveness of our sins through the redemption of His blood. But, further in verse 12 and 13, he speaks of their trusting in Christ after they heard the word of truth and identifying that as the Gospel of our salvation and saying that AFTER they believed, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Here, again, we have another connection to what is being preached in Acts 2:38. That is what I mean by spiraling back to the actions and events in the Book of Acts, which is the beginning of the NT Church Age.

In an earlier post, I posed this question to you:


I must believe and have faith, but there are things that I must obey and do. Are you suggesting that you are saved by belief alone?

Your response was:


Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.


Salvation is, indeed, free to those that believe. But, the Word says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6:18) How are we made free from our sins? - repentance and baptism. That is when it becomes free. It is not "free" just by believing that Jesus died on the cross. I could stand there and stare at that cross all day long, believing He died for my sins, but if I don't respond to the Gospel it would be to no avail.

[TheLegalist]

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway. :)

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) belief that works by some form of special righeousing act, by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

[mfblume]

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) works by some form of special righeousing act by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

[Pressing-On]

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway. :)

People know repentance is not something we do as though we make ourselves righteous. Making ourselves righteous is what is so vile about works that the bible claims do not save us. So repentance is therefore not considered as salvation by works, so one steppers accept repentance as required for salvation. But baptism and Spirit infilling are the same sort of works that repentance is. They do not make us righteous, so one steppers need to stop saying demand for baptism and Spirit infilling are salvation by works. Again, REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM!

Preach!!!!! :preach

[Pressing-On]

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) works by some form of special righeousing act by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...
Agreed! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

Amen!

[mfblume]

One steppers do not stop to think that they are watching a PHYSICAL ACTION of baptism, and that is the reason they skip a cell in their minds (TIC) and think it is salvation by works to believe it is vital to be baptised for salvation. And since repentance is not a physical act, but a mental act, they excuse repentance. However, mental, or physical, an act is an act. And since neither propose such an act makes us righteous without the efficacy of the cross, baptism is no more "salvation by works" than repentance.

[TheLegalist]

amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, spirit infilling with tongues nor repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

bingo!

[TheLegalist]

One steppers do not stop to think that they are watching a PHYSICAL ACTION of baptism, and that is the reason they skip a cell in their minds (TIC) and think it is salvation by works to believe it is vital to be baptised for salvation. And since repentance is not a physical act, but a mental act, they excuse repentance. However, mental, or physical, an act is an act. And since neither propose such an act makes us righteous without the efficacy of the cross, baptism is no more "salvation by works" than repentance.

totaly agree as "all" is a work of the mind.

[mfblume]

We perform repentance in our minds, and we receive forgiveness.

Is that performance a work that makes us righteous? Of course not. Everyone agrees. But we have to repent on our own volition and receive from God, without having earned anything in the process. Same with baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. We receive TONGUES and Spirit baptism, and are not performing a tongue speaking in order to make ourselves righteous. GOD GIVES THE UTTERANCE, not ourselves!

All these details are being overlooked by the one-stepper, I honestly believe. What is the difference between receiving forgiveness from repentance and receiving the GIFT of the Spirit and God giving utterance for us to speak in tongues? How does THAT speaking in tongues become salvation by works that sidesteps the cross??

If Spirit baptism was a work of salvation that Paul preached against, then it would not be us receiving the GIFT of the Spirit, but rather us making self speak in tongues in human ability in order to receive the WAGES of eternal life. This is the all-important point one-step fails to see.

So please stop saying that we preach we must speak in tongues to be saved, as though it is like making ourselves talk in tongues and thereby makes us righteous outside of God's grace. We must speak in tongues as much as we must receive forgiveness, if we want to talk about musts.

[rgcraig]

We perform repentance in our minds, and we receive forgiveness.

Is that performance a work that makes us righteous? Of course not. Everyone agrees. But we have to repent on our own volition and receive from God, without having earned anything in the process. Same with baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. We receive TONGUES and Spirit baptism, and are not performing a tongue speaking in order to make ourselves righteous. GOD GIVES THE UTTERANCE, not ourselves!

All these details are being overlooked by the one-stepper, I honestly believe.

If Spirit baptism was a work of salvation that Paul preached against, then it would not be us receiving the GIFT of the Spirit, but rather us making self speak in tongues in human ability in order to receive the WAGES of eternal life. This is the all-important point one-step fails to see.

So please stop saying that we preach we must speak in tongues to be saved, as though it is like making ourselves talk in tongues and thereby makes us righteous outside of God's grace. We must speak in tongues as much as we must receive forgiveness, if we want to talk about musts.

PO doesn't believe you receive forgiveness until baptism.

Do you feel you receive forgiveness at repentance or baptism?

[mfblume]

PO doesn't believe you receive forgiveness until baptism.

Do you feel you receive forgiveness at repentance or baptism?

I believe forgiveness and remission are the same thing. I do feel we get forgiveness at repentance. The angels rejoice over one soul that repents. But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives. But if the alleged repentance is seen by God to sidestep an obedient act of baptism, then God does not forgive.

It's like the fact that God granted Abraham righteousness for his FAITH THAT WORKS. If God knew Abraham would not obey to be circumcised, then the faith Abraham had was not the faith God took to grant Abe righteous. Same with baptism. Otherwise, how can one get Spirit baptism in Acts 10 without forgiveness first?

[Pressing-On]

I believe forgiveness and remission are the same thing. I do feel we get forgiveness at repentance. The angels rejoice over one soul that repents. But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives. But if the alleged repentance is seen by God to sidestep and obedient act of baptism, then God does not forgive.

It's like the fact that God granted Abraham righteousness for his FAITH THAT WORKS. If God knew Abraham would not obey to be circumcised, then the faith Abraham had was not the faith God took to grant Abe righteous. Same with baptism. Otherwise, how can one get Spirit baptism in Acts 10 without forgiveness first?
Amen! You put that in better words than I did. Excellent! :thumbsup

And, BTW, this is why I believe the angels rejoice over one soul that repents.

But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives.

Coming back to cite your words again:

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

That is why, IMO, it is dangerous and erroneous teaching to say that anything stands "alone".

[notofworks]

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM!


I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):




Romans 10:1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is that the Jewish people might be saved.


Rom 10:2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal.


Rom 10:3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Instead, they are clinging to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. They won't go along with God's way.


Rom 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.


Rom 10:5 For Moses wrote that the law's way of making a person right with God requires obedience to all of its commands.


Rom 10:6 But the way of getting right with God through faith says, "You don't need to go to heaven" (to find Christ and bring him down to help you).


Rom 10:7 And it says, "You don't need to go to the place of the dead" (to bring Christ back to life again).


Rom 10:8 Salvation that comes from trusting Christ--which is the message we preach--is already within easy reach. In fact, the Scriptures say, "The message is close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart."


Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


Rom 10:10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


Rom 10:11 As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.



This is a perfect description of repentance...a change of heart, a complete brokenness, turn, redirection, and a changed way of thinking.

[jfrog]

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):




Romans 10:1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is that the Jewish people might be saved.


Rom 10:2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal.


Rom 10:3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Instead, they are clinging to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. They won't go along with God's way.


Rom 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.


Rom 10:5 For Moses wrote that the law's way of making a person right with God requires obedience to all of its commands.


Rom 10:6 But the way of getting right with God through faith says, "You don't need to go to heaven" (to find Christ and bring him down to help you).


Rom 10:7 And it says, "You don't need to go to the place of the dead" (to bring Christ back to life again).


Rom 10:8 Salvation that comes from trusting Christ--which is the message we preach--is already within easy reach. In fact, the Scriptures say, "The message is close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart."


Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


Rom 10:10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


Rom 10:11 As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.



This is a perfect description of repentance...a change of heart, a complete brokenness, turn, redirection, and a changed way of thinking.

We are going to kick your butt for breaking your promise :)

[mfblume]

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

[jfrog]

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much as work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

[mfblume]

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

Repentance is where we actively do something. And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something, but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

[rgcraig]

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Agree!

[jfrog]

Repentance is where we actively do something.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And neither baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law? If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

[Pressing-On]

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Amen!

[TheLegalist]

I believe forgiveness and remission are the same thing. I do feel we get forgiveness at repentance. The angels rejoice over one soul that repents. But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives. But if the alleged repentance is seen by God to sidestep an obedient act of baptism, then God does not forgive.

It's like the fact that God granted Abraham righteousness for his FAITH THAT WORKS. If God knew Abraham would not obey to be circumcised, then the faith Abraham had was not the faith God took to grant Abe righteous. Same with baptism. Otherwise, how can one get Spirit baptism in Acts 10 without forgiveness first?


simple... Gen 15:6 is not about forgiveness it is about judgment of response and God considered his response right. Which is the point of Paul and circumcision. God considered/ajudged a persons response(as in Abraham) righteous before he was circumcised. Thus circumcision is not a specific righteousing aspect in itself. Thus Pauls point that the person who does X and having not Y, yet you have Y and not doing X. Circumcision was simply setting apart of something that was supposed to be of the heart.

God's judgment of action as just/righteous does not mean a person is judged as a whole righeous but that the deed they did was considered righteous or just action unto them...

Psa 106:30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed.
Psa 106:31 And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.

We receive the blessings of God by faith... this is not about mental assent but abuut response

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

We where dead without the working of God and his circumcision at BAPTISM and cutting away of the old life of sin. Thus we where made ALIVE TOGETHOR WITH HIM. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN? AT BAPTISM!

1)God simply seeing a persons heart turned does not mean they have asked or received forgiveness or received atonement.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Which is talking about offering of atonment.

We still after turning have to seek the atonement and offer ourselves(covenant) to him.

2) Also doesn't mean they are in covenant.
3) Acts 10 they hear the Word and God moved. God had already seen these peoples hearts toward him in Word and deed thus the reason God summoned Peter to speak and witness. God thus considered them "right" beforehand. Has nothing to do with covenant but that they where not a enmity with him. Past action of sin does not stand in the way of God moving on you! The present aspect of spiritually your heart at enmity or against him does. Thus Acts 10 and the people being filled with the Spirit does not need forgiveness BEFORE he fills them or moved upon them. You can still have a debt against you it has nothing to do with the heart being toward God. They then where COMMANDED.... what does Peter say

Act 10:47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

Why would it matter to WITHOLD? Because it was about covenant unto unification with Christ and circumcising the old man away.


Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

It wasn't about oh you have confessed JEsus by your little prayer.... NO HE COMMANDED THEM! This was Peter seeing GOD'S ACTION as a command unto him to bring them into covenant..... HE SHOULD NOT RESIST THEM BEING UNITED WITH CHRIST! THus why he takes swift action!

what else does Peter say...

Act 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

way for what....? HOW CAN PETER STAND IN GOD'S WAY... what was the PATH that he could stand in? BAPTISM AND UNIFICATION WITH CHRIST!

v47 ...can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people...

Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance (TURNING CHANGING DIRECTION OF THE MIND) that leads to life."

Which comes after baptism because we are IN covenant and turned of heart with promises from God that our life has been made new and the old man taken away.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

as repeated above

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

We where dead without the working of God and his circumcision at BAPTISM and cutting away of the old life of sin. Thus we where made ALIVE TOGETHOR WITH HIM. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN? AT BAPTISM!

[notofworks]

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.


Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd state your case without the final bolded statements. That seems uncalled for and it's strictly your opinion. Your vast amount of knowledge doesn't give you the right to make such final judgements and proclamations. Of course, you have the right to believe that you're correct!

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.:)

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:



1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis. So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience? He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink? Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't. They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever?? Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.




The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

[notofworks]

We are going to kick your butt for breaking your promise :)

Sorry! :shockamoo

I need to just not log on. I'm an idiot for thinking I can read and keep my mouth shut. But neither Pel nor Jeffrey, who both expound this much better than I, aren't around today. So I blabbed a little!:lol

[NotforSale]

Repentance is where we actively do something. And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something, but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?

[rgcraig]

Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd state your case without the final bolded statements. That seems uncalled for and it's strictly your opinion. Your vast amount of knowledge doesn't give you the right to make such final judgements and proclamations. Of course, you have the right to believe that you're correct!

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.:)

What's the difference? You are telling him he's wrong with a whole lot more words.


Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

That was his opinion, so just because you added the words makes it okay for you?

LOL - - you are funny!

[pelathais]

Inapplicable. When debates occur like this, both sides simply do not change. But there is a benefit. Unbiased readers (there are always SOME, if few) will get a good taste of both sides to make their decision.

Yes, but when you say water baptism is not part of salvation as well as Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues, then you must, by the same token, claim repentance is not required. You are using the principle that WE DO NOTHING and BAPTISM is doing something. So is repentance!

The one step argument that claims the cross alone saves, and since baptism is a work then
baptism is not salvational is contradicted by its insistence on repentance.
The "One Step" position has always been that "the blood is applied at repentance." That is the historical reality.

You appear to be adding some form of hyper-Calvinism whereby predestination completely overwhelms the choices that we make. That is NOT "One Stepper" theology.

Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Peter said, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21

Paul said, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

Jesus said again, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

The list is almost endless. The "One Stepper" theology has always called for repentance. And, your reasoning is flawed if you say, "Well, if you have to repent then you have to... [fill in the blank]..."

All the sinner is ever called to do is to repent. All of the stuff that has been added on to that call has either been to support the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or more recently, a result of John Wesley's problems in grappling with the notion of sinless perfection (http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html).

[Jeffrey]

I looked up your "crisis experience" terminology to get the gist of what the term is implying. We don't believe nor teach the "second blessing". My husband was under that teaching growing up in the COG as his grandfather was his pastor.

PO, you're still narrowly defining the term. I wasn't referring to a "second blessing" nor is the term exclusive to describing "second blessing" though that is what many early Pentecostals believed. Crisis experience explains the "Jesus Bomb" called Spirit Baptism.

[Jeffrey]

THe whole point of Acts 19 and 8 clearly show a certain expectancy that was expected when it came to the Spirit. Pauls comment clearly shows that reception of the Spirit is NOT AUTOMATICALY on belief.

For example?

[Jeffrey]

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) belief that works by some form of special righeousing act, by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

Way to re-write Paul's words. Abraham was justified before circumcision. It was a gift of God to which he responded at a heart level with faith. End of story. Salvation hasn't changed. He uses Abraham as a pre-law figure to prove this.

[Jeffrey]

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

They aren't wrong, they are right.

Circumcision was just as much a "work" as "baptism" is. And then those of you that claim one must speak in tongues to be a child of God baffle me all the more "We know you love God, and you were SOOOOO close. Sister, can you get back on the organ, Suzy here was SOOOOOOO close. I think we heard a tongue." Yeah... that's not the gospel.

Repentance is not an initiation of salvation, it's a response to faith. God loved us while we were sinners, not after we repented. Faith in God comes first. One cannot even repent until he believes in the God he is repenting to. And repentance is not a "I'm going to have good works and be a better person" it's "I believe you are Lord and God, and therefore I don't have to be."

[Jeffrey]

totaly agree as "all" is a work of the mind.

Sorry, faith goes further than a cognitive recognition. Paul addresses that too. We should have a thread to go verse-by-verse through Romans. Wouldn't that be a delight.

[Jeffrey]

I believe forgiveness and remission are the same thing. I do feel we get forgiveness at repentance. The angels rejoice over one soul that repents. But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives. But if the alleged repentance is seen by God to sidestep an obedient act of baptism, then God does not forgive.

It's like the fact that God granted Abraham righteousness for his FAITH THAT WORKS. If God knew Abraham would not obey to be circumcised, then the faith Abraham had was not the faith God took to grant Abe righteous. Same with baptism. Otherwise, how can one get Spirit baptism in Acts 10 without forgiveness first?

Quite complicated isn't it :)

Your speculation about "if God knew" is just that: purely speculative. What a STREEEEEEETCH. :ursofunny

[Jeffrey]

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):




Romans 10:1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is that the Jewish people might be saved.


Rom 10:2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal.


Rom 10:3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Instead, they are clinging to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. They won't go along with God's way.


Rom 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.


Rom 10:5 For Moses wrote that the law's way of making a person right with God requires obedience to all of its commands.


Rom 10:6 But the way of getting right with God through faith says, "You don't need to go to heaven" (to find Christ and bring him down to help you).


Rom 10:7 And it says, "You don't need to go to the place of the dead" (to bring Christ back to life again).


Rom 10:8 Salvation that comes from trusting Christ--which is the message we preach--is already within easy reach. In fact, the Scriptures say, "The message is close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart."


Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


Rom 10:10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


Rom 10:11 As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.



This is a perfect description of repentance...a change of heart, a complete brokenness, turn, redirection, and a changed way of thinking.

BINGO!

Misunderstanding of repentance underscores "works" based salvation.

[notofworks]

That was his opinion, so just because you added the words makes it okay for you?

LOL - - you are funny!


:lolDid you like that? Hopefully, the irony of it all was detected!:shockamoo

[Jeffrey]

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

We've made the beautiful Baptism in the Spirit such a stressful ordeal by attaching one's eternal destiny to it. Sheesh.

Even the first Pentecostals had this right. But that's what happens when good men, but ignorant men, decide they have to create theology out of their experience. We get Pentecostalism. Thankfully, Pentecostalism is coming to age, so to speak.

[Jeffrey]

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?

Seems to really break down in the face of Pauline description of salvation doesn't it. It's left to performance (albeit, "performance by inspiration") but performance, nonetheless.

[pelathais]

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway. :)

People know repentance is not something we do as though we make ourselves righteous. Making ourselves righteous is what is so vile about works that the bible claims do not save us. So repentance is therefore not considered as salvation by works, so one steppers accept repentance as required for salvation. But baptism and Spirit infilling are the same sort of works that repentance is. They do not make us righteous, so one steppers need to stop saying demand for baptism and Spirit infilling are salvation by works. Again, REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM!
You may compare repentance to just about anything you wish, however it is what the Gospel requires of each of us.

To extend your line of reasoning, could we say that "REPENTANCE IS THE SAME THING AS BAPTISM?" Are they interchangeable?

No, I don't think you would go that far (though TheLegalist appears ready).

So then, what purpose is served by REPENTANCE and what purpose is served by BAPTISM? They clearly serve two purposes.

Repentance is how the sinner comes to Christ and is saved.

Baptism is what the newly saved believer does to begin their new life - "rising" into the newness of life.

There of course is more, however this serves to show the "One Stepper" belief that "the blood is applied at repentance."

The "Three Stepper" plan is more ambiguous. Some will say the blood is applied at baptism (the way I was brought up), others will say salvation is not complete until a person has "spoken in tongues" and they then avoid the whole "blood" analogy altogether.

Set aside your arguments that you have had with "Evangelicals" and the like for a moment. Your argument now is with Oneness brethren. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Dropping the "anti-Evangelical" line will allow the discussion to carry on (on both sides) free from the confusion of "What is a Work?" and all of that baggage.

Paul's arguments against "Works" were directed against "THE WORKS OF THE LAW." Evangelicals apply these statements to try and argue their thoughts on water baptism. While there can be a sort of "New Testament era" application concerning "the Works of the Law" (see any dress code thread), water baptism exists as something entirely apart from all of that.

Water baptism and repentance are two different things that accomplish two different things in the life of the believer. Neither are "works" in New Testament theology.

[Jeffrey]

You may compare repentance to just about anything you wish, however it is what the Gospel requires of each of us.

To extend your line of reasoning, could we say that "REPENTANCE IS THE SAME THING AS BAPTISM?" Are they interchangeable?

No, I don't think you would go that far (though TheLegalist appears ready).

So then, what purpose is served by REPENTANCE and what purpose is served by BAPTISM? They clearly serve two purposes.

Repentance is how the sinner comes to Christ and is saved.

Baptism is what the newly saved believer does to begin their new life - "rising" into the newness of life.

There of course is more, however this serves to show the "One Stepper" belief that "the blood is applied at repentance."

The "Three Stepper" plan is more ambiguous. Some will say the blood is applied at baptism (the way I was brought up), others will say salvation is not complete until a person has "spoken in tongues" and they then avoid the whole "blood" analogy altogether.

Set aside your arguments that you have had with "Evangelicals" and the like for a moment. Your argument now is with Oneness brethren. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Dropping the "anti-Evangelical" line will allow the discussion to carry on (on both sides) free from the confusion of "What is a Work?" and all of that baggage.

