The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Guess I had incorrect info. Thanks!

So, anyway.... do you think someone who accepts Jesus in their hearts, and refuses baptism is saved?


:lol "Refuses"? I've never seen anyone refuse. In my umpteen years of pastoring and seeing countless people come to faith, the natural process has always resulted in baptism.

But the more relevant question would be, "Is someone who never speaks in tongues, saved?"

[pelathais]

:lol "Refuses"? I've never seen anyone refuse. In my umpteen years of pastoring and seeing countless people come to faith, the natural process has always resulted in baptism.

But the more relevant question would be, "Is someone who never speaks in tongues, saved?"
I met one guy who might fit this category. He was convinced that some "special" preacher was destined to baptize him and so he refused all invitations to be baptized until he met that "special someone."

He wasn't "refusing baptism" as such. He was just treating the act with ... I dunno; with "undo care?"

This young man was so filled with personal pride that baptism itself probably wasn't his bar to eternal life. But, I think that anyone who presents a similar case of "refusing baptism" almost certainly didn't "touch bases" at the cross to begin with.

Last I heard of my friend he was going to meet with Peter Popoff to see if Popoff was "the one." This was all back around 1980. What a couple of doofs.

[notofworks]

I met one guy who might fit this category. He was convinced that some "special" preacher was destined to baptize him and so he refused all invitations to be baptized until he met that "special someone."

He wasn't "refusing baptism" as such. He was just treating the act with ... I dunno; with "undo care?"

This young man was so filled with personal pride that baptism itself probably wasn't his bar to eternal life. But, I think that anyone who presents a similar case of "refusing baptism" almost certainly didn't "touch bases" at the cross to begin with.

Last I heard of my friend he was going to meet with Peter Popoff to see if Popoff was "the one." This was all back around 1980. What a couple of doofs.


:ursofunnyWhether or not Peter Popper-man was "The One" would depend on wether or not his wife told him through the earpiece transmitter!

Wasn't there some pastor in Philadelphia or something that claimed that unless he baptized you, you weren't saved?

[mfblume]

:lol "Refuses"? I've never seen anyone refuse. In my umpteen years of pastoring and seeing countless people come to faith, the natural process has always resulted in baptism.

But the more relevant question would be, "Is someone who never speaks in tongues, saved?"

I already said that if someone is on the journey and has not yet been Spirit filled and spoke in tongues, but they are sincerely seeking all God has for them, they are saved.

But why did you not answer my question? What IF someone refused?

[mfblume]

But, I think that anyone who presents a similar case of "refusing baptism" almost certainly didn't "touch bases" at the cross to begin with.

That is exactly why I say FAITH THAT WORKS saves.

[Timmy]

That is exactly why I say FAITH THAT WORKS saves.

What if all you can muster is some FAITH THAT DOESN'T WORK? :heeheehee

[mfblume]

What if all you can muster is some FAITH THAT DOESN'T WORK? :heeheehee

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

[notofworks]

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


And this verse is not relative in any way whatsoever to your salvational views...or mine either, for that matter. There's a point that James is making here and surely you know what that is.

[mfblume]

And this verse is not relative in any way whatsoever to your salvational views...or mine either, for that matter. There's a point that James is making here and surely you know what that is.

It is a principle that was applied to the context of James and can be applied to anything else regarding faith. It's just like saying the first is natural, and the second is always spiritual, used in 1 Cor 15 to speak of the 2 Adams. We can apply that principle to anything.

Anyway, you still never answered me about someone who refuses baptism.

[Timmy]

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

"Faith that works" = "faith that has works"?

[notofworks]

It is a principle that was applied to the context of James and can be applied to anything else regarding faith. It's just like saying the first is natural, and the second is always spiritual, used in 1 Cor 15 to speak of the 2 Adams. We can apply that principle to anything.

Anyway, you still never answered me about someone who refuses baptism.


The ONLY principle being taught in James 2 is the concept of being tangible with our faith. What good does it do to commit to pray for someone's need when I can fill the need myself? James was telling people who overly-spiritualized things to get their butt in gear and work! When I have shoes that need to be tied, I don't pray for them to be tied, I tie them! This is what he was saying to his readers....if you can help another with their need, help them....don't ask God to help them!

This is completely irrelevant to the salvation conversation.

[mfblume]

"Faith that works" = "faith that has works"?

Yes. It is works that are caused by faith.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

[mfblume]

The ONLY principle being taught in James 2 is the concept of being tangible with our faith. What good does it do to commit to pray for someone's need when I can fill the need myself? James was telling people who overly-spiritualized things to get their butt in gear and work! When I have shoes that need to be tied, I don't pray for them to be tied, I tie them! This is what he was saying to his readers....if you can help another with their need, help them....don't ask God to help them!

This is completely irrelevant to the salvation conversation.

I already said it used a principle true to ANY KIND OF FAITH situation. Now, why will you not answer me? Do you believe a person is saved if they refuse water baptism? Yes or no?

[notofworks]

I already said it used a principle true to ANY KIND OF FAITH situation. Now, why will you not answer me? Do you believe a person is saved if they refuse water baptism? Yes or no?


But it doesn't apply, at all, to salvation. It's simply a statement about helping others in need. My goodness, Michael!

Ok, so if they refuse? Hmmm.....I can only guess and in so doing, attempt to know the heart of God. I'm guessing if a person refused, they'd have a good reason.

Good grief, this is all use conjecture. Why should I even try to answer?

Anyway, Let's say a person had a medical condition which disallowed them being submerged in water and they refused on that basis.....yes. They would be saved.

[Timmy]

Yes. It is works that are caused by faith.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

I thought James was talking about demonstrating that you have faith by doing works -- the plural noun works. "Faith that works" would be faith that accomplishes things, with the verb works.