Paul's arguments against "Works" were directed against "THE WORKS OF THE LAW." Evangelicals apply these statements to try and argue their thoughts on water baptism. While there can be a sort of "New Testament era" application concerning "the Works of the Law" (see any dress code thread), water baptism exists as something entirely apart from all of that.

Water baptism and repentance are two different things that accomplish two different things in the life of the believer. Neither are "works" in New Testament theology.

Pel, I think Evangelicals have that liberty since Paul uses circumcision as an example of not just law, but works.

These arguments are funny because you almost find yourself arguing to deemphasize baptism, when in reality you think it to be quite important. However, understanding the salvation-history of the Bible, we see faith as the same thread throughout. The only response to God has been faith, which he accounts as righteousness.

[pelathais]

I wanted to go back to this post, Pel. Although, I am getting ready to shoot out of here again. LOL!

This is what I am not understanding from you, Pel. You say that there is action, which is also works, AFTER getting saved? The Bible says, "Repent AND be baptized FOR the "remission/forgiveness" of your sins...."

Jesus says, "Come unto me..." This is His request for "action" on the part of those who hear His call. When I respond, "Lord I believe..." I am acting and verbs can be used to describe what I am doing.

In the New Testament there is a long debate about the "Works of the Law." These "Works of the Law" were actions that the children of Israel did in obedience to the 613 commandments left by Moses.

It is a fact that both of the above involve verbs to describe the "action" of the believer. Repentance - or "Coming to Jesus" is not a "Work of the Law" however. Moses never commanded anybody to turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Though the Law and the Prophets did testify of Jesus Christ, the idea of converting from a life of sin and unbelief to a life of faith in the Messiah was never one of the 613 commandments nor a part of any of the later Talmudic traditions attached to them.

The same can be said about water baptism, as I just mentioned to Mike (above). In conclusion, neither repentance nor baptism are "works" in the sense that the New Testament uses the word. "Works" in the NT has a specific theological definition. In common vernacular today, the Evangelical movement has applied the meaning in a wider use. I am not an "Evangelical" (please notice the upper case "E"). I am theologically an Arminian and so are all of the "One Steppers" who preceded me.

How can you be saved if you are not forgiven? And if you are already forgiven because He died on the cross, then what is the point of repenting, being baptized and being filled with His Spirit?

It appears to me that Israel cannot be forgiven if they do not repent - "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

It is interesting that John is referenced as preaching the "baptism of repentance" to all of Israel. (Acts 13:24) In verse 38 he speaks of "forgiveness of sin", but he had already mentioned baptism in verse 24. More pointedly, "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.." (Mark 1:4) " And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (Luke 3:3)

Ephesians 1:7 does indeed say that we have the forgiveness of our sins through the redemption of His blood. But, further in verse 12 and 13, he speaks of their trusting in Christ after they heard the word of truth and identifying that as the Gospel of our salvation and saying that AFTER they believed, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Here, again, we have another connection to what is being preached in Acts 2:38. That is what I mean by spiraling back to the actions and events in the Book of Acts, which is the beginning of the NT Church Age.

In an earlier post, I posed this question to you:

Your response was:

Salvation is, indeed, free to those that believe. But, the Word says, "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6:18) How are we made free from our sins? - repentance and baptism. That is when it becomes free. It is not "free" just by believing that Jesus died on the cross. I could stand there and stare at that cross all day long, believing He died for my sins, but if I don't respond to the Gospel it would be to no avail.
We are made free from the penalty for our sins by repentance. Baptism accomplishes something as well when we "imitate" the risen Lord and begin our new life (1 Peter 3:21 - "baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ which results in a good conscience toward God").

Notice what Paul says in Romans 6:18 - "Being then made free from sin..."

How were these people "made free from sin?" See the previous verse, Romans 6:17. They were made free by the grace of God and not the "works of the law." Moses didn't make them free, Jesus did.

Now, having been "made free from sin" - can we say that they are in a condition of having the atonement? (Romans 5:11-18). They have the atonement and they are justified by Jesus Christ. Their sins are "paid" by the blood of the Lamb.

So... (the question that Paul is addressing)... what comes next? Next, they are to become "slaves" again (servants)... however, this time they are to be the "servants of righteousness" and not the "servants of sin."

They are saved, now they're supposed to "act like it." These new actions of righteousness however will not save them. They are already saved by the grace of God. These new actions will preserve them, they will serve as a witness to the lost, and they will benefit both other members of the church and members of the community at large.

But they (and we!) do these works of righteousness NOT to get save, NOT to show that we are more holy than anyone else. We do these actions as "slaves" (servants) of our Lord Who performed the greatest charitable gift of all when He laid down His life for us.

[pelathais]

Pel, I think Evangelicals have that liberty since Paul uses circumcision as an example of not just law, but works.

These arguments are funny because you almost find yourself arguing to deemphasize baptism, when in reality you think it to be quite important. However, understanding the salvation-history of the Bible, we see faith as the same thread throughout. The only response to God has been faith, which he accounts as righteousness.
"Law" and "works" are the same thing in Pauline theology.

Paul was not dealing with an environment where people were running around saying, "Ladies don't cut your hair or you'll be lost!" He wasn't dealing with an environment where hair was even an issue as long as the believer didn't clean out her savings and braid 1,000 shekels into her hair.

He also wasn't dealing with an environment where preachers were running around saying, "Ladies don't wear anything but a skirt so we don't confuse you with a man!" Fact of the matter was, the men were all wearing skirts in those days too.

So Paul doesn't really deal with the same "legalism" that we are dealing with today. That is why it's important to not get the terms confused, IMHO. Baptism isn't a "work" in any sense that the language of the New Testament uses the word "works."

[pelathais]

One steppers do not stop to think that they are watching a PHYSICAL ACTION of baptism, and that is the reason they skip a cell in their minds (TIC) and think it is salvation by works to believe it is vital to be baptised for salvation. And since repentance is not a physical act, but a mental act, they excuse repentance. However, mental, or physical, an act is an act. And since neither propose such an act makes us righteous without the efficacy of the cross, baptism is no more "salvation by works" than repentance.
I hope that I have persuaded you to drop the "anti-Evangelical" crusade when it comes to having a discussion with "One Steppers."

You have badly mangled the terminology of the New Testament on this account. I know that your words are probably a reflection of your past interactions with Calvinists and the like; but "One Steppers" were never Calvinists. They have always been solidly in the Arminian tradition.

Your arguments here are as if you were a sports partisan crying out, "Jets rule! Bruins are bums!" when I myself am attempting to cheer for the Avs. Shoot your slap shots at me and my "team" - not Jean Cauvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) and his "team."

Baptism was not called a "work" when the debates surrounding the PCI/PAJC merger were being conducted. The "One Steppers" and the "Three Steppers" then were arguing, "What does Repentance accomplish?"

I have argued that repentance is the act of a convert crying out to God for the forgiveness of their sins. I have further argued that God is faithful and just to forgive those sins, thus the blood of Calvary is "applied" to the life of that convert.

As the thread titles states, only the cross can accomplish this.

[NotforSale]

Seems to really break down in the face of Pauline description of salvation doesn't it. It's left to performance (albeit, "performance by inspiration") but performance, nonetheless.

Amen. People will "Blab" out something just to get the monkey off of their back, or, those praying with the person will claim they "Heard" tongues so they can add to the tally (numbers) for bragging purposes. The whole system of receiving the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of tongues is in utter failure.

The Spirit filled experience talked about in Acts doesn't even compare to our current practice of forcing and begging, working ourselves into an emotional frenzy under the spell of screaming and music so loud you can't hear yourself think.

What ultimately happens, is a person can feel Hell awaits them if they don't speak in tongues, leading to whatever it takes to say foreign words that others will hear, creating a bunch of shouting and praise which feeds our "feeling based" Religion.

[pelathais]

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?
The demand that "speaking in tongues" is a requirement of salvation flows directly from Charles Fox Parham's attempts to ingrain his theology into the minds of his students. It never seemed to catch on with any of his students at first. Ironically, it was "some black guy" who was forced to sit on a chair in the hallway during a teaching session in the Houston area that was responsible for Parham even being remembered.

When Agnes Ozman "spoke in tongues" famously (famously now) at the New Year's Watch Night Service in 1900, another student reported to Parham (who was away at the time) that Agnes had "spoken in the Chinese language for two hours." Other students claimed that it was "just gibberish" and clearly not the Chinese language.

After much discussion and counter claims the whole affair was dropped and the school in Topeka was disbanded just 4 months after the Watch Night Service. Agnes herself renounced the experience until about 1914, when she read about Azusa Street. This was the mission started by the "some black guy" (William Seymour) and the news of the events at Azusa Street went literally around the world.

Upon reading about this, Ms. Ozman came forward and began to publize her experiences and joined the fledgling AoG. In time, she was recognized as "the first" to receive this experience.

It wasn't until G.T. Haywood had joined and really, resurrected the PAW that a theology of "evidence" was promoted widely at all. Parham had in the meantime fallen into the politics of the Utopian community Zion City in Illinois and probably also due to allegations of misbehavior, he fell out of favor and was forgotten for decades while dying in obscurity.

Given the following facts, I have a hard time demanding "speaking in tongues" as a requirement for salvation:

1. It was never a tenet of the original Apostolic Faith movement.
2. There is no standard to evaluate the authenticity of the "sign."
3. Even those who have had this experience have had difficulty ascribing it to "God."

And most importantly...

4. We have no way of authenticating that the experience witnessed today is the same as that which was reported in the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts accounts involve speaking in known languages - albeit unknown to the one who is speaking. But the languages are recognized as such by the hearers.

But the subject of the thread involves Calvary - an historic event that is widely attributed and known to have actually happened.

[berkeley]

Amen. People will "Blab" out something just to get the monkey off of their back, or, those praying with the person will claim they "Heard" tongues so they can add to the tally (numbers) for bragging purposes. The whole system of receiving the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of tongues is in utter failure.
Has this been your experience? I have never been in a service where someone claimed they heard another speak in tongues. It has never been about numbers.

The Spirit filled experience talked about in Acts doesn't even compare to our current practice of forcing and begging, working ourselves into an emotional frenzy under the spell of screaming and music so loud you can't hear yourself think.I have witnessed an emotional frenzy or two. I have known very few who have begged for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And those that have, there was always an underlying issue as to why they did not recieve anything. I have been in services where first time visitors would receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and speak in tongues as the congregation worshipped the Lord in song. Nobody shook them or yelled in their ears. Nobody even approached them. They surrendered themselves to Jesus and He did something for them.

What ultimately happens, is a person can feel Hell awaits them if they don't speak in tongues, leading to whatever it takes to say foreign words that others will hear, creating a bunch of shouting and praise which feeds our "feeling based" Religion.
Was this your experience? Did you say whatever so people would get off your back? I have had a time or two where I was close to plummeting into a devil's Hell. I could not speak in tongues. I had enough reverence for God not to say "whatever" to get people off of my back or send them into a frenzy. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is just too precious to me.

Anyway, everything is subjective.

[Jeffrey]

The demand that "speaking in tongues" is a requirement of salvation flows directly from Charles Fox Parham's attempts to ingrain his theology into the minds of his students. It never seemed to catch on with any of his students at first. Ironically, it was "some black guy" who was forced to sit on a chair in the hallway during a teaching session in the Houston area that was responsible for Parham even being remembered.

When Agnes Ozman "spoke in tongues" famously (famously now) at the New Year's Watch Night Service in 1900, another student reported to Parham (who was away at the time) that Agnes had "spoken in the Chinese language for two hours." Other students claimed that it was "just gibberish" and clearly not the Chinese language.

After much discussion and counter claims the whole affair was dropped and the school in Topeka was disbanded just 4 months after the Watch Night Service. Agnes herself renounced the experience until about 1914, when she read about Azusa Street. This was the mission started by the "some black guy" (William Seymour) and the news of the events at Azusa Street went literally around the world.

Upon reading about this, Ms. Ozman came forward and began to publize her experiences and joined the fledgling AoG. In time, she was recognized as "the first" to receive this experience.

It wasn't until G.T. Haywood had joined and really, resurrected the PAW that a theology of "evidence" was promoted widely at all. Parham had in the meantime fallen into the politics of the Utopian community Zion City in Illinois and probably also due to allegations of misbehavior, he fell out of favor and was forgotten for decades while dying in obscurity.

Given the following facts, I have a hard time demanding "speaking in tongues" as a requirement for salvation:

1. It was never a tenet of the original Apostolic Faith movement.
2. There is no standard to evaluate the authenticity of the "sign."
3. Even those who have had this experience have had difficulty ascribing it to "God."

And most importantly...

4. We have no way of authenticating that the experience witnessed today is the same as that which was reported in the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts accounts involve speaking in known languages - albeit unknown to the one who is speaking. But the languages are recognized as such by the hearers.

But the subject of the thread involves Calvary - an historic event that is widely attributed and known to have actually happened.

Good Pentecostal History here.

[Jeffrey]

What's interesting is when Jesus told them to wait for the POTF -- why didn't he give them a heads-up on tongues. Azusa was all about people reading about others speaking in tongues and seeking that experience. The early disciples never sought tongues though.

Just thinking out loud. I think Azusa was a positive thing, and a great returning of focus for the church on the charismata. But I can't help but think about that.

[Jeffrey]

Even more interesting is that Seymour and others initially believed in xenolalia. Some would go to the country they felt their language represented and were shocked that the natives didn't understand them! lol They changed their position to "unknown tongues" or glossolalia.

[NotforSale]

Has this been your experience? I have never been in a service where someone claimed they heard another speak in tongues. It has never been about numbers.

I have witnessed an emotional frenzy or two. I have known very few who have begged for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And those that have, there was always an underlying issue as to why they did not recieve anything. I have been in services where first time visitors would receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and speak in tongues as the congregation worshipped the Lord in song. Nobody shook them or yelled in their ears. Nobody even approached them. They surrendered themselves to Jesus and He did something for them.


Was this your experience? Did you say whatever so people would get off your back? I have had a time or two where I was close to plummeting into a devil's Hell. I could not speak in tongues. I had enough reverence for God not to say "whatever" to get people off of my back or send them into a frenzy. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is just too precious to me.

Anyway, everything is subjective.

All's I can say is, WOW!! Not sure what Church you go to. Emotional frenzy or two??

So, the "Underlying Issue"? What might that be? What do you tell someone who's been "Seeking" for 20 years, spending untold hours praying under the "Pressure"?

Never yelled in their ears? Uh, hmmmm.....Wow, again. This is AFF (Apostolic Friends Forum). :smackThere may be a Catholic Forum and you just missed it!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2CezWts6oU

[berkeley]

All's I can say is, WOW!! Not sure what Church you go to. Emotional frenzy or two??
Apostolic...
So, the "Underlying Issue"? What might that be? What do you tell someone who's been "Seeking" for 20 years, spending untold hours praying under the "Pressure"?I don't know anyone who has been seeking for 20 years.
Never yelled in their ears? Uh, hmmmm.....Wow, again. This is AFF (Apostolic Friends Forum). :smackThere may be a Catholic Forum and you just missed it!!



I'm no more Catholic than you are Baptist... wait... no... nevermind. You are baptist...

[Jeffrey]

John V. Taylor:

By prescribing the evidence of a subsequent (or in AFF view, part of conversion) and individualistic experience of Spirit baptism, Pentecostals have fallen as much as Catholics and Protestants for the temptation to systematize the movement of God's free Spirit, specifying conditions of his coming and the signs that will prove it.

(Moving the discussion from baptismal regeneration to Spirit Baptism for a moment)

[Pressing-On]

PO, you're still narrowly defining the term. I wasn't referring to a "second blessing" nor is the term exclusive to describing "second blessing" though that is what many early Pentecostals believed. Crisis experience explains the "Jesus Bomb" called Spirit Baptism.
"Crisis experience" and "Jesus Bomb"...... Yes, "Jesus Bomb" sounds even more stupid. But, "Crisis experience" is a very close second. :D

[Jeffrey]

"Crisis experience" and "Jesus Bomb"...... Yes, "Jesus Bomb" sounds even more stupid. But, "Crisis experience" is a very close second. :D

I feel like I'm younger than you, so I don't know how to account for your incredulity.

[pelathais]

Apostolic...
I don't know anyone who has been seeking for 20 years. ...
I've been introduced to people like that or had them pointed out to me though I haven't ever had close enough dealings with anyone to ewven pretend to know the details of their lives.

I remember one particular man who had been "seeking" for something like 7 or 8 years when he and his family moved from out of state and started attending services with us. He received his experience after just a few weeks. This of course boosted our pride and caused several people to exclaim that we had some sort of "power" that other churches lacked.

But that thinking really gnawed at me. The man was seeking salvation (in my mind at the time "tongues" was the evidence of salvation). Why would God withhold His salvation until the family came out to our great fellowship? Did everyone in the world need to pass through our doors just to "get saved?"

[Pressing-On]

I feel like I'm younger than you, so I don't know how to account for your incredulity.

LOL! Just ignore me. That always works. :gaga

[Jeffrey]

I've been introduced to people like that or had them pointed out to me though I haven't ever had close enough dealings with anyone to ewven pretend to know the details of their lives.

I remember one particular man who had been "seeking" for something like 7 or 8 years when he and his family moved from out of state and started attending services with us. He received his experience after just a few weeks. This of course boosted our pride and caused several people to exclaim that we had some sort of "power" that other churches lacked.

But that thinking really gnawed at me. The man was seeking salvation (in my mind at the time "tongues" was the evidence of salvation). Why would God withhold His salvation until the family came out to our great fellowship? Did everyone in the world need to pass through our doors just to "get saved?"

That, Pel, is the question that can't nor shouldn't go away. We have no examples of God withholding salvation from anyone who came to him in faith. The idea of chasing tongues as a symbol of salvation is almost sickening.

[Pressing-On]

Jesus says, "Come unto me..." This is His request for "action" on the part of those who hear His call. When I respond, "Lord I believe..." I am acting and verbs can be used to describe what I am doing.

In the New Testament there is a long debate about the "Works of the Law." These "Works of the Law" were actions that the children of Israel did in obedience to the 613 commandments left by Moses.

It is a fact that both of the above involve verbs to describe the "action" of the believer. Repentance - or "Coming to Jesus" is not a "Work of the Law" however. Moses never commanded anybody to turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Though the Law and the Prophets did testify of Jesus Christ, the idea of converting from a life of sin and unbelief to a life of faith in the Messiah was never one of the 613 commandments nor a part of any of the later Talmudic traditions attached to them.

The same can be said about water baptism, as I just mentioned to Mike (above). In conclusion, neither repentance nor baptism are "works" in the sense that the New Testament uses the word. "Works" in the NT has a specific theological definition. In common vernacular today, the Evangelical movement has applied the meaning in a wider use. I am not an "Evangelical" (please notice the upper case "E"). I am theologically an Arminian and so are all of the "One Steppers" who preceded me.

We are made free from the penalty for our sins by repentance. Baptism accomplishes something as well when we "imitate" the risen Lord and begin our new life (1 Peter 3:21 - "baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ which results in a good conscience toward God").

Notice what Paul says in Romans 6:18 - "Being then made free from sin..."

How were these people "made free from sin?" See the previous verse, Romans 6:17. They were made free by the grace of God and not the "works of the law." Moses didn't make them free, Jesus did.

Now, having been "made free from sin" - can we say that they are in a condition of having the atonement? (Romans 5:11-18). They have the atonement and they are justified by Jesus Christ. Their sins are "paid" by the blood of the Lamb.

So... (the question that Paul is addressing)... what comes next? Next, they are to become "slaves" again (servants)... however, this time they are to be the "servants of righteousness" and not the "servants of sin."

They are saved, now they're supposed to "act like it." These new actions of righteousness however will not save them. They are already saved by the grace of God. These new actions will preserve them, they will serve as a witness to the lost, and they will benefit both other members of the church and members of the community at large.

But they (and we!) do these works of righteousness NOT to get save, NOT to show that we are more holy than anyone else. We do these actions as "slaves" (servants) of our Lord Who performed the greatest charitable gift of all when He laid down His life for us.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Pel. Didn't want to ignore your post after you spent the time to type it out. I don't have much else to say on the subject. I will have to lean toward agreeing with MB on this one.

[*AQuietPlace*]

"Crisis experience" and "Jesus Bomb"...... Yes, "Jesus Bomb" sounds even more stupid. But, "Crisis experience" is a very close second. :D
I KNEW you were going to love "Jesus Bomb"!!!! I just sat back and waited for you to show up!


:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

I KNEW you were going to love "Jesus Bomb"!!!! I just sat back and waited for you to show up!


:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

Girl! You know that was the bomb! :toofunny

What an ignorant thing to say - "Jesus Bomb"!!!!!! I thought "crisis experience" was pretty ignorant, but that one took the cake...... and the icing and the candles and the plate and the tablecloth and........

:toofunny

[Jeffrey]

Girl! You know that was the bomb! :toofunny

What an ignorant thing to say - "Jesus Bomb"!!!!!! I thought "crisis experience" was pretty ignorant, but that one took the cake...... and the icing and the candles and the plate and the tablecloth and........

:toofunny

Actually a very popular (conservative) Pentecostal preacher describes the Holy Spirit baptism as a "Jesus bomb" for your information.

It AGAIN wasn't a pejorative term. Sheesh...

Crisis experience ignorant? That's an extremely unlearned thing to say. Read a theology textbook a few times. They have esoteric language that you don't hear everyday. I'm not brainy know-it-all but some of it bleeds into my vocabulary (I think that's the point). So instead of not understanding the word and flipping out and calling non-pejorative terms "stupid" and "ignorant" I suggest you take a moment and figure it out.

[berkeley]

Maybe that's why people don't get "it." (I hate that terminology) They were seeking tongues. When I was 14 yrs old I began to seek after tongues and nothing happened. I did not attend or even know what an Apostolic church was. When I visited a UPC (9/17/97) my focus changed from seeking tongues to asking for the Holy Spirit. I was a low down dirty sinner at the age of 15. All I did was weep for three church services. On the evening of the third service I stopped weeping. I began to worship Jesus and I asked Him for the Holy Spirit. He answered the prayer.

[Pressing-On]

Actually a very popular (conservative) Pentecostal preacher describes the Holy Spirit baptism as a "Jesus bomb" for your information.

It AGAIN wasn't a pejorative term. Sheesh...

Crisis experience ignorant? That's an extremely unlearned thing to say. Read a theology textbook a few times. They have esoteric language that you don't hear everyday. I'm not brainy know-it-all but some of it bleeds into my vocabulary (I think that's the point). So instead of not understanding the word and flipping out and calling non-pejorative terms "stupid" and "ignorant" I suggest you take a moment and figure it out.

Well now, let me see how that works for me....hmmmmm....

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Crisis Experience."

:nah

Let's try that again:

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Jesus Bomb."

Catchy!!!!!!! Dude!!!! I think I like that!!!! :gaga

:toofunny :bliss

Go read whatever you want. I'm just going to read the Bible. After all, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer - ya know wut aw mean?!! :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

Maybe that's why people don't get "it." (I hate that terminology) They were seeking tongues. When I was 14 yrs old I began to seek after tongues and nothing happened. I did not attend or even know what an Apostolic church was. When I visited a UPC (9/17/97) my focus changed from seeking tongues to asking for the Holy Spirit. I was a low down dirty sinner at the age of 15. All I did was weep for three church services. On the evening of the third service I stopped weeping. I began to worship Jesus and I asked Him for the Holy Spirit. He answered the prayer.
Amen!

We need to seek the "Giver" and not the "Gift"! :thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

Well now, let me see how that works for me....hmmmmm....

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Crisis Experience."

:nah

Let's try that again:

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Jesus Bomb."

Catchy!!!!!!! Dude!!!! I think I like that!!!! :gaga

:toofunny :bliss

Go read whatever you want. I'm just going to read the Bible. After all, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer - ya know wut aw mean?!! :toofunny

You are absolutely hilarious. No one is "replacing scripture" its esoteric language used to contextualize and frame discussions in academic terms. We are speaking "of" theology, not quoting scripture.

[Jeffrey]

Maybe that's why people don't get "it." (I hate that terminology) They were seeking tongues. When I was 14 yrs old I began to seek after tongues and nothing happened. I did not attend or even know what an Apostolic church was. When I visited a UPC (9/17/97) my focus changed from seeking tongues to asking for the Holy Spirit. I was a low down dirty sinner at the age of 15. All I did was weep for three church services. On the evening of the third service I stopped weeping. I began to worship Jesus and I asked Him for the Holy Spirit. He answered the prayer.

Hmmm.. psychological change-up.

Problem is, most believe they are seeking Jesus, but they also know the climax is tongues. The people praying with them are tarrying for one reason -- blab it out! Come on now.

[Jeffrey]

Memo to self: Refrain from other "non-biblical" words that help us communicate theology like soteriology, eschatology, missiology, pericopes, hermeneutics... let's just quote scripture. LOL Boy, those words really rubbed you in a funny way.

[Hoovie]

Hmmm.. psychological change-up.

Problem is, most believe they are seeking Jesus, but they also know the climax is tongues. The people praying with them are tarrying for one reason -- blab it out! Come on now.

this post is troubling on so many levels... not the least of which that it's true.

[Jeffrey]

this post is troubling on so many levels... not the least of which that it's true.

Oh bologna it's not true. Where do you think I spent 20 years of my life! My experience is as valid as yours. I was well-traveled in many churches, attended a LARGE congregation and I've seen it all. And yes, let's not act surprised that there are people who seek for YEARS. They are in every church, and you know it.

So don't act appalled. It's a culture we've created. People stand between hell and heaven, and are only assured of their salvation if they speak in tongues. That's an absurd reduction of the Gospel in unequivocal terms.

[berkeley]

Jeffrey, did you seek for years?

[pelathais]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Pel. Didn't want to ignore your post after you spent the time to type it out. I don't have much else to say on the subject. I will have to lean toward agreeing with MB on this one.
Thanks, did you see my responses to what Mike had said? Any thoughts?

His whole attempt at wrestling with "works" is really a non sequitur in this discussion. I know that it is common to see it come up, however when we are considering "One Stepper" versus "Three Stepper" theology we have to keep in mind that none of those men were Calvinists.

Repentance is not a "work" in Pauline theology and neither is baptism. When Paul decries those who are advocating "works" he is talking about the "Works of the Law." Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was never considered a part of the "works of the Law," nor any other type of baptism for that matter.

Repentance and baptism are two different things and they accomplish different things - though they are obviously both going to related close to one another in time and in the experience of the convert to Christianity. Neither are "works" however until when a Calvinist comes into the room. "One Steppers" were never Calvinists and didn't really show any Calvinistic influences until rather recently after being push out by their "Three Stepper" brethren.

[pelathais]

Oh bologna it's not true. Where do you think I spent 20 years of my life! My experience is as valid as yours. I was well-traveled in many churches, attended a LARGE congregation and I've seen it all. And yes, let's not act surprised that there are people who seek for YEARS. They are in every church, and you know it.

So don't act appalled. It's a culture we've created. People stand between hell and heaven, and are only assured of their salvation if they speak in tongues. That's an absurd reduction of the Gospel in unequivocal terms.
I thought Hoovie was agreeing with you. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[berkeley]

I thought Hoovie was agreeing with you. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

He was!... chip... shoulder... shoulder... chip :ursofunny

No. Not in entirety. Lol. Hoovie was troubled that the post was true... and I think Hoovie was also troubled by the tone of the post. Hoovie can speak for self.

[Hoovie]

Man I don't get any of this now. Berk and Jeff... maybe there is some sarcasm or something.

Guess I should not just pop in and respond like I did.

Let me just say I find it troubling that some "believe they are seeking Jesus, but they also know the climax is tongues" . BUT, I do believe that is a fairly common mindset.

Though I have spoken in tongues I cannot really identify with that.

[*AQuietPlace*]

this post is troubling on so many levels... not the least of which that it's true.

Oh bologna it's not true.


He said "it's true". :)

[berkeley]

Man I don't get any of this now. Berk and Jeff... maybe there is some sarcasm or something.

Guess I should not just pop in and respond like I did.

Let me just say I find it troubling that some "believe they are seeking Jesus, but they also know the climax is tongues" . BUT, I do believe that is a fairly common mindset.

Though I have spoken in tongues I cannot really identify with that.

Hoovie,
I don't think there is sarcasm. I feel that there is pain underneath the post. I don't know Jeff from Adam. It's just a hunch, if you will.

And, I agree. It is a fairly common mindset.

[Pressing-On]

Memo to self: Refrain from other "non-biblical" words that help us communicate theology like soteriology, eschatology, missiology, pericopes, hermeneutics... let's just quote scripture. LOL Boy, those words really rubbed you in a funny way.
LOL!

I looked at this again. Another website explained it in more detail. Basically, they are calling "sanctification" the "crises experiment" which was taught by John Wesley. He taught that you needed a deeper surrender and deeper consecration after you were saved in order to become spirit filled. I suppose he is just trying to explain what sanctification means to him.

[berkeley]

He said "it's true". :)

Silent Chick,

Jeffrey said that it is true. Hoover was saying that it being true was the least disturbing element to Jeff's post.

[Pressing-On]

Thanks, did you see my responses to what Mike had said? Any thoughts?

His whole attempt at wrestling with "works" is really a non sequitur in this discussion. I know that it is common to see it come up, however when we are considering "One Stepper" versus "Three Stepper" theology we have to keep in mind that none of those men were Calvinists.

Repentance is not a "work" in Pauline theology and neither is baptism. When Paul decries those who are advocating "works" he is talking about the "Works of the Law." Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was never considered a part of the "works of the Law," nor any other type of baptism for that matter.

Repentance and baptism are two different things and they accomplish different things - though they are obviously both going to related close to one another in time and in the experience of the convert to Christianity. Neither are "works" however until when a Calvinist comes into the room. "One Steppers" were never Calvinists and didn't really show any Calvinistic influences until rather recently after being push out by their "Three Stepper" brethren.

Pel,
I think Paul says that repentance is a work. Therefore, baptism must also be a work.

Paul tells King Agrippa, "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet (deserving/suitable) for repentance." (Acts 26:20)

If John, the forerunner, was preaching the "baptism of repentance", then Paul was preaching it also, except that Paul would have included the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I believe as MB put it - "And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything."

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

I think that you have to, also, consciously repent (think differently). That is a work (deed) and something we are engaged in. I think that if you are morally feeling compunction (sense of guilt), you are going to have your mental faculties involved. Therefore, it is a work. There are no free passes into the Kingdom.

[Hoovie]

Pel,
I think Paul says that repentance is a work. Therefore, baptism must also be a work.

Paul tells King Agrippa, "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet (deserving/suitable) for repentance." (Acts 26:20)

If John, the forerunner, was preaching the "baptism of repentance", then Paul was preaching it also, except that Paul would have included the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I believe as MB put it - "And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything."

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

I don't see that it's saying repentance IS a work. "they should repent and turn to God" AND "do works meet for repentance."

The good works are caused by repentance, therefore they are in agreement with the nature of true repentance. The NKJ says "befitting" of repentance.

Also, James is saying true faith brings forth good works in a believer. A little different that saying good works creates belief or faith...

[pelathais]

Hoovie,
I don't think there is sarcasm. I feel that there is pain underneath the post. I don't know Jeff from Adam. It's just a hunch, if you will.

And, I agree. It is a fairly common mindset.
I don't know Hoovie from Jeffrey - but I would imagine that there is some painful experiences related to all of this that we all share.

I know that for myself, it was pretty easy to "push my buttons" when I first came in for therapy. I try to be more mellow now, but still... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Pressing-On]

I don't see that it's saying repentance IS a work. "they should repent and turn to God" AND "do works meet for repentance."

The good works are caused by repentance, therefore they are in agreement with the nature of true repentance. The NKJ says "befitting" of repentance.

Yes, I agree with that. "...and also among the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works and live lives consistent with and worthy of their repentance."

I think that you have to, also, consciously repent (think differently). That is a work (deed) and something we are engaged in. I think that if you are morally feeling compunction (sense of guilt), you are going to have your mental faculties involved. Therefore, it is a work. There are no free passes into the Kingdom.

[NotforSale]

Maybe that's why people don't get "it." (I hate that terminology) They were seeking tongues. When I was 14 yrs old I began to seek after tongues and nothing happened. I did not attend or even know what an Apostolic church was. When I visited a UPC (9/17/97) my focus changed from seeking tongues to asking for the Holy Spirit. I was a low down dirty sinner at the age of 15. All I did was weep for three church services. On the evening of the third service I stopped weeping. I began to worship Jesus and I asked Him for the Holy Spirit. He answered the prayer.

Ahhh....Now we know!!! You are YOUNG! :winkgrin

Give it time, Tonto. A very wise man told me once, "Time is the greatest revelator".

The shenanigans only get better, and your eyes will open about Religion IF you are honest and don't let Tradition strangle the life out of you!

Nothing can replace experience, and I'm glad you're on this Forum with your fiesty ideas that will end up in "Crow Pie". :lol

I'm eating plenty of that Pie myself.............:tissue

BTW, what did you think the Video I posted? Just a little emotional hysteria, don't ya think?

Here it is for those who missed it...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2CezWts6oU

[jfrog]

The music on that video is funny.

[NotforSale]

The music on that video is funny.

I like the guy who runs down the main aisle, with arms flying!!

[jfrog]

I like the guy who runs down the main aisle, with arms flying!!

yea he's definetly the star of that video!

[berkeley]

Give it time, Tonto.
Pardon me?

[NotforSale]

Pardon me?

The Video? :guns

[Hoovie]

Yes, I agree with that. "...and also among the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works and live lives consistent with and worthy of their repentance."

I think that you have to, also, consciously repent (think differently). That is a work (deed) and something we are engaged in. I think that if you are morally feeling compunction (sense of guilt), you are going to have your mental faculties involved. Therefore, it is a work. There are no free passes into the Kingdom.

I am just not ready to say that myself. I would think it much more appropriate to say it is the work of the Spirit which I simply yield to. The yielding is not so much an intellectual decision as it is the inner man receiving the message... no "works" involved. "God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

For it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. ISV

[pelathais]

LOL!

I looked at this again. Another website explained it in more detail. Basically, they are calling "sanctification" the "crises experiment" which was taught by John Wesley. He taught that you needed a deeper surrender and deeper consecration after you were saved in order to become spirit filled. I suppose he is just trying to explain what sanctification means to him.
You have to keep in mind however, that the teachings of Wesley laid the foundation for the entire Holiness Movement. What we are today is a large part due to the "forum debates" that Wesley had with others; such as George Whitefield (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/wesley.htm).

Wesley, with his teaching of "Entire Sanctification" founded the Holiness Movement. Debates then raged for over 100 years about "How do you know that you've been sanctified?" As people continued to pray and seek God, such things as Charles G. Finney's "anxiety bench" were introduced (he didn't call it that but the name stuck anyhow).

Finney used to bring out an old bench and place it at the front of the church and exhort members of his audience to come forward to kneel in front of the bench and to pray until "conviction fell." This is generally considered the origin of today's altar calls.

But folks were still casting about trying to find a final answer to Wesley's quest as outline here: http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html

Read the numbered points in the article. They are an excellent outline that trace Wesley's thoughts over the course of the development of the idea of "Sinless Perfection." This was the "Holy Grail" of the Holiness Movement.

But human nature being what it is, few people found a way to accomplish this state for an extended period of time - especially in their youths. So ministers were anxious to find some sort of "mark" or a sign" that their converts and parishioners had finally "arrived."

Folks experienced things they called "The Baptism of Fire" and "The Baptism of the Holy Ghost" - but experiences varied across the country and it was difficult to get the Holiness Movement as a whole behind any one phenomena.

Enter Charles Fox Parham. He became convinced that the state of "sinless perfection" could be achieved by the experience of the "infilling of the Holy Spirit." But again, how would you know objectively that someone had received the "infilling" or the baptism of the Spirit? This is where his idea of "speaking in other tongues" became the "evidence" of the Spirit's baptism.

[Pressing-On]

I am just not ready to say that myself. I would think it much more appropriate to say it is the work of the Spirit. "God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

For it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. ISV

Yes, I also agree, except, you have to be willing to comply. That is engaging in an act. He isn't doing all of the work alone. We are working together in unity.

It's just coming across that nothing is being done or demanded of our part. But that isn't true.

1 Peter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

Action is required to be saved.

[Pressing-On]

You have to keep in mind however, that the teachings of Wesley laid the foundation for the entire Holiness Movement. What we are today is a large part due to the "forum debates" that Wesley had with others; such as George Whitefield (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/wesley.htm).

Wesley, with his teaching of "Entire Sanctification" founded the Holiness Movement. Debates then raged for over 100 years about "How do you know that you've been sanctified?" As people continued to pray and seek God, such things as Charles G. Finney's "anxiety bench" were introduced (he didn't call it that but the name stuck anyhow).

Finney used to bring out an old bench and place it at the front of the church and exhort members of his audience to come forward to kneel in front of the bench and to pray until "conviction fell." This is generally considered the origin of today's altar calls.

But folks were still casting about trying to find a final answer to Wesley's quest as outline here: http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html

Read the numbered points in the article. They are an excellent outline that trace Wesley's thoughts over the course of the development of the idea of "Sinless Perfection." This was the "Holy Grail" of the Holiness Movement.

But human nature being what it is, few people found a way to accomplish this state for an extended period of time - especially in their youths. So ministers were anxious to find some sort of "mark" or a sign" that their converts and parishioners had finally "arrived."

Folks experienced things they called "The Baptism of Fire" and "The Baptism of the Holy Ghost" - but experiences varied across the country and it was difficult to get the Holiness Movement as a whole behind any one phenomena.

Enter Charles Fox Parham. He became convinced that the state of "sinless perfection" could be achieved by the experience of the "infilling of the Holy Spirit." But again, how would you know objectively that someone had received the "infilling" or the baptism of the Spirit? This is where his idea of "speaking in other tongues" became the "evidence" of the Spirit's baptism.

All of that is very interesting - men trying to define and categorize what God is doing and make that work with their experiences.

I remember Bro. Billy Cole being called in as a Charismatic. He would explain the Gospel, sometimes put a chair out, have the person repent, become baptized and then he simply wanted them to believe they would receive the Holy Ghost and they would. He was being tagged as a charismatic for his simple teaching of faith. LOL!

[berkeley]

The Video? :guns

You insulted me in Spanish.

[pelathais]

Pel,
I think Paul says that repentance is a work. Therefore, baptism must also be a work.

Paul tells King Agrippa, "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet (deserving/suitable) for repentance." (Acts 26:20)

Not every use of the word "work" should be understood as "The Works of the Law" (Romans 3:27).

The term "Legalism" is used to describe those who wanted all Christian believers to be circumcised and to follow the other "works" of the Law of Moses. A "legalist" in the NT sense then would demand obedience to the Law - hence the use of the term "legalist." This is what Paul was fighting against - legalism and the idea that the "Works of the Law" had to be performed by all Christians.

In NT theology, water baptism is never considered a "work." Paul never called baptism a "work." What Paul is telling Agrippa here is that people are being exhorted to change their lives and bring forth fruit from that change. No one is ever told they must be baptized to show that they have repented.

John the Baptist made a similar statement as Paul's when he saw some Pharisees and Sadducees coming out to his baptismal. John called upon them to "bring forth fruit meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). This command is clearly not an appeal to get into the water and be baptized. It is a command for them to change their lives.

If John, the forerunner, was preaching the "baptism of repentance", then Paul was preaching it also, except that Paul would have included the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I believe as MB put it - "And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything."

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

I think that you have to, also, consciously repent (think differently). That is a work (deed) and something we are engaged in. I think that if you are morally feeling compunction (sense of guilt), you are going to have your mental faculties involved. Therefore, it is a work. There are no free passes into the Kingdom.
I disagree and neither you nor Mike have offered any help for your statements. The "free pass" into the Kingdom is the free gift of God's grace. I have come to expect TheLegalist to say that the Gospel is not freely offered, but I'm a little surprised that you have fallen into this rhetoric. The free gift of our salvation was paid with a terrible price - the blood of Jesus Christ! To then add some more "cost" to it or to say that a believer is a like "a bumb (SIC) downtown" who gets a lollipop popped into his mouth is really startling.

Romans 5:15-21 (NKJV)

Here Paul explicitly calls salvation a "FREE GIFT." You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it; you could never earn it - but it's still all yours FREE just for the asking. All that is required is that you believe and call on Him "while He may be found."

Why can't you and Mike - and so many others - just relax, throw your arms into the air and say, "IT'S FREE! AND THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE ME TO BECOME FREE AS WELL!!!"

John 10:17-18 (NKJV) - "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself."

You gonna argue with that? It was HIS life. Nobody could even take it away from Him. So what does He do? He offers it freely

Romans 8:31-39 - Just look at the confidence and the exhilaration for life that Paul has because he has been the recipient of a free gift (compare verse 32).

1 Corinthians 2:12 - Hasn't the Holy Ghost testified to you that eternal life is yours - for FREE?

Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:17 - The waters of life are available for you - for FREE!

"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price."

Isaiah 55

Galatians 1:3-5

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

We didn't PAY Him to die for us. We didn't and could not ever pay Him pack for the gift He gave.

[rgcraig]

LOL!

I looked at this again. Another website explained it in more detail. Basically, they are calling "sanctification" the "crises experiment" which was taught by John Wesley. He taught that you needed a deeper surrender and deeper consecration after you were saved in order to become spirit filled. I suppose he is just trying to explain what sanctification means to him.

lol....so, are you going to apologize for giving him such a hard time using a real term?

[Pressing-On]

Not every use of the word "work" should be understood as "The Works of the Law" (Romans 3:27).

The term "Legalism" is used to describe those who wanted all Christian believers to be circumcised and to follow the other "works" of the Law of Moses. A "legalist" in the NT sense then would demand obedience to the Law - hence the use of the term "legalist." This is what Paul was fighting against - legalism and the idea that the "Works of the Law" had to be performed by all Christians.

In NT theology, water baptism is never considered a "work." Paul never called baptism a "work." What Paul is telling Agrippa here is that people are being exhorted to change their lives and bring forth fruit from that change. No one is ever told they must be baptized to show that they have repented.

John the Baptist made a similar statement as Paul's when he saw some Pharisees and Sadducees coming out to his baptismal. John called upon them to "bring forth fruit meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). This command is clearly not an appeal to get into the water and be baptized. It is a command for them to change their lives.

I see your point here and I agree with you that it was a command for them to change their lives after repentance.

However, II Thess 1:8 says that there is flaming fire waiting for those that would not obey the Gospel. That is a command to repent, etc., He isn't only referring to a command to change their lives here. He is addressing their immediate salvation. It is a command for them to do something on their part.

I disagree and neither you nor Mike have offered any help for your statements. The "free pass" into the Kingdom is the free gift of God's grace. I have come to expect TheLegalist to say that the Gospel is not freely offered, but I'm a little surprised that you have fallen into this rhetoric. The free gift of our salvation was paid with a terrible price - the blood of Jesus Christ! To then add some more "cost" to it or to say that a believer is a like "a bumb (SIC) downtown" who gets a lollipop popped into his mouth is really startling.

Romans 5:15-21 (NKJV)

Here Paul explicitly calls salvation a "FREE GIFT." You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it; you could never earn it - but it's still all yours FREE just for the asking. All that is required is that you believe and call on Him "while He may be found."

Why can't you and Mike - and so many others - just relax, throw your arms into the air and say, "IT'S FREE! AND THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE ME TO BECOME FREE AS WELL!!!"

John 10:17-18 (NKJV) - "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself."

You gonna argue with that? It was HIS life. Nobody could even take it away from Him. So what does He do? He offers it freely

Romans 8:31-39 - Just look at the confidence and the exhilaration for life that Paul has because he has been the recipient of a free gift (compare verse 32).

1 Corinthians 2:12 - Hasn't the Holy Ghost testified to you that eternal life is yours - for FREE?

Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:17 - The waters of life are available for you - for FREE!

"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price."

Isaiah 55

Galatians 1:3-5

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

We didn't PAY Him to die for us. We didn't and could not ever pay Him pack for the gift He gave.
I believe that Jesus "willingly" and "freely" gave His life and offers us a way of escape. Everything He has is available for us because of His sacrifice. As we have already stated, everything flows from the cross.

When He says "free" it is defined as "liberate". I don't see, in all instances, that it is being defined as "having no cost or without a charge."

I Cor 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

This scripture is reaching past our obtained salvation to the things we are "freely given" having His Spirit. It is referring to the things the Spirit does teach us. (I John 2:27)

If we obey the Gospel, we are then liberated from sin. It cost Him a great deal. By His grace and His mercy He has torn down the middle wall of partition to accept all those that are willing. But we must do our part. We must willingly obey the Gospel. That is the only way we can partake of anything Jesus has to offer.

Ephesians 3:6 "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" (Ephesians 3:6).

We are made partakers BY/THROUGH the Gospel. We must obey. (II Thess 1:8; Acts 5:32; Hebrews 5:9; I Peter 4:7).

[Pressing-On]

lol....so, are you going to apologize for giving him such a hard time using a real term?

No, because one place that I read it was speaking of the second blessing, the Holy Ghost infilling and the "crisis experience". I looked somewhere else to get a better understanding. Sorry to disappoint you.

And, BTW, your post is probably a good example of why I didn't and won't apologize for my previous infraction. :D

[Jeffrey]

You have to keep in mind however, that the teachings of Wesley laid the foundation for the entire Holiness Movement. What we are today is a large part due to the "forum debates" that Wesley had with others; such as George Whitefield (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/wesley.htm).

Wesley, with his teaching of "Entire Sanctification" founded the Holiness Movement. Debates then raged for over 100 years about "How do you know that you've been sanctified?" As people continued to pray and seek God, such things as Charles G. Finney's "anxiety bench" were introduced (he didn't call it that but the name stuck anyhow).

Finney used to bring out an old bench and place it at the front of the church and exhort members of his audience to come forward to kneel in front of the bench and to pray until "conviction fell." This is generally considered the origin of today's altar calls.

But folks were still casting about trying to find a final answer to Wesley's quest as outline here: http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html

Read the numbered points in the article. They are an excellent outline that trace Wesley's thoughts over the course of the development of the idea of "Sinless Perfection." This was the "Holy Grail" of the Holiness Movement.

But human nature being what it is, few people found a way to accomplish this state for an extended period of time - especially in their youths. So ministers were anxious to find some sort of "mark" or a sign" that their converts and parishioners had finally "arrived."

Folks experienced things they called "The Baptism of Fire" and "The Baptism of the Holy Ghost" - but experiences varied across the country and it was difficult to get the Holiness Movement as a whole behind any one phenomena.

Enter Charles Fox Parham. He became convinced that the state of "sinless perfection" could be achieved by the experience of the "infilling of the Holy Spirit." But again, how would you know objectively that someone had received the "infilling" or the baptism of the Spirit? This is where his idea of "speaking in other tongues" became the "evidence" of the Spirit's baptism.

Which brings us to the Finished Work doctrine that opposed Wesley's view.

This debate actually still goes on today!

[Jeffrey]

All of that is very interesting - men trying to define and categorize what God is doing and make that work with their experiences.

I remember Bro. Billy Cole being called in as a Charismatic. He would explain the Gospel, sometimes put a chair out, have the person repent, become baptized and then he simply wanted them to believe they would receive the Holy Ghost and they would. He was being tagged as a charismatic for his simple teaching of faith. LOL!

Charismatic wasn't a pejorative term always. That's just in the last 20 years. And to some, it's still not pejorative though!

In a matter of genre, Pentecostal/Charismatic go together like a horse and carriage.

[Jeffrey]

No, because one place that I read it was speaking of the second blessing, the Holy Ghost infilling and the "crisis experience". I looked somewhere else to get a better understanding. Sorry to disappoint you.

And, BTW, your post is probably a good example of why I didn't and won't apologize for my previous infraction. :D

Second and Third Blessing. In other words, all of these episodes, whatever you want to call them that suits you personally, refer to a powerful interaction with the Spirit. Wesley believed a similar crisis experience for baptism in the Spirit was what happened for sanctification. Of course his doctrine spun out of control with the Holiness movement and later Pentecostals, and those who believed later that we are imputed (literally) righteousness, which fed into triumphalism and this idea that perfection is realistic, and even a present reality.

[Jeffrey]

I would recommend looking up the thread "Salvation and the Spirit" as an addendum to this thread, which Pel has really helped become something to read.

[Pastor Keith]

You haven't really been saved until your

Saved
Sanctified
Holy Ghost Filled
Fire Baptized

or so they said in the old days

[DAII]

Not every use of the word "work" should be understood as "The Works of the Law" (Romans 3:27).

The term "Legalism" is used to describe those who wanted all Christian believers to be circumcised and to follow the other "works" of the Law of Moses. A "legalist" in the NT sense then would demand obedience to the Law - hence the use of the term "legalist." This is what Paul was fighting against - legalism and the idea that the "Works of the Law" had to be performed by all Christians.

In NT theology, water baptism is never considered a "work." Paul never called baptism a "work." What Paul is telling Agrippa here is that people are being exhorted to change their lives and bring forth fruit from that change. No one is ever told they must be baptized to show that they have repented.

John the Baptist made a similar statement as Paul's when he saw some Pharisees and Sadducees coming out to his baptismal. John called upon them to "bring forth fruit meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). This command is clearly not an appeal to get into the water and be baptized. It is a command for them to change their lives.

I disagree and neither you nor Mike have offered any help for your statements. The "free pass" into the Kingdom is the free gift of God's grace. I have come to expect TheLegalist to say that the Gospel is not freely offered, but I'm a little surprised that you have fallen into this rhetoric. The free gift of our salvation was paid with a terrible price - the blood of Jesus Christ! To then add some more "cost" to it or to say that a believer is a like "a bumb (SIC) downtown" who gets a lollipop popped into his mouth is really startling.

Romans 5:15-21 (NKJV)

Here Paul explicitly calls salvation a "FREE GIFT." You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it; you could never earn it - but it's still all yours FREE just for the asking. All that is required is that you believe and call on Him "while He may be found."

Why can't you and Mike - and so many others - just relax, throw your arms into the air and say, "IT'S FREE! AND THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE ME TO BECOME FREE AS WELL!!!"

John 10:17-18 (NKJV) - "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself."

You gonna argue with that? It was HIS life. Nobody could even take it away from Him. So what does He do? He offers it freely

Romans 8:31-39 - Just look at the confidence and the exhilaration for life that Paul has because he has been the recipient of a free gift (compare verse 32).

1 Corinthians 2:12 - Hasn't the Holy Ghost testified to you that eternal life is yours - for FREE?

Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:17 - The waters of life are available for you - for FREE!

"Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price."

Isaiah 55

Galatians 1:3-5

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

We didn't PAY Him to die for us. We didn't and could not ever pay Him pack for the gift He gave.

Agreed the idea of works is also tied to works of RIGHTEOUSNESS .... a term Paul uses this term in Titus:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Also atually Paul does NOT use the expression "THE works of THE law" (even ONCE). The translators have wrongly inserted the definite article "THE". In the original Greek (as Young's literal translation tells us) Paul is talking about a more generic expression "works of law". NOT "the works of the law" - just "works of law". That's worth taking a note of, because it gives us a clue about what Paul is really criticizing.

For example he uses the expression works of law with Abraham which precedes the Mosaic law.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV


This notion that we purchase our salvation be ANATHEMA.

[Michael The Disciple]

Second and Third Blessing. In other words, all of these episodes, whatever you want to call them that suits you personally, refer to a powerful interaction with the Spirit. Wesley believed a similar crisis experience for baptism in the Spirit was what happened for sanctification. Of course his doctrine spun out of control with the Holiness movement and later Pentecostals, and those who believed later that we are imputed (literally) righteousness, which fed into triumphalism and this idea that perfection is realistic, and even a present reality.

This idea that perfection is a reality? You mean the idea that came from the Lord Jesus Christ?

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

[rgcraig]

No, because one place that I read it was speaking of the second blessing, the Holy Ghost infilling and the "crisis experience". I looked somewhere else to get a better understanding. Sorry to disappoint you.

And, BTW, your post is probably a good example of why I didn't and won't apologize for my previous infraction. :D

But, you did apologize for what you said to me, which I appreciated.

[Pressing-On]

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. NKJV

This notion that we purchase our salvation be ANATHEMA.
I think that the context of what Paul is speaking about in Ephesians 2 is that the Gentiles, having always been called "uncircumcised", have now been united with Christ. They were not ushered in by a free pass. They too had to obey the Gospel.

Ephesians 2:11 "Don’t forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders. You were called “uncircumcised heathens” by the Jews, who were proud of their circumcision, even though it affected only their bodies and not their hearts. 12 In those days you were living apart from Christ. You were excluded from citizenship among the people of Israel, and you did not know the covenant promises God had made to them. You lived in this world without God and without hope. 13 But now you have been united with Christ Jesus. Once you were far away from God, but now you have been brought near to him through the blood of Christ. 14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us."

I'm not sure whether we are talking past each other, but I have issue with this in the discussion:


I must believe and have faith, but there are things that I must obey and do. Are you suggesting that you are saved by belief alone?


Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.


This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief. I still have to respond and obey the Gospel. If all I had to do to be saved is to believe, what would be the point of repenting and baptism? My belief causes me to respond to the Gospel and to go on to perfection (maturity) in Christ.

[Pressing-On]

Second and Third Blessing. In other words, all of these episodes, whatever you want to call them that suits you personally, refer to a powerful interaction with the Spirit. Wesley believed a similar crisis experience for baptism in the Spirit was what happened for sanctification. Of course his doctrine spun out of control with the Holiness movement and later Pentecostals, and those who believed later that we are imputed (literally) righteousness, which fed into triumphalism and this idea that perfection is realistic, and even a present reality.
This is just too hard to wrap my brain around. LOL!

PO, you're still narrowly defining the term. I wasn't referring to a "second blessing" nor is the term exclusive to describing "second blessing" though that is what many early Pentecostals believed. Crisis experience explains the "Jesus Bomb" called Spirit Baptism.

[Pressing-On]

But, you did apologize for what you said to me, which I appreciated.
But, ONE of them I didn't. LOL! But, we digress.

[Hoovie]

I will just apologize for everyone.

Clean slate.

Now let'er RIP!!

[Pressing-On]

I will just apologize for everyone.

Clean slate.

Now let'er RIP!!
LOL! Just messin' with the Rendanator! :toofunny

[Timmy]

I will just apologize for everyone.

Clean slate.

Now let'er RIP!!

I forgive you all.

:lol

[Pressing-On]

I forgive you all.

:lol

Shalom!!!

:bow:bow

[Timmy]

Shalom!!!

:bow:bow

Now go and sin no more.

:ursofunny

[Pressing-On]

Now go and sin no more.

:ursofunny
I'm workin' on it! :toofunny

[Timmy]

I'm workin' on it! :toofunny

Good for you, cuz, who knows.... maybe you are saved by works! :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

Good for you, cuz, who knows.... maybe you are saved by works! :heeheehee

Love it!!!

:ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

[pelathais]

I see your point here and I agree with you that it was a command for them to change their lives after repentance.

However, II Thess 1:8 says that there is flaming fire waiting for those that would not obey the Gospel. That is a command to repent, etc., He isn't only referring to a command to change their lives here. He is addressing their immediate salvation. It is a command for them to do something on their part.
So, Paul is commanding the church at Thessalonika to be baptized - again? And, he's using the impending judgment of reprobates as a means to strengthen that command?

I don't accept the "once saved always saved" notion. There are many commands associated with the Christian life (John 13:34, for example). But salvation itself comes as a free gift whose only command is "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden..."


I believe that Jesus "willingly" and "freely" gave His life and offers us a way of escape. Everything He has is available for us because of His sacrifice. As we have already stated, everything flows from the cross.
I stated that, but you can too now. :thumbsup


When He says "free" it is defined as "liberate". I don't see, in all instances, that it is being defined as "having no cost or without a charge."

I Cor 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

This scripture is reaching past our obtained salvation to the things we are "freely given" having His Spirit. It is referring to the things the Spirit does teach us. (I John 2:27)

If we obey the Gospel, we are then liberated from sin. It cost Him a great deal. By His grace and His mercy He has torn down the middle wall of partition to accept all those that are willing. But we must do our part. We must willingly obey the Gospel. That is the only way we can partake of anything Jesus has to offer.

Ephesians 3:6 "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" (Ephesians 3:6).

We are made partakers BY/THROUGH the Gospel. We must obey. (II Thess 1:8; Acts 5:32; Hebrews 5:9; I Peter 4:7).
It indeed cost Him a great deal, as I said earlier, but it costs us nothing.

Romans 5:15-21

Salvation is a free gift. It is made available - for free! - by the One Who gave His all.

Having received this free gift - we then become His servants (Romans 8:11-15) Not servants to sin and death, and not just servants either! We are fellow heirs to the Kingdom (Romans 8:16-17). As stewards of the Kingdom we have a tremendous responsibility (2 Corinthians 4:6-7).

I don't think we're arguing about different things, but rather about how best to articulate the same thing. The "One Stepper" method established the foundation with the Gospel as a free gift that is freely available to all. From this foundation the commands that follow are not onerous dictates of what the believer "has to do!" But, they are opportunities to serve our Lord.

They are not "assigned tasks and burdens" required to repay Him for our salvation. They are privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

"One Stepper" preachers don't look upon the saints they serve as "mindless sheep" whose legs need to be broken from time to time. They see themselves as servants whose life calling and purpose is to encourage and build up the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2) and to treat them as fellow servants and heirs to a Kingdom that is not their own.

All of this creates an entirely different atmosphere. The relationships are deeper and more genuine. The climate of worship is more open and free. The smiles on everyone's face are more ready and there's less of that "plastic smile."

How we articulate the free gift of the Gospel and the subsequent commands will affect everything else that we do. That's why I think it's important to get it right.

[pelathais]

Which brings us to the Finished Work doctrine that opposed Wesley's view.

This debate actually still goes on today!
Yes! William H. Durham was the one who in essence cut the apron strings from the older Holiness Movement (Wesleyan). But in doing so, he rolled over a lot of the baggage - or really, those that followed did.

There was no more need for the "crisis" of sanctification (that others are teasing one another about on this thread). Instead, we have the whole "crisis" rolled up into a single evening... even if that makes for a very long evening, night and into the next morning.

Theologically, it was a great step forward from the endless pursuit of "sinless perfection." However, by picking up so much of the baggage of the Holiness Movement and the whole "You Gotta Earn It and Deserve It" mentality the difference really became more one of semantics, IMHO.

[pelathais]

This idea that perfection is a reality? You mean the idea that came from the Lord Jesus Christ?

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48
Do you really compare yourself on a one-to-one basis with the Almighty, Michael? Or, am I missing something that you've left unsaid here?

[pelathais]

...
DAII makes and excellent point with "THE WORKS OF THE LAW" - one that I skipped right by.

This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief. I still have to respond and obey the Gospel. If all I had to do to be saved is to believe, what would be the point of repenting and baptism? My belief causes me to respond to the Gospel and to go on to perfection (maturity) in Christ.
How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

Hebrews 11:6. You must believe that God is actually "on the other end of the line," and you've got to believe that what you are doing (conversion, repentance) is worthwhile.

You've got to believe (Galatians 3:6).

But the gift of eternal life is free!

[pelathais]

I will just apologize for everyone.

Clean slate.

Now let'er RIP!!
I must of missed it, Hoovie. You're alright by me! http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Pressing-On]

So, Paul is commanding the church at Thessalonika to be baptized - again? And, he's using the impending judgment of reprobates as a means to strengthen that command?
Pel,
For heaven's sake - NO. He is not asking saved people to become saved once again. lol The point being made in II Thess 1:8 is that someone is going to end up in fiery flames if they do not obey the Gospel. He is speaking of someone giving them trouble who is not being receptive to the Gospel message.

For you to say there are no tasks involved is erroneous. I would prefer to say "action" on our part. II Thess 1:8 is saying that someone was not listening, cooperating, nor responding to the action required of them and their end is not going to be pleasant.

It is not as simple as saying - It's free. Free is being liberated. You are putting it in the context of having no cost - a monetary element.

I don't accept the "once saved always saved" notion. There are many commands associated with the Christian life (John 13:34, for example). But salvation itself comes as a free gift whose only command is "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden..."
You didn't finish the rest of this passage - "Take my yoke upon you..."

We have responsibilities on our part. How is His yoke easy and His burden light? "Casting all of your cares upon Him, for He careth for you." (I Peter 5:7)


It indeed cost Him a great deal, as I said earlier, but it costs us nothing.

Romans 5:15-21

Salvation is a free gift. It is made available - for free! - by the One Who gave His all.
I like the reading in the CEV for Romans 5:15-21. Free simply means that it not something that we can do ourselves - shed our own blood. That was his doings. The typology of the lamb without spot or blemish, the kinsman Reedeemer, etc. We could never have measured up to being qualified.

Isaiah 63:1 "Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.

(5) And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

I believe He gives us a measure of faith (Romans 12:3), but it is our responsibility to respond in obedience. Acts 5:32 says that the Holy Ghost was given to those that "obeyed". That means they had to do something on their part to receive that gift.

Having received this free gift - we then become His servants (Romans 8:11-15) Not servants to sin and death, and not just servants either! We are fellow heirs to the Kingdom (Romans 8:16-17). As stewards of the Kingdom we have a tremendous responsibility (2 Corinthians 4:6-7).

I don't think we're arguing about different things, but rather about how best to articulate the same thing. The "One Stepper" method established the foundation with the Gospel as a free gift that is freely available to all. From this foundation the commands that follow are not onerous dictates of what the believer "has to do!" But, they are opportunities to serve our Lord.

They are not "assigned tasks and burdens" required to repay Him for our salvation. They are privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

"One Stepper" preachers don't look upon the saints they serve as "mindless sheep" whose legs need to be broken from time to time. They see themselves as servants whose life calling and purpose is to encourage and build up the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2) and to treat them as fellow servants and heirs to a Kingdom that is not their own.

All of this creates an entirely different atmosphere. The relationships are deeper and more genuine. The climate of worship is more open and free. The smiles on everyone's face are more ready and there's less of that "plastic smile."

How we articulate the free gift of the Gospel and the subsequent commands will affect everything else that we do. That's why I think it's important to get it right.
I don't like using terms that we've come up with, but if you want to say three-stepper - okay - we seem to be forced into using it. I don't find any of those steps as laborious tasks or burdens. I view them, also, as privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

And as much as you want to say there are no instructions for anything we "have to do" on our part, except to believe, I beg to differ. II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17 beg to differ. Those two scriptures alone let you know that only believing is not going to save you. If you don't obey the Gospel, you are going to have a fiery end. I guess that is not lovely enough or positive enough to include in a message, huh? lol

Your last few paragraphs reveal where the angst of this issue actually lies, Pel. ;)

[Pressing-On]

DAII makes and excellent point with "THE WORKS OF THE LAW" - one that I skipped right by.

How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

Hebrews 11:6. You must believe that God is actually "on the other end of the line," and you've got to believe that what you are doing (conversion, repentance) is worthwhile.

You've got to believe (Galatians 3:6).

But the gift of eternal life is free!
I did not say that "nothing is demanded on my part". My exact quote is: "This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief."

Faith is not all that is demanded. Obedience is also demanded (II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17) two good examples of that.

I do believe we must have faith/belief to even begin to obey. But our salvation does not stop at believing only. That is the impression you are giving me concerning salvation.

In Galatians it does say that Abraham was counted righteous for his belief, but if God had known that in his heart he had no intention of obeying His command to become circumcised, his righteousness would not have been able to stand.

[mfblume]

Man, you folks write so much in a couple of days that posts are hard to find in order ot catch up.That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.:)

As shocked as you are by my use of that thought, I am shocked you deny it. Sorry, I stand wholeheartedly by it. Acts is accounts of actual sermons, and Romans is written to saved people not sinners.

I am no know-it-all, but I have studied Romans more than most other books of the bible. My ministry focuses on the work of the cross and Romans does the job better than any other book, I think.

Romans 6, for example, says that we must know that we who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. That is speaking of saved people. Romans is speaking to the church no matter how anyone slices it, according to that. It is an epistle. Epistles were written to churches.

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:

1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

That is a moot point. Again, let me repeat my thoughts:

Those who accuse us of proposing one must speak in tongues to be saved, are implying that tongues are something we do to inherit eternal life from fleshly effort, and that is simply not the case.

And the same principle applies ot bpatism, as I have stated.

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis.

Oh please. Internal evidence abounds to that end.

So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience?

Why preach to the choir, is the point.

He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink?

Let us reason here. If I preached in your church and all of you were saved, and I had to deal with the situation of how salvation brought us to a place where we have to assess our relationship with Israel and God's plan, (which was the case with Romans 10), I would not go into redundant details about it.

The context is emphasizing Israel's need to come to God like the rest of us in the here and now. And Paul cited Deut 30's reference to the mouth and the heart. Now, everyone SHOULD know that Deut 30 did not detail the plan of salvation as it would be revealed once the cross occurred. But Deut 30 mentioned the heart and the mouth. Paul played on that passage and showed how it applied to the church salvation he preached. No one could read Deut 30 to sinners and claim it shows salvation in complete form, for more reasons than that Jesus' name is not mentioned!

Think of Paul citing Deut 30, and I feel it proves my point.

Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't.

Moot. You are neglecting the overall context of Romans 10 and how Paul was dealing with the issue of ISRAEL. He was contrasting works from salvation by faith. You know the issue about Israel and their handle on Law and how they missed the boat. That changes everything. Let's not take a couple of verses in Romans 10 and propose an entire dogma here.

They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

I have in fact said that! I did so in contrast to the idea that people can work to be saved.

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever??

Paul was not dealing with that issue, whether you agree or not. I am being honest here. You are missing the context.

Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

They heard the steps through preaching that occurred before there even was a church in Rome, and before the congregation formed to later receive this epistle.

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

Then repentance is not required for salvation.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

You did it again! You make it sound like baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are human efforts we employ to save ourselves using fleshly effort alone. And they're not.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.

Speaking of steps in that context is totally different than what I am proposing. In fact, I have never called my belief "three step salvation."

The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

No, look at the common denominator in all accounts of major ethnic groups beings saved for the first time.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

You want me to refrain from phrases such as what you just made? lol

Brother, you are not concerning yourself over the context of Romans 10 's reference to Deut 30, and his overall point.

[mfblume]

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

I think you got our idea of what happens in baptism incorrectly.

I already stated forgiveness happens at repentance. Before baptism. But it is the faith that works that God sees in our repentance.

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law?
If it is, then it is wrong.

If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

It is not, so it is part of salvation. Baptism is not something that involves the action of lowering into water to move God to remit sins. God could have said anything, but there is a heart that has faith which must be so obedient for it to be the heart God requires of us.

IMHO.

[mfblume]

Your speculation about "if God knew" is just that: purely speculative. What a STREEEEEEETCH. :ursofunny

I see no speculation at all. James explained all this!

[mfblume]

The "One Step" position has always been that "the blood is applied at repentance." That is the historical reality.

The teaching of how baptism is integral to salvation is also historically a position always maintained by others, but not in a manner of salvation by works.


You appear to be adding some form of hyper-Calvinism whereby predestination completely overwhelms the choices that we make. That is NOT "One Stepper" theology.

No. I am simply saying that if repentance is required, as one steppers say, then it is contradictory to say that baptism is not since it is a work. So one has to sidestep even repentance to avoid that one step contradiction.

Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Peter said, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21

Paul said, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

Jesus said again, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

The list is almost endless. The "One Stepper" theology has always called for repentance. And, your reasoning is flawed if you say, "Well, if you have to repent then you have to... [fill in the blank]..."

I see no flaw in it at all. Principly, baptism and Spirit infilling is as much a work as repentance, so you cannot say repentance is required but the other two are not.

All the sinner is ever called to do is to repent. All of the stuff that has been added on to that call has either been to support the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or more recently, a result of John Wesley's problems in grappling with the notion of sinless perfection (http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html).

I disagree. People preached required baptism long before the RCC existed! Peter said it saves!

[mfblume]

You may compare repentance to just about anything you wish, however it is what the Gospel requires of each of us.

You missed my point. The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

To extend your line of reasoning, could we say that "REPENTANCE IS THE SAME THING AS BAPTISM?" Are they interchangeable?

Inapplicable and moot. Again, read my emphasis about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationist argument which is error.


So then, what purpose is served by REPENTANCE and what purpose is served by BAPTISM? They clearly serve two purposes.

It matters not, bro. :) The issue is whether or not they are self efforts that are done through self-s abilities to make self righteous without God's grace making us righteous. Why does this keep getting away from THAT issue? That is the issue Paul dealt with in speaking of salvation by works, which is the implication folks give when they accuse people of saying we must speak in tongues to be saved?

Repentance is how the sinner comes to Christ and is saved.

Baptism is what the newly saved believer does to begin their new life - "rising" into the newness of life.

Sure. But neither are actions of self making self righteous.

There of course is more, however this serves to show the "One Stepper" belief that "the blood is applied at repentance."

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance, though.

The "Three Stepper" plan is more ambiguous. Some will say the blood is applied at baptism (the way I was brought up), others will say salvation is not complete until a person has "spoken in tongues" and they then avoid the whole "blood" analogy altogether.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.

Set aside your arguments that you have had with "Evangelicals" and the like for a moment. Your argument now is with Oneness brethren. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Dropping the "anti-Evangelical" line will allow the discussion to carry on (on both sides) free from the confusion of "What is a Work?" and all of that baggage.

Paul's arguments against "Works" were directed against "THE WORKS OF THE LAW." Evangelicals apply these statements to try and argue their thoughts on water baptism. While there can be a sort of "New Testament era" application concerning "the Works of the Law" (see any dress code thread), water baptism exists as something entirely apart from all of that.

Which is why baptism and tongues should not be referred to in speaking of what someone does to be saved, as though they were works of the law. So folks have to stop using that language, since that basis of works of law are what they are implying when they use it.

Water baptism and repentance are two different things that accomplish two different things in the life of the believer. Neither are "works" in New Testament theology.

Good. So no one here can criticize people who believe we need Spirit Baptism as part of new birth by saying we require tongues to be saved.

[mfblume]

How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

So there are TWO STEPS? Faith and then repentance?

[Pressing-On]

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance, though.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.


I see that more clearly now, Bro. Blume. I agree that it's reference is in Exodus. I'll be more careful with that wording in the future. Mainly because, as you said, the NT doesn't use language of applying the blood. :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

:thumbsup

[pelathais]

Pel,
For heaven's sake - NO. He is not asking saved people to become saved once again. lol The point being made in II Thess 1:8 is that someone is going to end up in fiery flames if they do not obey the Gospel. He is speaking of someone giving them trouble who is not being receptive to the Gospel message.

For you to say there are no tasks involved is erroneous. I would prefer to say "action" on our part. II Thess 1:8 is saying that someone was not listening, cooperating, nor responding to the action required of them and their end is not going to be pleasant.

It is not as simple as saying - It's free. Free is being liberated. You are putting it in the context of having no cost - a monetary element.

Whatever "tasks" can be associated with "believing the Gospel" are the only "tasks" required. If someone has to scratch their chin while they ponder the mysteries of salvation before they then act in faith and believe - then "scratching their chin" is a part of their salvation, in a sense. But it would obviously be silly to say that such a thing is a "work" that they must do in order to be saved.

Of course, they had to consume carbohydrates and proteins to get the food energy for their brain cells to function in the first place, and before that their parents had to be introduced at Bible College... the list of such "works" is really an endless chain going back to the very foundation of the world when Jesus Christ chose us to be complete in Him in the first place!

Given that chain of events, well, I guess we have to wrestle with those pesky Calvinistic notions again. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

We are to respond to the call of Jesus Christ when He bids us, "Come!" Whatever it takes for a person to metaphorically "get out of their chair" and to follow our Lord - then that's what it takes.

The attempt to cloud the issue by adding the whole confused jargon of "repentance is a work, believing is a work" is a red herring, IMHO. The fact that they will then add, "baptism is a work," men wearing short hair and women uncut hair is a work, wearing hosiery with seams is a work... etc." to what is "required" for salvation shows their true intentions.

Seeking to achieve "balance" the Calvinist would then go all the way back over to God's plan and foreknowledge.

I prefer to just exist in the "here and now" with real people making real choices that will affect their lives (without completely ignoring all the rest).

Belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the standard of salvation. Jesus shed His blood at Calvary for the remission (Matthew 26:28) and as a propitiation (Romans 3:25) for our sins. Propitiation = "atoning sacrifice."

Faith in Jesus Christ (repentance, conversion, whatever you want to call it) is how "the blood is applied" to the door posts and lintels of our hearts.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. This accounting was done before Abraham had done anything else other than "Come" (leave Haran).

Over time, Abraham's works gave tremendous testimony to his faith (James 2:23), but Abraham was counted as "righteous" before those works were accomplished (Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3-6 and Galatians 3:6-14).

You didn't finish the rest of this passage - "Take my yoke upon you..."

Oh! I didn't know there was more to that verse...

Count how many times that I've quoted or cited that very passage in this thread. Half a dozen times already? Ten times? Something like that.

We have responsibilities on our part. How is His yoke easy and His burden light? "Casting all of your cares upon Him, for He careth for you." (I Peter 5:7)
And "casting our cares" is another "work" to be added to the long list of "works?" http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I like the reading in the CEV for Romans 5:15-21. Free simply means that it not something that we can do ourselves - shed our own blood. That was his doings. The typology of the lamb without spot or blemish, the kinsman Reedeemer, etc. We could never have measured up to being qualified.
This is exactly what I been saying, but you've been taking issue with. We simply couldn't do it on our own and there is no way that we can "pay it back." Thus, it is offered freely to all who believe.

I believe He gives us a measure of faith (Romans 12:3), but it is our responsibility to respond in obedience. Acts 5:32 says that the Holy Ghost was given to those that "obeyed". That means they had to do something on their part to receive that gift.
Yes, they had to "tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." But, the blood that cleansed them from sin had already been shed. The "remission" of sins was already in effect (Matthew 26:28).

I don't like using terms that we've come up with, but if you want to say three-stepper - okay - we seem to be forced into using it. I don't find any of those steps as laborious tasks or burdens. I view them, also, as privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.
And they are in fact just the first steps of a life long walk. But the first "step" is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ as the payment for the penalty for our sins. When that faith is utilized, the blood itself is applied.

And as much as you want to say there are no instructions for anything we "have to do" on our part, except to believe, I beg to differ.
Are you quoting me accurately here?

II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17 beg to differ. Those two scriptures alone let you know that only believing is not going to save you.

If you don't obey the Gospel, you are going to have a fiery end. I guess that is not lovely enough or positive enough to include in a message, huh? lol [/quote]
Getting into the blood that was shed isn't the most pleasant of topics for many people either, but that's the Gospel.

[pelathais]

Your last few paragraphs reveal where the angst of this issue actually lies, Pel. ;)
Ohhh... you don't know the half of it, Sis! But I won't burden you at this time.

And, I think that it is an important point to have "angst" about. The whole Onesness movement is a mess, in large part due to our common inability to come to terms with the Gospel itself.

[pelathais]

I did not say that "nothing is demanded on my part". My exact quote is: "This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief."
The dichotomy of that statement struck me, that's all. "Nothing... and yet something."

[pelathais]

No. I am simply saying that if repentance is required, as one steppers say, then it is contradictory to say that baptism is not since it is a work. So one has to sidestep even repentance to avoid that one step contradiction.

It is a contrived "contradiction" however. Abraham did something and God accounted that as "righteousness." What did Abraham do? Was he baptized? Was he circumcised? Did he offer the blood of bulls and goats or even his own son?

No.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

It was the apostle Paul of Tarsus who made such a big deal out of this.

Romans 4:3-6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:20-25; Galatians 3:6-14; Hebrews 11:8.

Before you skip down to Genesis 22 and James 2, you must first complete your reading of Genesis 15 and the related NT passages. This, I think, is how we end up in our present differences.

[Pressing-On]

Whatever "tasks" can be associated with "believing the Gospel" are the only "tasks" required. If someone has to scratch their chin while they ponder the mysteries of salvation before they then act in faith and believe - then "scratching their chin" is a part of their salvation, in a sense. But it would obviously be silly to say that such a thing is a "work" that they must do in order to be saved.

Of course, they had to consume carbohydrates and proteins to get the food energy for their brain cells to function in the first place, and before that their parents had to be introduced at Bible College... the list of such "works" is really an endless chain going back to the very foundation of the world when Jesus Christ chose us to be complete in Him in the first place!

Given that chain of events, well, I guess we have to wrestle with those pesky Calvinistic notions again. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

We are to respond to the call of Jesus Christ when He bids us, "Come!" Whatever it takes for a person to metaphorically "get out of their chair" and to follow our Lord - then that's what it takes.

The attempt to cloud the issue by adding the whole confused jargon of "repentance is a work, believing is a work" is a red herring, IMHO. The fact that they will then add, "baptism is a work," men wearing short hair and women uncut hair is a work, wearing hosiery with seams is a work... etc." to what is "required" for salvation shows their true intentions.

Seeking to achieve "balance" the Calvinist would then go all the way back over to God's plan and foreknowledge.

I prefer to just exist in the "here and now" with real people making real choices that will affect their lives (without completely ignoring all the rest).

Belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the standard of salvation. Jesus shed His blood at Calvary for the remission (Matthew 26:28) and as a propitiation (Romans 3:25) for our sins. Propitiation = "atoning sacrifice."

Faith in Jesus Christ (repentance, conversion, whatever you want to call it) is how "the blood is applied" to the door posts and lintels of our hearts.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. This accounting was done before Abraham had done anything else other than "Come" (leave Haran).

Over time, Abraham's works gave tremendous testimony to his faith (James 2:23), but Abraham was counted as "righteous" before those works were accomplished (Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3-6 and Galatians 3:6-14).

Oh! I didn't know there was more to that verse...

Count how many times that I've quoted or cited that very passage in this thread. Half a dozen times already? Ten times? Something like that.

And "casting our cares" is another "work" to be added to the long list of "works?" http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This is exactly what I been saying, but you've been taking issue with. We simply couldn't do it on our own and there is no way that we can "pay it back." Thus, it is offered freely to all who believe.

Yes, they had to "tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." But, the blood that cleansed them from sin had already been shed. The "remission" of sins was already in effect (Matthew 26:28).

And they are in fact just the first steps of a life long walk. But the first "step" is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ as the payment for the penalty for our sins. When that faith is utilized, the blood itself is applied.

Are you quoting me accurately here?


If you don't obey the Gospel, you are going to have a fiery end. I guess that is not lovely enough or positive enough to include in a message, huh? lol
Getting into the blood that was shed isn't the most pleasant of topics for many people either, but that's the Gospel.

I believe that our faith is what causes us to obey the Gospel. I don't believe our faith alone saves us. You must also obey. Of course, you cannot have obedience without faith and I don't think true faith would not include obedience.

And as we have discussed, concerning works, I believe these things (repentance and baptism) are actions of obedience and not in the category of a works based faith on the level of the Law - obtaining our own righteousness.

It would be more accurate to the Word to relegate the term "works/toil" - good works - to the things we do after we are saved. And then, again, we must continue in the faith to ultimately have eternal life.

Having faith, we must obey the Gospel. Having salvation, we must continue in that faith.

[Pressing-On]

Ohhh... you don't know the half of it, Sis! But I won't burden you at this time.

And, I think that it is an important point to have "angst" about. The whole Onesness movement is a mess, in large part due to our common inability to come to terms with the Gospel itself.

I could also share some stories, but I view them as part of my "perfection/maturing". I learned more about Jesus Christ through these times than any other - "No weapon formed against thee shall prosper."

But, really, amidst all those memories, the most traumatizing thing that happened in my life was when my parents divorced after I graduated from High School. I think it has affected all of my sisters and my brother and will for the rest of our lives. The church couldn't touch that in anguish.

[Pressing-On]

The dichotomy of that statement struck me, that's all. "Nothing... and yet something."
LOL! I see what you mean. I just meant that I don't think it ends at faith alone. We must also obey the Gospel. I sound like a broken record. LOL!

Enjoyed the conversation, Pel. Hope you have a great Easter weekend! :friend

[Jeffrey]

This idea that perfection is a reality? You mean the idea that came from the Lord Jesus Christ?

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

Haha... great, let's talk about it.

How's being perfect working out for you these days?

[Jeffrey]

Myth to debunk next: "Romans was written to believers, therefore everything Paul says contains omissions based on the assumption of who is audience was." Hmmm... some of us need to get drunk on some Pauline thought for a moment. In actuality, there were not only times in Romans where Paul addressed unbelieving Jews, but he wrote the letter (though not systematic) in very much a theological form. He discusses the organics of how the things works. I would not even consider that he would "omit" anything at that point based on assumption. That's horrible logic. He included many details one would "assume" believers would know.... so it doesn't work. No one uses that playing card anyway, except a few stragglers trying to minimize the words of Paul and cram their own theology into his mouth, as if he is inadequate to represent himself.

[Michael The Disciple]

Haha... great, let's talk about it.

How's being perfect working out for you these days?

Why would how its working out for me be more important to discuss than the fact Christ commanded his disciples to be perfect EVEN AS the Father in Heaven is perfect?

Whether or not it was "working out" for someone would not change what the Lord Jesus Christ said.

[notofworks]

This idea that perfection is a reality? You mean the idea that came from the Lord Jesus Christ?

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48


Wait......are you saying.......

......sorry to jump in here, but are you saying that we are to be perfect like God, as in "perfect"??? Like flawless, no error, infallible, etc.? I must've missed something, 'cause you can't mean that.

[notofworks]

Myth to debunk next: "Romans was written to believers, therefore everything Paul says contains omissions based on the assumption of who is audience was." Hmmm... some of us need to get drunk on some Pauline thought for a moment. In actuality, there were not only times in Romans where Paul addressed unbelieving Jews, but he wrote the letter (though not systematic) in very much a theological form. He discusses the organics of how the things works. I would not even consider that he would "omit" anything at that point based on assumption. That's horrible logic. He included many details one would "assume" believers would know.... so it doesn't work. No one uses that playing card anyway, except a few stragglers trying to minimize the words of Paul and cram their own theology into his mouth, as if he is inadequate to represent himself.



Jeffrey,

This is a particular part of the debate that makes me beat my head against the wall, and I'm speaking of "Romans was written to people who were already saved" argument. You're correct, there is content written to unbelievers.

But even if Romans IS only written to believers, SO WHAT?? It is what it is. Are we to assume that Paul sat down and wrote a critical book of theology, in order to shore up the doctrinal foundation of the newly established Church, and gave information that wasn't thorough or complete?? We're to assume that there are three MAJOR things that have to be done, critical to eternity, and instead he said in passing, "Just believe"? That just makes zero sense. It's exegetically irresponsible to use the "Written to the saved" argument.

Why in the world would Paul continually say, "Just believe" and NEVER cover the other stuff? Honestly, I enjoy the give-n-take of this discussion but there's one thing that flips me out and makes me like the Aflac duck when he responds to Yogi Berra...and that's when very learned and capable theologians are reduced to theological kindergarten by saying, "But Romans was written to people who were already saved."

[Adino]

I believe that our faith is what causes us to obey the Gospel. I don't believe our faith alone saves us. You must also obey. Of course, you cannot have obedience without faith and I don't think true faith would not include obedience.

And as we have discussed, concerning works, I believe these things (repentance and baptism) are actions of obedience and not in the category of a works based faith on the level of the Law - obtaining our own righteousness.

It would be more accurate to the Word to relegate the term "works/toil" - good works - to the things we do after we are saved. And then, again, we must continue in the faith to ultimately have eternal life.

Having faith, we must obey the Gospel. Having salvation, we must continue in that faith.Faith is itself obedience to the Gospel. Having a heart converted to faith in Christ IS how one 'obeys the Gospel.'

In Romans 10:16 Paul very clearly connects 'believing the report' (Isaiah 53:1) with obedience to the Gospel.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"Many miss the fact that the phrase "who hath believed our report" of Isaiah 53:1 is also connected to the heart conversion and healing spoken of in Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29. In these passages, the heart that understands and converts is healed (Mark uses "forgiven").

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), by hearing the Gospel (Acts 15:7), by believing the report of God which is the record he gave of his son (1John 5:10-13). The heart which hears the Gospel then understands and converts IS HEALED (Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29). The understanding and conversion which brings healing is of the heart. The heart which obeys the Gospel, by believing it, is healed/forgiven.

2Thessalonians 1:8 and 1Peter 4:17 should be seen in this light. The obedience to the Gospel IS the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26).

Again, to obey the Gospel is to believe it!


Concerning faith and works: It is in repentance that faith is born. The repentant heart returning to God does so through faith in Jesus Christ. True repentance happens only when the conversion in repentance is to God through Christ. Only when one places faith in the record God gave of His son is one granted life in repentance. Repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) takes place when the one returning to God 'believes' in Christ. He that believes has life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

Those who have life because their hearts have converted back to God through faith in Christ are to bring forth fruits/works meet for repentance [I](Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20) and begin to live a life indicative of one who has indeed turned back to God. The regenerate heart will engender regenerate behavior.

We, who were created in Christ unto good works (Ephesians 2:10), should daily 'work out our own salvation with fear and trembling' (Phillippians 2:12). Meaning, we are to allow the salvation we possess by faith to work itself out in our daily lives with 'fear and trembling' which is a phrase "used to describe the anxiety of one who distrusts his ability completely to meet all requirements, but religiously does his utmost to fulfil his duty."

Food for thought....

[mfblume]

Myth to debunk next: "Romans was written to believers, therefore everything Paul says contains omissions based on the assumption of who is audience was." Hmmm... some of us need to get drunk on some Pauline thought for a moment. In actuality, there were not only times in Romans where Paul addressed unbelieving Jews, but he wrote the letter (though not systematic) in very much a theological form. He discusses the organics of how the things works. I would not even consider that he would "omit" anything at that point based on assumption. That's horrible logic. He included many details one would "assume" believers would know.... so it doesn't work. No one uses that playing card anyway, except a few stragglers trying to minimize the words of Paul and cram their own theology into his mouth, as if he is inadequate to represent himself.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I am shocked you state this. Exegesis and correct hermeneutics requires us to address the question of whom the writing was given originally and why. There is no assumption of anything. In fact, to miss this vital issue of whom the book was written to will take one precisely in the direction to which you have gone with the very doctrine of salvation! And that chills my bones.

I cannot express how much a person has to realize, especially after reading this thread, of how vitally important it is to know that Romans was written to a church of saved people and reading it with that in mind is absolutely vital, and offers NO ASSSUMPTION whatsoever.

I mean, it is as much error to say otherwise as to read Peters words of how baptism saves and then say baptism is not part of salvation (1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:).



Paul wrote to believing Jews and gentiles, but mostly to the believing Jews who were caught up in the same error that Paul faced in Acts which called for the Council at Jerusalem to deal with the question of Gentiles in the church and circumcision.

Adam Clarke wrote:

Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.

...

finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.

...

Therefore, in an epistle directed to Roman believers, the point to be endeavored after by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts to the opinion that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious situation with themselves, and that without their being obliged to keep the law of Moses. In this epistle, though directed to the Roman Church in general, it is, in truth, a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly, as often as his argument leads him to say any thing derogatory from the Jewish institution, he constantly follows it by a softening clause.

John Gill:

The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church;

Albert Barnes:

Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews;

It is a minimalizing of an EPISTLE to a CHURCH, and refusal to deal with the fact that sermons preached to sinners included Acts 2:38's elements, and insistence on maintaining one's doctrine that one need not be baptized and Spirit filled with tongues, to deny this fact that the epistle was NOT WRITTEN TO SINNERS.

Wow, you guys. God love you, but, wow.

You're correct, there is content written to unbelievers.


One thousand times NO! I would make this an issue of fellowship! Really.

[mfblume]

Wait......are you saying.......

......sorry to jump in here, but are you saying that we are to be perfect like God, as in "perfect"??? Like flawless, no error, infallible, etc.? I must've missed something, 'cause you can't mean that.

Surely you understand that His life being lived through us is the perfection that God is speaking about. Do you not understand that the righteousness we have is HIS?

Anyway, what do YOU think Jesus meant by saying be perfect as God?

[Timmy]

Surely you understand that His life being lived through us is the perfection that God is speaking about. Do you not understand that the righteousness we have is HIS?

Anyway, what do YOU think Jesus meant by saying pee perfect as God?

I just had to quote this before it got edited. :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

I just had to quote this before it got edited. :toofunny

I already sent him a PM about it, because I knew you were online!!!! :thwak :toofunny

Anyway, to one that knows that typos exist and are clearly overlooked when you type and engage at length! I'm the typo queen! Never see it until later when it's too late. LOL!

[Timmy]

:toofunny

[jfrog]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I am shocked you state this. Exegesis and correct hermeneutics requires us to address the question of whom the writing was given originally and why. There is no assumption of anything. In fact, to miss this vital issue of whom the book was written to will take one precisely in the direction to which you have gone with the very doctrine of salvation! And that chills my bones.

I cannot express how much a person has to realize, especially after reading this thread, of how vitally important it is to know that Romans was written to a church of saved people and reading it with that in mind is absolutely vital, and offers NO ASSSUMPTION whatsoever.

I mean, it is as much error to say otherwise as to read Peters words of how baptism saves and then say baptism is not part of salvation (1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:).



Paul wrote to believing Jews and gentiles, but mostly to the believing Jews who were caught up in the same error that Paul faced in Acts which called for the Council at Jerusalem to deal with the question of Gentiles in the church and circumcision.

Adam Clarke wrote:

Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.

...

finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.

...

Therefore, in an epistle directed to Roman believers, the point to be endeavored after by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts to the opinion that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious situation with themselves, and that without their being obliged to keep the law of Moses. In this epistle, though directed to the Roman Church in general, it is, in truth, a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly, as often as his argument leads him to say any thing derogatory from the Jewish institution, he constantly follows it by a softening clause.

John Gill:

The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church;

Albert Barnes:

Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews;

It is a minimalizing of an EPISTLE to a CHURCH, and refusal to deal with the fact that sermons preached to sinners included Acts 2:38's elements, and insistence on maintaining one's doctrine that one need not be baptized and Spirit filled with tongues, to deny this fact that the epistle was NOT WRITTEN TO SINNERS.

Wow, you guys. God love you, but, wow.



One thousand times NO! I would make this an issue of fellowship! Really.

The argument they are making is not that Romans was written to sinners....

There are two arguments that are being made. One is that those passages in Romans make no sense if seen as a summary of 3 steps because no three stepper would ever summarize salvation in the way that Romans does.

The other argument is that it is very hard to believe that in every epistle and every other book that was written to the church, that the process of salvation was never mentioned anymore than in passing and summary.

[mfblume]

The argument they are making is not that Romans was written to sinners....
I know. But it is highly implicating as to what conclusion one makes of why Romans 10 says what it says.

There are two arguments that are being made. One is that those passages in Romans make no sense if seen as a summary of 3 steps because no three stepper would ever summarize salvation in the way that Romans does.

The other argument is that it is very hard to believe that in no epistle or any other book to the church that the process of salvation was ever mentioned anymore than in passing and summary.

I agree that is the point. But again how one views whom Romans was written to and why is going to implicate one of the two arguments you listed.

[mfblume]

I just had to quote this before it got edited. :toofunny

lol. You outfit, you! lol

[jfrog]

I know. But it is highly implicating as to what conclusion one makes of why Romans 10 says what it says.



I agree that is the point. But again how one views whom Romans was written to and why is going to implicate one of the two arguments you listed.

Saying that Romans was written to believers doesn't give an explanation for either of those arguments. However neither argument given actually proves that Romans couldn't be a summary of salvation. Also 3 steppers today have an adaquate reason not to use that language that is in Romans. They could claim they refrain from language like that because of how many other churches have twisted it into a message of salvation at belief.

[mfblume]

Saying that Romans was written to believers doesn't give an explanation for either of those arguments.

I disagree, but I have said why so no use repeating it. :)

However neither argument given actually proves that Romans couldn't be a summary of salvation. Also 3 steppers today have an adaquate reason not to use that language that is in Romans. They could claim they refrain from language like that because of how many other churches have twisted it into a message of salvation at belief.

Interesting point.

[Adino]

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.

[notofworks]

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.


I am repeatedly astounded that anyone who has ever studied anything could resort to such a pointless, meaningless, and worthless argument as the "Romans-was-written-to-saved-people" argument. First, it's not completely true, and secondly, so what? Does the target audience change the content of the statement? Of course not. It has to be the most absurd argument I've heard about anything.

And I think you're correct...there's a version of "truth" that has to be defended at all costs and if the only thing that can be grabbed is the "Romans-was-written-to" defense, they'll use it.

It's the oldest hermeneutical mistake in the book, developing a belief and then looking for verses to match, and if any verses contradict the belief, explain it away however one can.

[Michael The Disciple]

Wait......are you saying.......

......sorry to jump in here, but are you saying that we are to be perfect like God, as in "perfect"??? Like flawless, no error, infallible, etc.? I must've missed something, 'cause you can't mean that.

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

[pelathais]

So there are TWO STEPS? Faith and then repentance?
See, your tortured misapprehension of NT theology in this area causes you to behave in a manner that you probably wouldn't do otherwise. Why didn't you add the "scratches himself on the chin while he thinks" as a third step?

The problem is Mike, you MUST deny the efficacious work of Jesus Christ on the cross in order to justify yourself with the brethren who forced you aside long ago. This desire to justify yourself in their eyes is actually unnecessary and ironically, further evidence of your misapprehension of Calvary.

You simply cannot justify yourself. Your attempts to do so result in your statement above. Why not fully embrace our risen Lord on this Easter weekend? Quit trying to "work," and to "deserve" something that Jesus Christ offers freely.

[notofworks]

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48


Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

[notofworks]

See, your tortured misapprehension of NT theology in this area causes you to behave in a manner that you probably wouldn't do otherwise. Why didn't you add the "scratches himself on the chin while he thinks" as a third step?

The problem is Mike, you MUST deny the efficacious work of Jesus Christ on the cross in order to justify yourself with the brethren who forced you aside long ago. This desire to justify yourself in their eyes is actually unnecessary and ironically, further evidence of your misapprehension of Calvary.

You simply cannot justify yourself. Your attempts to do so result in your statement above. Why not fully embrace our risen Lord on this Easter weekend? Quit trying to "work," and to "deserve" something that Jesus Christ offers freely.


AMEN!!! I just ran the aisles!! Well, you know.....

[pelathais]

I believe that our faith is what causes us to obey the Gospel. I don't believe our faith alone saves us. You must also obey. Of course, you cannot have obedience without faith and I don't think true faith would not include obedience.
The title of the thread is "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save" - not "faith alone..." In our discussion of the cross we obviously need to have some sort of language that will explain how an event 2,000 years ago could even have any sort of impact on our lives today. The way that we "reach across time and space" to place ourselves at the foot of the cross along side the centurion and the repentant thief is through faith.

It is a Calvinist maxim that "faith alone" saves (Sole Fide) and I'm not a Calvinist. Though I do have some respect for that particular strain of thought, I have also noticed that even most Calvinists will scurry to add something like "Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone..." so even they don't really appear to mean "faith alone."

And as we have discussed, concerning works, I believe these things (repentance and baptism) are actions of obedience and not in the category of a works based faith on the level of the Law - obtaining our own righteousness.
And I have agreed. They are not.

It would be more accurate to the Word to relegate the term "works/toil" - good works - to the things we do after we are saved. And then, again, we must continue in the faith to ultimately have eternal life.

Having faith, we must obey the Gospel. Having salvation, we must continue in that faith.
Due to the prevalence of Pauline writings using the word "works" and how that clearly is never applied to repentance (nor even baptism) I chose to just stay away from that application altogether.

Technically, anything that is a verb can be said to also be a "work." Verbs are action words. They describe and action or a response to an action that in itself is just another action anyway. That is why it's important to see how the words and terms are being used in their specific context.

"Believing" is a verb; but it is never described as a "work" in the NT. When people's reasoning has become so broken down that they demand upon expounding this sort of confusion - well, then the least of their problems is the need for an English lesson from me.

I enjoy talking to PO. I think we're both on the same page generally speaking, we just have different ways of articulating it. As you pointed out earlier, I do have my reasons having chosen to take this tack. I also believe that in the long run it will be more beneficial for everyone.

[Michael The Disciple]

Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

Points one and two are related are they not? But for the accurate definition just consider the words EVEN AS.

Be perfect EVEN AS the Father is perfect.

Can we be complete and mature EVEN AS the Father is complete and Mature?

Or can we be without flaw and blemish as he is?

Or both?

The born again believer has no option in the matter. He must be perfect.

And before the usual comments start coming this command is not for the lost. It is for the saved. Those who have repented, been baptized into Christ and filled with the Spirit. This is their destiny. This was/is the purpose of their calling.

[pelathais]

Why would how its working out for me be more important to discuss than the fact Christ commanded his disciples to be perfect EVEN AS the Father in Heaven is perfect?

Whether or not it was "working out" for someone would not change what the Lord Jesus Christ said.
I admire that gutsy honesty Michael. :thumbsup

But couldn't it also be that our problem with this verse isn't that we have failed to become "God-like" in our perfection, but that the continued use of the modern English word "perfect" in translating the Greek word "telios"

[*AQuietPlace*]

But couldn't it also be that our problem with this verse isn't that we have failed to become "God-like" in our perfection, but that the continued use of the modern English word "perfect" in translating the Greek word "telios"
"Once again, as we turn to Strong’s concordance, we find that the English word perfect is translated from the Greek word telios. Looking for the ideas implied from telios, we find that the word translates as ‘complete’ or ‘completeness’. In fact, if we look at the history of the English language, we find that even the word ‘perfect’ has evolved in the last 400 years (from the time when the bible was first translated into English). At that time, the word perfect was used to describe a sense of completeness, just as the word telios does. It is only in the time since the King James Version of the bible was first printed, that the word ‘perfect’ has evolved from meaning complete, to meaning flawless. If we use this ‘old’ meaning for the word perfect in verse 48, we find Yeshua teaching the people that we should seek to love one another ‘completely’, even as the Father loves us completely."

[pelathais]

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.
An excellent point, Adino. The epistles were all written to belivers "in the church" (though some "stragglers" are also singled out along the way). However, the "Three Step" plan of salvation as articulated by many is simply nowhere to be found.

At one point Paul clearly states that he has to preach the Gospel to a group of believers "all over again" (so to speak, see verse 1).

1 Corinthians 15:1-22

He reminds them that this is material that he has already preached as "the Gospel." He points out that this is the same message preached by all of the apostles.

What is this "Gospel?"

"How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

That's the Gospel!

[pelathais]

"Once again, as we turn to Strong’s concordance, we find that the English word perfect is translated from the Greek word telios. Looking for the ideas implied from telios, we find that the word translates as ‘complete’ or ‘completeness’. In fact, if we look at the history of the English language, we find that even the word ‘perfect’ has evolved in the last 400 years (from the time when the bible was first translated into English). At that time, the word perfect was used to describe a sense of completeness, just as the word telios does. It is only in the time since the King James Version of the bible was first printed, that the word ‘perfect’ has evolved from meaning complete, to meaning flawless. If we use this ‘old’ meaning for the word perfect in verse 48, we find Yeshua teaching the people that we should seek to love one another ‘completely’, even as the Father loves us completely."
Whoa! You're good!

[Michael The Disciple]

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.

[notofworks]

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.


I'm just wanting to make sure you're not propagating that we, as believers, are bound & obligated to be flawless, never failing. If that's what you're saying, I'd have to join with Jeffrey and ask, "How's that working out for you?"

[Michael The Disciple]

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.

[notofworks]

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.


The Ecumenical Church will be without spot or blemish. Yes, I agree. I, however, am not flawless, and you and I hold that in common. But really, I have no idea what this has to do with much of anything we're talking about here, so I'll drop it.

[Jeffrey]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I am shocked you state this. Exegesis and correct hermeneutics requires us to address the question of whom the writing was given originally and why. There is no assumption of anything. In fact, to miss this vital issue of whom the book was written to will take one precisely in the direction to which you have gone with the very doctrine of salvation! And that chills my bones.

I cannot express how much a person has to realize, especially after reading this thread, of how vitally important it is to know that Romans was written to a church of saved people and reading it with that in mind is absolutely vital, and offers NO ASSSUMPTION whatsoever.

I mean, it is as much error to say otherwise as to read Peters words of how baptism saves and then say baptism is not part of salvation (1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:).



Paul wrote to believing Jews and gentiles, but mostly to the believing Jews who were caught up in the same error that Paul faced in Acts which called for the Council at Jerusalem to deal with the question of Gentiles in the church and circumcision.

Adam Clarke wrote:

Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.

...

finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.

...

Therefore, in an epistle directed to Roman believers, the point to be endeavored after by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts to the opinion that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious situation with themselves, and that without their being obliged to keep the law of Moses. In this epistle, though directed to the Roman Church in general, it is, in truth, a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly, as often as his argument leads him to say any thing derogatory from the Jewish institution, he constantly follows it by a softening clause.

John Gill:

The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church;

Albert Barnes:

Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews;

It is a minimalizing of an EPISTLE to a CHURCH, and refusal to deal with the fact that sermons preached to sinners included Acts 2:38's elements, and insistence on maintaining one's doctrine that one need not be baptized and Spirit filled with tongues, to deny this fact that the epistle was NOT WRITTEN TO SINNERS.

Wow, you guys. God love you, but, wow.



One thousand times NO! I would make this an issue of fellowship! Really.

An issue of fellowship? *baffled*

Shall I cite the portion of Texts where exegetes believe Paul is using diatribe to represent Jewish unbelievers? Are you familiar with Moo, NT Wright? There's no question that the primary audience is the Christians in Roman. However, you spent 5 paragraphs going hysterical that I said there are some references in Romans that were addressed to Jewish (non-Jesus) believers. Still ignoring the blatant premise that Paul's writings would be making major assumptions that would cause him to leave out some pretty critical facts in his theology, where you can freely fill in the blanks. And let's be clear -- those gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost (in Acts) were most certainly not categorically "unbelievers." And if they were, to adjust a story by Luke, who is not trying to explain to us theology, and take theology by Paul and discount it is at best dishonest.

So be shocked. Be beside yourself. But the true shock is on how well your sacred cow rebuttals are extremely unstable.

[Jeffrey]

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.

:thumbsup

Furthermore, it's quite amazing that the letters that come the closest to systematizing theology (though they clearly aren't systematized), come the closest to articulating salvation in didactic ways... these writings leave the important stuff out on the basis of assumption, and include other information that should equally be obvious. Then... the account that is neither didactic, intended for theology or responded to doctrinal issues is heralded as the gold mine of theological teaching. Does that make anyone but me scratch my head?

[Jeffrey]

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

What does that mean to you?

And again... how's that working out for you?

[Jeffrey]

Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

My answer may shock you, NOW :) Maybe even shock MTD.

However, verses like this show us the direction of sanctification, and help us realize our sanctified butts are still undeserving of God's righteousness.

[notofworks]

My answer may shock you, NOW :) Maybe even shock MTD.

However, verses like this show us the direction of sanctification, and help us realize our sanctified butts are still undeserving of God's righteousness.


As a result of God's efficacious grace, I certainly am flawless! Ephesians 2 even calls me His "Masterpiece!" Imagine that! The cross of Christ alone has made me flawless and His masterpiece!

[Pressing-On]

The title of the thread is "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save" - not "faith alone..." In our discussion of the cross we obviously need to have some sort of language that will explain how an event 2,000 years ago could even have any sort of impact on our lives today. The way that we "reach across time and space" to place ourselves at the foot of the cross along side the centurion and the repentant thief is through faith.

It is a Calvinist maxim that "faith alone" saves (Sole Fide) and I'm not a Calvinist. Though I do have some respect for that particular strain of thought, I have also noticed that even most Calvinists will scurry to add something like "Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone..." so even they don't really appear to mean "faith alone."
If we say, "The Cross of Christ alone can save", then I will have to say that the message Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost is the message of the Cross. It includes what the Cross entailed. I can then agree that the message of the Cross is what saves. That there is no other message.


Due to the prevalence of Pauline writings using the word "works" and how that clearly is never applied to repentance (nor even baptism) I chose to just stay away from that application altogether.

Technically, anything that is a verb can be said to also be a "work." Verbs are action words. They describe and action or a response to an action that in itself is just another action anyway. That is why it's important to see how the words and terms are being used in their specific context.

"Believing" is a verb; but it is never described as a "work" in the NT. When people's reasoning has become so broken down that they demand upon expounding this sort of confusion - well, then the least of their problems is the need for an English lesson from me.
I agree we need to be careful with our wording and explanation of "works".

But, I also want to remember that the Word says that Abraham believed God, had righteousness imputed to him and was called the friend of God. Yet, James states that we see how he was justified by his works and not by faith only. James 2:23-24

Abraham's faith caused him to be obedient. The Bible says that he was not only justified by his faith alone, but by his works. It's hard to read that and not say that our obedience is not a work. If we have obeyed the Gospel, I believe we have done a work. Not in obtaining our own righteousness, but in our obedience to Him.

James also speaks of Rahab being justified by her works, which not only brought her salvation, but into the lineage of David.


I enjoy talking to PO. I think we're both on the same page generally speaking, we just have different ways of articulating it. As you pointed out earlier, I do have my reasons having chosen to take this tack. I also believe that in the long run it will be more beneficial for everyone.

Enjoy talking to you also, Pel. :friend I think we are, generally, on the same page. But, I am a strong proponent of Acts 2:38. If that makes me a three-stepper, than I willingly accept that tag. :thumbsup LOL!

[notofworks]

I'm gonna try to bottom-line the discussion here because I'm a bottom-line kinda guy. My attention span issues compel me to wade through the detail and make it simple.

So here's what I've observed:

There's one side saying that the cross of Christ alone can save us and this takes place when one simply accepts the gift and believes. In this thread, great information and argument has been provided by Pelathias (what a shock) and Jeffrey, who has become a warrior of grace. Dang Jeffrey, what's the deal??:)

There's the other side that's been led by MBlume and Pressing-on. This side says that the cross of Christ alone can save us and it happens when we take numerous actions...numerous deeds, numerous works, numerous, steps, numerous something-or-other. One of those has to work.

So, is that accurate?

Now, of course, the "Grace" side points to the "Works" side and says, "You're making people do stuff to get saved." The response, of course, is, the "Works" side says to the "Grace" side, "So do you! You're saying that people have to believe." Then, of course, the repentance and baptism argument starts.

Still accurate?

Here's the bottom-line problem I have with the second position...This position tells us that deeds are required by the individual and that seems to directly violate the verse that started this thread. Early on in the early church, there were people that were trying to attach their hobby-horse (circumcision) to salvation. It seems no different that what's happening here with baptism and tongues.

I think we could easily substitute a phrase and make Galatians 6:11-12 current. It seems we could easily say:

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

Baptism, in my opinion, is a side issue here. It's a natural by-product of faith and I've never had anyone refuse, or heard of anyone that refused. I'm sure someone's gonna say, "My neighbor's aunt's sister's husband's oldest daughter's boyfriend's second cousin refused." But I've never heard of it. And if they refuse, I seriously doubt if the "turn" to faith has been taken.

So no matter how many ways I read all this, I still see that the "steppers" (I'm a zero stepper) are adding to the cross. I've quoted Pel more times than I can count, but man, he really wrapped it all up in a simple question: "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

It is completely beyond me how any of you good folks could put someone on their knees (or wherever) and wait for them to speak in tongues before you pronounce them "Saved." That is SOOOOO Galatians 6:11-12, it's just ridiculous. Are you suggesting that Jesus died on the cross and suffered the worst death possible, took on the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later so that we could spend 4 months at the altar, grinding our guts out begging God for the "Holy Ghost"? Come on.

One final point...the very fact that we're having this discussion negates all this "step" stuff. You're telling me that God weaved all these steps into scripture and only a special few of you get to figure out the riddle? Nuh uh.

We can now settle this matter: I'm right and you're wrong!! :) :itsover

[DAII]

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.I'm gonna try to bottom-line the discussion here because I'm a bottom-line kinda guy. My attention span issues compel me to wade through the detail and make it simple.

So here's what I've observed:

There's one side saying that the cross of Christ alone can save us and this takes place when one simply accepts the gift and believes. In this thread, great information and argument has been provided by Pelathias (what a shock) and Jeffrey, who has become a warrior of grace. Dang Jeffrey, what's the deal??:)

There's the other side that's been led by MBlume and Pressing-on. This side says that the cross of Christ alone can save us and it happens when we take numerous actions...numerous deeds, numerous works, numerous, steps, numerous something-or-other. One of those has to work.

So, is that accurate?

Now, of course, the "Grace" side points to the "Works" side and says, "You're making people do stuff to get saved." The response, of course, is, the "Works" side says to the "Grace" side, "So do you! You're saying that people have to believe." Then, of course, the repentance and baptism argument starts.

Still accurate?

Here's the bottom-line problem I have with the second position...This position tells us that deeds are required by the individual and that seems to directly violate the the verse that started this thread. Early on in the early church, there were people that were trying to attach their hobby-horse (circumcision) to salvation. It seems no different that what's happening here with baptism and tongues.

I think we could easily substitute a phrase and make Galatians 6:11-12 current. It seems we could easily say:

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

Baptism, in my opinion, is a side issue here. It's a natural by-product of faith and I've never had anyone refuse, or heard of anyone that refused. I'm sure someone's gonna say, "My neighbor's aunt's sister's husband's oldest daughter's boyfriend's second cousin refused." But I've never heard of it. And if they refuse, I seriously doubt if the "turn" to faith has been taken.

So no matter how many ways I read all this, I still see that the "steppers" (I'm a zero stepper) are adding to the cross. I've quoted Pel more times than I can count, but man, he really wrapped it all up in a simple question: "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

It is completely beyond me how any of you good folks could put someone on their knees (or wherever) and wait for them to speak in tongues before you pronounce them "Saved." That is SOOOOO Galatians 6:11-12, it's just ridiculous. Are you suggesting that Jesus died on the cross and suffered the worst death possible, took on the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later so that we could spend 4 months at the altar, grinding our guts out begging God for the "Holy Ghost"? Come on.

One final point...the very fact that we're having this discussion negates all this "step" stuff. You're telling me that God weaved all these steps into scripture and only a special few of you get to figure out the riddle? Nuh uh.

We can now settle this matter: I'm right and you're wrong!! :) :itsover

[pelathais]

But, I also want to remember that the Word says that Abraham believed God, had righteousness imputed to him and was called the friend of God. Yet, James states that we see how he was justified by his works and not by faith only. James 2:23-24

James also speaks of Rahab being justified by her works, which not only brought her salvation, but into the lineage of David.
The thing that contrasts James 2:23-24 with Paul's writings in Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-8, is that James is skipping all the way down to include Genesis 22, in his discussion. Paul is just focusing on what God did and said in Genesis 15.

The point that "One Steppers" tend to want to make is that God has done something in our lives that we were helpless to do for ourselves (our "Genesis 15" experience). Both Paul and James (and everybody else, for that matter) do go on to emphasize the "Genesis 22" experience; but I ("One Steppers" i general) feel that it is still vital to keep reminding ourselves that it was God's grace that got us started on this journey and really it is the same grace that will keep us going.


Enjoy talking to you also, Pel. :friend I think we are, generally, on the same page. But, I am a strong proponent of Acts 2:38. If that makes me a three-stepper, than I willingly accept that tag. :thumbsup LOL!
As a "dyed in the wool One Stepper," I believe like the other "dyed in the wool One Steppers" believe - that secretly all "Three Steppers" are actually "One Steppers" in their heart. LOL.

[pelathais]

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.
Well, that sums it up for me, right there! :blah







j/k http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[pelathais]

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.

How did the church get to be "perfect" anyhow???

... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christ did it all for us at Calvary!!! Add Michael the Disciple to the list of "Warriors for Grace!" :thumbsup

[pelathais]

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.
That is a difficult thing to grapple with. I have managed to avoid most of the difficulty by being old enough that my UPC card came with the decoder ring for the "old instructions."

"One Steppers" used to have been a part of a merger with the "Three Steppers." I read John Dearing's writings as a requirement for admission to the club. Nowadays? The merger's been destroyed and Dearing's lessons burned at the stake.

[Michael The Disciple]

How did the church get to be "perfect" anyhow???

... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christ did it all for us at Calvary!!! Add Michael the Disciple to the list of "Warriors for Grace!" :thumbsup

Looking from this perspective we see an overlooked aspect of the grace of YAH.

12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:12-13

God is working in us and through us. Yet we are working! The overcomer has been "joined to the Lord" and they are one spirit.

[notofworks]

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.


I once had the decoder ring but I've misplaced it. You know, there was a time when I could argue the heck out of all that stuff. But now? Confession time: Some time back I created a silly ID and tried to argue the "Old ways". I got pounded.:lol That didn't go so well. I got pounded nearly as bad as MBlume, Pressing-On, and Michael the Disciple are here in this thread! :heeheehee

Seriously, I'd like to hear from any of the "Stepper-dudes" (or dudettes), just how important this is. Is adherence to the specific three things (repentance, Jesus' name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling evidence with tongues) the ONLY way to heaven?

I'd really like a firm "Yes" or "No" to that. And if it's a "Yes", where does that put people like me? Ultimately, doesn't it come down to this? Either it's a must or it's not, right? And if it's a must, I need one of you to tell me whether or not I'm going to hell. Interested?

I've repented (turned), I've been baptized, but I haven't spoken in tongues. So where will I spend eternity, and don't do the "God is the judge" thing on me. Either your way is a "must" it's not.

[jfrog]

I once had the decoder ring but I've misplaced it. You know, there was a time when I could argue the heck out of all that stuff. But now? Confession time: Some time back I created a silly ID and tried to argue the "Old ways". I got pounded.:lol That didn't go so well. I got pounded nearly as bad as MBlume, Pressing-On, and Michael the Disciple are here in this thread! :heeheehee

Seriously, I'd like to hear from any of the "Stepper-dudes" (or dudettes), just how important this is. Is adherence to the specific three things (repentance, Jesus' name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling evidence with tongues) the ONLY way to heaven?

I'd really like a firm "Yes" or "No" to that. And if it's a "Yes", where does that put people like me? Ultimately, doesn't it come down to this? Either it's a must or it's not, right? And if it's a must, I need one of you to tell me whether or not I'm going to hell. Interested?

I've repented (turned), I've been baptized, but I haven't spoken in tongues. So where will I spend eternity, and don't do the "God is the judge" thing on me. Either your way is a "must" it's not.

A true three stepper must believe that you are going to hell. There is no way around it. Happily I don't think there will be too many true three steppers stand up.

[notofworks]

A true three stepper must believe that you are going to hell. There is no way around it. Happily I don't think there will be too many true three steppers stand up.

I'll be interested to see. Either the steps are a big deal or they're not. :)

[pelathais]

Looking from this perspective we see an overlooked aspect of the grace of YAH.

12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:12-13

God is working in us and through us. Yet we are working! The overcomer has been "joined to the Lord" and they are one spirit.
Michael! You were so close! I'm disappointed in this backsliding of yours. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Pressing-On]

The thing that contrasts James 2:23-24 with Paul's writings in Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-8, is that James is skipping all the way down to include Genesis 22, in his discussion. Paul is just focusing on what God did and said in Genesis 15.

I believe that God was introducing the line that Jesus would come through in Gen 15 and 22, which must begin at faith. He separated Abraham from his father's people and brought him to a land that he wanted him to inherit. (Gen. 15:7) Told him a bit of the future, which Abraham could not have understood at the time. (Gen. 15:14)

Wasn't that awesome that God brings Joseph to the very place that Gen. 15:14 is speaking of, elevates Joseph to a place of authority in order to bring his people to where he is, allows them to fall into bondage to Egypt and then sets them free - just like He said he would? But, I digress. lol

So we look at the "faith chapter" in Hebrew 11:

"By faith Abel offered..."

"By faith Noah,... prepared an ark...."

"By faith Abraham...obeyed; and he went out,..."

"By faith Moses...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God..."

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. "

"By faith the harlot Rahab...received the spies with peace."

Rahab - did her faith save her? Not alone. Her obedience by putting that scarlet cord in the window, coupled with faith, brought her salvation.

Do I think our faith alone saves us? No, but our faith coupled with our obedience. - Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is a work of obedience.


The point that "One Steppers" tend to want to make is that God has done something in our lives that we were helpless to do for ourselves (our "Genesis 15" experience). Both Paul and James (and everybody else, for that matter) do go on to emphasize the "Genesis 22" experience; but I ("One Steppers" i general) feel that it is still vital to keep reminding ourselves that it was God's grace that got us started on this journey and really it is the same grace that will keep us going.

I hate using these terms! LOL! Three-Steppers have never overlooked the beauty of God's grace and mercy. We understand that we are helpless to do anything for ourselves to make ourselves righteous. It is His Spirit that dwells in us that does the work. We understand that having begun in the Spirit, we are not made perfect by our flesh. (Gal 3:3) That means that we also understand God's grace started us on this journey and will perform a good work in us until the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:6)


As a "dyed in the wool One Stepper," I believe like the other "dyed in the wool One Steppers" believe - that secretly all "Three Steppers" are actually "One Steppers" in their heart. LOL.
LOL! If it was secretly, I would be a liar. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not a liar. I'm just a "dyed in the wool Three-Stepper"! - guilty as charged!

[pelathais]

I'll be interested to see. Either the steps are a big deal or they're not. :)
"Steps" are kind of a big deal, even though the word appears in the English KJV and other related translations only a few times, and never in any kind of description of salvation except possibly:

Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Here we are told to follow the "steps" of Abraham. But we are admonished to do so, not in order to "earn" or to prove that we "deserve" salvation; but because we (like Abraham) are counted righteous at that point early on when we believe God's promises. God Himself counts us as "righteous" when we believe. I wouldn't want to argue with that:

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

[pelathais]

I believe that God was introducing the line that Jesus would come through in Gen 15 and 22, which must begin at faith. He separated Abraham from his father's people and brought him to a land that he wanted him to inherit. (Gen. 15:7) Told him a bit of the future, which Abraham could not have understood at the time. (Gen. 15:14)

Wasn't that awesome that God brings Joseph to the very place that Gen. 15:14 is speaking of, elevates Joseph to a place of authority in order to bring his people to where he is, allows them to fall into bondage to Egypt and then sets them free - just like He said he would? But, I digress. lol

So we look at the "faith chapter" in Hebrew 11:

"By faith Abel offered..."

"By faith Noah,... prepared an ark...."

"By faith Abraham...obeyed; and he went out,..."

"By faith Moses...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God..."

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. "

"By faith the harlot Rahab...received the spies with peace."

Rahab - did her faith save her? Not alone. Her obedience by putting that scarlet cord in the window, coupled with faith, brought her salvation.
The writer of Hebrews begins this passage by defining just what faith is:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Whatever saving "faith" is, it apparently doesn't include the things that we can see. We can see an offering on an altar and we can see the scarlet cord hanging from Rahab's window (or at least the spies saw that). These are material things.

In each case listed in Hebrews 11, however, the "hero of faith" mentioned is said to have done something that could NOT be seen nor observed because it was entirely a matter of the heart. Something unseen was at work. This thing was unseen because it didn't even exist outside the heart yet. It was hope - it was faith! It was the belief that despite present appearances the one who had hope believed that God is and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).

In the end, that is what actually "saved" every individual mentioned in the chapter. They weren't saved by scarlet cords, walls or any other tangible thing.

This faith caused them to make important choices that affected their lives and the lives of others; but they were saved by their faith, not by their actions.



Do I think our faith alone saves us? No, but our faith coupled with our obedience. - Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is a work of obedience.
I feel that we have to remind ourselves just now that it is God Who saves us, and not we ourselves. Salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest any of us should boast. (Ephesians 2:8).


I hate using these terms! LOL! Three-Steppers have never overlooked the beauty of God's grace and mercy. We understand that we are helpless to do anything for ourselves to make ourselves righteousness. It is His Spirit that dwells in us that does the work. We understand that having begun in the Spirit, we are not made perfect by our flesh. (Gal 3:3) That means that we also understand God's grace started us on this journey and will perform a good work in us until the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:6)
With respect, you overlooked mentioning God as the source of salvation in the paragraph previous to this one (bolded above). http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif


LOL! If it was secretly, I would be a liar. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not a liar. I'm just a "dyed in the wool Three-Stepper"! - guilty as charged!
I have hope... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Pressing-On]

The writer of Hebrews begins this passage by defining just what faith is:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Whatever saving "faith" is, it apparently doesn't include the things that we can see. We can see an offering on an altar and we can see the scarlet cord hanging from Rahab's window (or at least the spies saw that). These are material things.

In each case listed in Hebrews 11, however, the "hero of faith" mentioned is said to have done something that could NOT be seen nor observed because it was entirely a matter of the heart. Something unseen was at work. This thing was unseen because it didn't even exist outside the heart yet. It was hope - it was faith! It was the belief that despite present appearances the one who had hope believed that God is and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).

But, they did "see" their actions accompanying their faith. They just didn't always see God's. Hebrews 11:1 means, to me, that they don't always understand, but having faith - they obey.

Abraham didn't understand everything, didn't think he could have a son, did not quite understand all that was promised, but he walked by faith. Walking is an act of obedience - Walking by faith is an act of obedience accompanied by faith.

Noah did not see a flood, but by faith he built an ark to the saving of his house.

That is what I believe Hebrews 11:1 is speaking of.

In the end, that is what actually "saved" every individual mentioned in the chapter. They weren't saved by scarlet cords, walls or any other tangible thing.

This faith caused them to make important choices that affected their lives and the lives of others; but they were saved by their faith, not by their actions.
Would Noah have saved his house if he had not built an ark? Didn't his faith cause him to obey and build an ark? He was given instructions. Didn't Abraham leave Ur of the Chaldees by obedience because of his faith? He was given instructions.

We are given instructions to repent and be baptized.


I feel that we have to remind ourselves just now that it is God Who saves us, and not we ourselves. Salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest any of us should boast. (Ephesians 2:8).

With respect, you overlooked mentioning God as the source of salvation in the paragraph previous to this one (bolded above). http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif
You know where the free gift comes into play?

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

These scriptures simply tell us what he freely and willingly did for us. They are never meant to intimate that there is nothing to respond to or obey. If that were true, John would not have preached a "baptism of repentance", Peter would not have preached what he did on the Day of Pentecost, and God would not have told Cornelius to send for Peter.

I have hope... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
:toofunny

That's all I have for tonight. I have to meet with my lawyer tomorrow, so I need to get some shut eye in order to think in the morning. (lol) I like to watch how clever he thinks he is and how he "thinks" that I think it also. I normally cut him off and say, "So, what's up?" That's my little way of actually saying - "Get to the point, I'm busy and so are you." :toofunny

[pelathais]

But, they did "see" their actions accompanying their faith. They just didn't always see God's.
Nor could they (or we!) "see God's" action when He counts us "righteous." There's nothing really to see any how (at least in this world).

Abraham was "accounted righteous" by God long before he ever acted upon his willingness to sacrifice his son.

The only verb that describes Abraham's actions in Genesis 15:6 is "believed." God's immediate response to that "action" is to count Abraham "righteous."

We are told to emulate this act of believing and to expect the exact same response from God (Galatians 3:6-14).

Whatever else that may happen in our lives will also require faith; however to be "justified" - that is, to have our sins forgiven and to be declared "righteous" in God's own eyes requires only faith in the provision that Jesus Christ has made for those sins at Calvary.

Hebrews 11:1 means, to me, that they don't always understand, but having faith - they obey.

Abraham didn't understand everything, didn't think he could have a son, did not quite understand all that was promised, but he walked by faith. Walking is an act of obedience - Walking by faith is an act of obedience accompanied by faith.

Noah did not see a flood, but by faith he built an ark to the saving of his house.

That is what I believe Hebrews 11:1 is speaking of.
I take it for what it says, and I think that certainly includes what you've mentioned, but the connection between Genesis 15:6; Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-14; can't be left out.

God accounts us righteous because of our belief in the saving power of the cross.

Would Noah have saved his house if he had not built an ark? Didn't his faith cause him to obey and build an ark? He was given instructions. Didn't Abraham leave Ur of the Chaldees by obedience because of his faith? He was given instructions.

We are given instructions to repent and be baptized.



You know where the free gift comes into play?

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

These scriptures simply tell us what he freely and willingly did for us. They are never meant to intimate that there is nothing to respond to. If that were true, John would not have preached a "baptism of repentance", Peter would not have preached what he did on the Day of Pentecost, and God would not have told Cornelius to send for Peter.
Yes, those Scriptures tell us what Jesus freely and willingly did for us. However, the word "free" also comes before us in Romans 5:15-19.

You keep going back to the requirement for the Christian believer to be obedient to God's commands, and you'll get no argument from me about that. However, this thread is about how "The Cross and the Cross Alone Can Save..."

What obedience is required for salvation? For our salvation?

Romans 5:19 - "... by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Whose obedience is in mind here? Yours? Mine? No!

We are all made righteous by the obedience of a single individual. It was His obedience and His obedience alone that saves us. We are saved by "the obedience of one!"

Romans 11:5-6 clearly demands us to accept that this free gift comes without any "works" on our part.

Paul seems to be telling us, "it's one or the other" in Romans 11:5-6. It's either "grace" or it's "works." For whatever reason, he seems to come down rather heavily on the "grace" side of things.


:toofunny

That's all I have for tonight. I have to meet with my lawyer tomorrow, so I need to get some shut eye in order to think in the morning. (lol) I like to watch how clever he thinks he is and how he "thinks" that I think it also. I normally cut him off and say, "So, what's up?" That's my little way of actually saying - "Get to the point, I'm busy and so are you." :toofunny

Have a great day tomorrow, or "today" if that's when you see this. But then again, still have a great tomorrow whenever that gets here. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[TheLegalist]

I believe that God was introducing the line that Jesus would come through in Gen 15 and 22, which must begin at faith. He separated Abraham from his father's people and brought him to a land that he wanted him to inherit. (Gen. 15:7) Told him a bit of the future, which Abraham could not have understood at the time. (Gen. 15:14)

Wasn't that awesome that God brings Joseph to the very place that Gen. 15:14 is speaking of, elevates Joseph to a place of authority in order to bring his people to where he is, allows them to fall into bondage to Egypt and then sets them free - just like He said he would? But, I digress. lol

So we look at the "faith chapter" in Hebrew 11:

"By faith Abel offered..."

"By faith Noah,... prepared an ark...."

"By faith Abraham...obeyed; and he went out,..."

"By faith Moses...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God..."

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. "

"By faith the harlot Rahab...received the spies with peace."

Rahab - did her faith save her? Not alone. Her obedience by putting that scarlet cord in the window, coupled with faith, brought her salvation.

Do I think our faith alone saves us? No, but our faith coupled with our obedience. - Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is a work of obedience.




I hate using these terms! LOL! Three-Steppers have never overlooked the beauty of God's grace and mercy. We understand that we are helpless to do anything for ourselves to make ourselves righteous. It is His Spirit that dwells in us that does the work. We understand that having begun in the Spirit, we are not made perfect by our flesh. (Gal 3:3) That means that we also understand God's grace started us on this journey and will perform a good work in us until the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:6)



LOL! If it was secretly, I would be a liar. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not a liar. I'm just a "dyed in the wool Three-Stepper"! - guilty as charged!



TEACH IT, TEACH IT, TEACH IT! MENTAL ASSENT ALONE MEANS SQUAT! E
FAITH MUST HAVE A WITNESS and it MUST be COMPLETED thus it has a directive! Faith alone cannot nor ever did save as it is a false meaning applied to what TRUE FAITH IS! He became the source/author of our salvation/faith to them THAT OBEY HIM! Salvation is synergistic in realization/fullfilment and monergistic in source.

[TheLegalist]

Nor could they (or we!) "see God's" action when He counts us "righteous." There's nothing really to see any how (at least in this world).

LOL!


Abraham was "accounted righteous" by God long before he ever acted upon his willingness to sacrifice his son.

again your FALSE understanding of which I have pointed our multiple times of which you IGNORE! The scripture WAS FULFILLED that He believed that Lord and HE accounted IT(faith) to him as righteousness or just.


James clearly point that Gen 15:6 is seen as whole of Abraham's like thus a narrative looking at how in WHOLE he responded by the narrator, NOT JUST A MOMENT IN TIME! Also WHO SAID God did not see a response of Abraham upon his promise? Abraham could have moved away thus turning away not believing his resulting action TO ABIDE as God said in the land and other things could attest/witness his faith. HOW did Abraham receive the promise? BY TESTING OF WHICH HE OBEYED not by some mental assent to knowledge of promise. Was Abraham seen "aright" in deed or response before Gen 17? Yes by his moving and also his response to abide where God told him to in the very NEXT FEW VERSES. Notice Abraham continued to DO God's will the right after the the narrative comment of which "believed" would include which those actions would have been in view. THUS HE WAS STILL ABIDING!
WHICH WAS A WITNESS! Thus he believed in the view of the whole shows in the very next verses HE HAD FAITH WHICH WAS FULFILLED IN ISAAC!

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.
Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.


Did God judge his actions here? Yes, because God made covenant with ABraham concerning the land? Why because he obeyed in Gen 12 to do what God said thus the resulting action of judgment was covenant unto abraham by Godin Gen 15. Did Abrham believe God? Yes and the very next vs show he continued to be judged faithful to do God's will. Thus he "believed" within view of what the narrator sees as "believed" and in which the narrator would KNOW was judged "righteous".

The only verb that describes Abraham's actions in Genesis 15:6 is "believed." God's immediate response to that "action" is to count Abraham "righteous."

Again you fail the text. The FAITH was judged of which James says it was fulfilled at the offering of ISAAS. Thus "believed" is a matter of view of what is REFERENCED! It is a break in the story of what GOD said and the narrator commenting on WHAT WOULD HAPPEN as a RESULT of God say what he "wanted" to do. Thus "believed" is a view of the WHOLE not "JUST" a single moment in time. Did Abraham believe at that moment? YES but what was "considered" righteous? According to James HIS ACTION not just mental assent" GOd cannot judge until it has a WITNESS! Thus the WHOLE point of God considered/ajudged "IT" FAITH/RESPONSE as RIGHTEOUS or JUST. How? By him abiding and doing just as WE ARE JUDGED FRIENDS John 15 cf

Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
Gen 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

which was true of the land coventant as well. He obeyed God's word in Gen 12 and God rewarded his faith in Gen 15 in covenant. continuing on....

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified(judged/considered aright) by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.


We are told to emulate this act of believing and to expect the exact same response from God (Galatians 3:6-14).

correct which is about his life. The works of the law is not talking about about God judging our actions right to obtain life or you are saying Jesus is against Paul in John 15. His points of the law are about sacrifice and circumcision without reliance upon HE who would come to fulfill the law in our hearts which is the same law by which he was judged and a perfect sacrifice and faithful as will we also be judged to have abided and thus faithful. Thus is the work HE DOES IN US BY OUR RESPONSE NOT UNTO OR BYTHE FLESH BUT BY HIS SPIRIT! Thus if you rely on the letter to know and apply strictly you will be judged by the letter and will fail because flesh is difficult discern the application of it. If you live by the law/leading of the Spirit/Jesus which confirms the proper intenrt or application letter you will live why we won't negate law but fulfill it properly. The problem is the attempt to lead a life by our understanding unto righteousness, not what the letter was but the perception by the flesh to know God's will unto application of which the Pharisees FAILED and negated the weightier matters for others. We must exceed there righteousness. Jesus is the perfected law manifested of which the LAW bears witness to the righeousness of Christ. Which it will alos bear witness to us as well through the Spirit. Is John 15 also letter or commandment? YES!

Whatever else that may happen in our lives will also require faith; however to be "justified" - that is, to have our sins forgiven and to be declared "righteous" in God's own eyes requires only faith in the provision that Jesus Christ has made for those sins at Calvary.

NO it takes RESPONSE to the provision. Mental assent to the provision does squat!

To be reconciled one must respond to the provisions and way by which GOD can adjudge you right at heart to OBTAIN atonement! We stand before God at baptism to be circumcised FROM the body of sin by FAITH IN THE WORKING OF GOD! Col 2 cf Romans 6 That is to come INTO covenant/abide in Christ. By which we continue to abide by KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS! BY which in the end we will be judged "faithful" just as Abraham to OBTAIN the promise.

[TheLegalist]

I take it for what it says, and I think that certainly includes what you've mentioned, but the connection between Genesis 15:6; Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-14; can't be left out.

You negate as usual Pauls selective point to the negation of James and all the rest of scripture. God can only judge by witness. Which is the point of Judgement by deeds at the end. Either unto life or condemnation. Did you abide as a faithful servant unto NO condemnation or unto the flesh by which you will die. You saying God's judgment and how he judged all throughout the OT changes... IT DOES NOT! God consistently looked on the heart by it's WITNESS!


God accounts us righteous because of our belief in the saving power of the cross.

God considers/judges our response just or not to obtain atonement. Belief is not doing the will of God not mental assent.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Atonement is only valuable unless you heart is turned to him wholly. Of which the Spirit will bear witness with your heart unto life or judgment.



Yes, those Scriptures tell us what Jesus freely and willingly did for us. However, the word "free" also comes before us in Romans 5:15-19.

It is freely "offered" but it is ALSO at a cost to obtain! Salvation is purchased from the source which is Christ...

Mat 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Mat 13:45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls,
Mat 13:46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.


You keep going back to the requirement for the Christian believer to be obedient to God's commands, and you'll get no argument from me about that. However, this thread is about how "The Cross and the Cross Alone Can Save..."

The cross/atonement is only effective if obedience and a heart is completely turned. See above....

What obedience is required for salvation? For our salvation?


Keeping his commandments as that is the witness by which we obtain life. Salvation is not about one moment but the judgment of a life time of faith.

Romans 5:19 - "... by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Talk about selective context to prove a point. This is talking about his offering "source/author" of salvation ot them that obey. he is the source by which we do the Father's will and obey his commandment and abide. Which is the Law upon the heart SO THAT WE MIGHT DO!


Whose obedience is in mind here? Yours? Mine? No!

Again it's his obedience to the Father's will that he abided as we also are to abide in him by which we are judged to abide. John 15

We are all made righteous by the obedience of a single individual. It was His obedience and His obedience alone that saves us. We are saved by "the obedience of one!"

This is correct as he is the "source" but salvation is not monergistic in realization it is synergistic.

Romans 11:5-6 clearly demands us to accept that this free gift comes without any "works" on our part.

sorry but you cannot be saved with negating ALL which is doing something on you part which is a life long thing not a momen in time.

sorry but JEsus clearly said that to abide we must do. Which is the same as Abraham. You clearly teach OSAS. If you say you don't then you are contradictive in your doctrine.

Paul seems to be telling us, "it's one or the other" in Romans 11:5-6. It's either "grace" or it's "works." For whatever reason, he seems to come down rather heavily on the "grace" side of things.

That's because you don't understand Paul and make JEsus, John, James all against Paul.

[Michael The Disciple]

Michael! You were so close! I'm disappointed in this backsliding of yours. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Pel,

Dont fret! I am indeed a warrior of grace. Note what the Apostle says grace does:

11: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12: Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Titus 2:13

It both brings salvation and teaches us to live a life of obedience towards Yeshua Messiah.

[TheLegalist]

Pel,

Dont fret! I am indeed a warrior of grace. Note what the Apostle says grace does:

11: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12: Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Titus 2:13

It both brings salvation and teaches us to live a life of obedience towards Yeshua Messiah.

NOW, NOW MICHAEL.... how dare you bring your legalism into this. You make God's grace noneffect by that teaching.... (sarcasm) Teaching us to do that which brings life.... oh come on didn't you know you are saved only by the work of the cross which is something he did and that you just stand there and God just gives you a eschatological acquittal RIGHT AT THE POINT! Works are meaningless in judgment... by works NO MAN IS JUSTIFIED... blah blah which is taken out of context. You have no standing before God by works and works don't effect your eternal standing..... (more sarcasm) LOL!

[Jeffrey]

NOW, NOW MICHAEL.... how dare you bring your legalism into this. You make God's grace noneffect by that teaching.... (sarcasm) Teaching us to do that which brings life.... oh come on didn't you know you are saved only by the work of the cross which is something he did and that you just stand there and God just gives you a eschatological acquittal RIGHT AT THE POINT! Works are meaningless in judgment... by works NO MAN IS JUSTIFIED... blah blah which is taken out of context. You have no standing before God by works and works don't effect your eternal standing..... (more sarcasm) LOL!

Minus the sarcasm, this was a great post :thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

Minus the sarcasm, this was a great post :thumbsup

which is why you negate the teachings of Christ and have grabbed reformed doctrine.

[notofworks]

Any of you care to tell me, straight up, that your three steps are ABSOLUTELY, necessary for salvation and without these steps, there is no access to heaven?

It seems like everyone runs when the "steps" are put to this test.

[Jeffrey]

which is why you negate the teachings of Christ and have grabbed reformed doctrine.

From RCC, all us Protestants are of a 'Reformed' nature.

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not even overly concerned with what I'm called. I'm soaked and convinced in the writings of the NT, it's power, it's beauty and it's deliverance.

Since you mention it, I can't think of a position any closer to the words of Jesus. I'm saved because he called and I believed. As a consequence of my belief and faith, I've continued to respond to Him, have grown in Him, am perfect in Him, and will eventually be taken away with Him.

[TheLegalist]

From RCC, all us Protestants are of a 'Reformed' nature.

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not even overly concerned with what I'm called. I'm soaked and convinced in the writings of the NT, it's power, it's beauty and it's deliverance.

Since you mention it, I can't think of a position any closer to the words of Jesus. I'm saved because he called and I believed. As a consequence of my belief and faith, I've continued to respond to Him, have grown in Him, am perfect in Him, and will eventually be taken away with Him.

ROFL... and you do that so straight typed... as if "believe" doesn't have a authors context to what is meant. You are saved if you "endure" within Christ. Not by a single moment in time. Faith is a present participle active or present progrssive... not one moment but a continous aspect with the "whole" in view which would be just like Abraham...

Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that
again might be missed by many English translations. When
Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes
in him (3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.), he uses the present
tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages,
hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous,
on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action
against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single
action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises
that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not
truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living
faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior.
(White pg 10-11) JAMES WHITE "Drawn by the Father"


Dana and Mantey "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament"
likewise explain the Greek present tense has a primary meaning of action in
progress. Dana and Mantey explain the present progressive (active) tense

"The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea
of progress. It is the linear tense... the progressive force of the
present tense should always be considered as primary, especially
with reference to the potential moods, which in the
nature of the case do not need any ‘present punctiliar’
tense..."

There are three varieties of the present tense in which its fundamental
idea of progress is especially patent. Under the Progressive
Present…[t]his use is manifestly nearest the root
idea of the tense. It signifies action in progress, or state of
persistence….

Rydberg likewise explains:
Present. The present tense denotes an action in the present
time with continuing aspect.

Thus Abraham just like everyone else and ACCORDING TO JAMES sees "believed" in the continous view or outlook from a narrative standpoint of what was known of the future. Thus he "believed".... which is in view of the continous aspect not just a moment in time. Which we see right after Gen 15:6 him doing what God said and God making the "land covenant" thus he was believing as Gen 15:6 as he was in Gen 12 all the way to Isaac.

[notofworks]

Legalist,

Is your way, the way of following 3 distinct steps, the ONLY way to salvation and an eternity in heaven?

[TheLegalist]

Legalist,

Is your way, the way of following 3 distinct steps, the ONLY way to salvation and an eternity in heaven?

Not sure exactly what your asking but salvation is about multiple steps or walking thus I don't see "salvation" as 3 steps or one or 10. Are we in covenant with God at 1,2, 3 or 4 etc... Well I could say one step which again is defined by the what the author means or me. Depends on what is meant behind faith. Is faith a single moment or a continous response to obtain. I see it as well does teh Greek as a continous response to obtain just as Abraham is a type. We obtain atonement by faith unto forgiveness which again is a certain context I place on faith. I hear and thus respond in kind to the context of what is said. The context of what is said determines the rest. Repentance, baptism, and the realization of his presence is are all apart of the walk of faith. Each has it's own significance. Faith unto Repentance is the engine by which all else becomes realized. repentance is part of baptism as it is that which we see Christ and turn to be united with him. God's moving upon us by his presence reveals his acceptance. Do I agree with 3 step as many describe it concerning what is expected? Yes! do I agree that is all there is? No! Faith is about a continous response by which GOd judges our hearts and his Spirit bears witness with ours that we are his children. In the end we will be judged faithful, slothful/lukewarm or cold.

[notofworks]

Not sure exactly what your asking but salvation is about multiple steps....

I think you do but I'll get more specific. Are the elements of repentance, baptism by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit as evidence by speaking in other tongues the ONLY way to heaven/salvation? Separate from the above description, is there any way to heaven/salvation?