[mfblume]

I thought James was talking about demonstrating that you have faith by doing works -- the plural noun works. "Faith that works" would be faith that accomplishes things, with the verb works.

You are right. But works are worked. :D

[mfblume]

But it doesn't apply, at all, to salvation. It's simply a statement about helping others in need. My goodness, Michael!

Whew, bro. The context of James 2 is not salvation. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. But faith is involved. And the same thing said about faith and works applies to faith in salvation as well. Get it this time? ANY FAITH is dead without works. ANY FAITH!

Ok, so if they refuse? Hmmm.....I can only guess and in so doing, attempt to know the heart of God. I'm guessing if a person refused, they'd have a good reason.

Good grief, this is all use conjecture. Why should I even try to answer?

Anyway, Let's say a person had a medical condition which disallowed them being submerged in water and they refused on that basis.....yes. They would be saved.

I am saying nothing about conditions that prohibit them. Anyway, it's clear you cannot answer or won't. Says a lot. Thanks! :thumbsup

[notofworks]

Whew, bro. The context of James 2 is not salvation. But faith is involved. And the same thing said about faith and works applies to faith in salvation as well. Get it this time?

I am saying nothing about conditions that prohibit them. Anyway, it's clear you cannot answer or won't. Says a lot. Thanks! :thumbsup



I answered your question like I wanted to and that's my liberty. If you don't like it, tough.

Frequently, your posts have the appearance of a bully writing them. And this one is a perfect example. You've name-called me, repeatedly insinuated that I'm unable to understand, and diagnosed me with personality disorders in the past, so I don't even know why I try. Enjoy your study time and who knows....at some point you might even know what all your information means!

And yes, I "get" James 2, but it appears that you don't. One of the greatest exegetical mistakes that is commonly made is turning non-doctrinal statements into doctrine. It's what you're doing here.

I'm more than willing to let this incredibly long thread die, so if all you have left is your already boring "Why can't you get this" stuff, let's just let it fizzle.

[mizpeh]

Why don't you both go try to post on Epley's old thread about short sleeved shirts? Maybe you have something in common? ;)

[mfblume]

Why don't you both go try to post on Epley's old thread about short sleeved shirts? Maybe you have something in common? ;)

I see little if anything in common. lol :D

[mfblume]

No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3. In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.



Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things. :)

You've name-called me,

I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise. Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. :) REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

[notofworks]

No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3. In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.

••I Peter 3:21 has been discussed, explained, hashed and re-hashed...in this thread!!! And it was directed at you, I believe by Pel & Jeffrey, and I saw our responses. You either have selective memory, or........

Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things. :)

••Another ridiculous accusation. You're loaded with them. And if you want to refrain, that's your business. I won't refrain, myself.:)

I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise.

••Oh, so someone else said you name-called. Hmmm.....Where there's smoke, there's fire. Or, you know what the bible says, "Bro", "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established! :D

Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

••Hello? Thanks, but I don't recall you ever saying that and I'd like to see where you did. You've never apologized for your baseless accusation, and you clearly should. To say publicly on the internet, in a forum setting, that another person "Has a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder" is an egregious offense. You should make it right rather than offering wimpy excuses and now claiming that you were just kidding. Nothing about it had any implications of joking. And I don't appreciate it.

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. :) REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

••ADD has nothing to do with an inability to "grasp things". As it's name says, it's an inability to pay attention to one thing for very long and I remarked as to the length of your posts and said, "My ADD couldn't survive your last post" and included smiles. I don't have ADD and if I do (and I've suspected I might) I've never been diagnosed with it.

I'll admit to being impatient, especially when I try to read pages of meaningless filibustering.

[pelathais]

I had dropped out for a bit on this thread - I'm always over extending myself in my online yammerings. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif Please forgive me if it takes a bit to get all of my comments "up to date" with the current state of the thread.

Mike has informed us of his dominant status thusly: :blah
No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3.
Such a parsing of salvation will probably always be met with consternation from the bulk of Christendom. It is only those that have been through the wringer known as the "When Is the Blood Applied?" debate who will be able to even have a chance at understanding Mike's lonely plaint.

As Christian believers, we are only "saved" from one thing: The wrath of God; that is, the rightful punishment for our sinful rebellion. Given the fact that we are only saved from a single amercement, it is cumbersome to think that we need different "acts" (or "works" or whatever) to clear the debt. A single act suffices and that act is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Mike has correctly pointed out that the death of Jesus Christ meant nothing without His resurrection (actually I pointed that out to Mike and he has been quoting 1 Peter 3:21 with my emphasis ever since, but I am generous). And so, the "act" that saves is both the death AND the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However Paul has us consider further "acts" as well. There was the "election of grace" from "the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). To this foreknowledge of Christ's Paul then adds "predestination" (Romans 8:29). To predestination is added our "calling" (Romans 8:30), justification and glorification.

So, which "act" on the part of Jesus Christ saves us? It is clearer to simply say that "Jesus saves us." That sums it all up nicely.

How do we participate in this salvation and make it "our own" salvation in particular? Well, here we can develop a similar progression of events, each with its own merit and purpose; however, it's simpler to say "The just shall live by faith."

Mike's alarming plea that "no one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from" is a poor rhetorical tool for such a good preacher of the Gospel, unless his conceptualization of the problem is so compartmentalized that he sincerely believes that water baptism is intended to save us from something other than what "calling on the name of the Lord" saves us from (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:12-13).

I suspect that Mike sees a need for salvation from just a single common peril; but what act "saves" us from that peril? Belief, repentance, water baptism, speaking in tongues, or our holy conduct?

It is much plainer to simply say, "Jesus saves us and we shall live by faith." There are certainly matters of conduct that will need to be addressed in due time, but if we don't get this part right, none of the rest will make any sense.

[pelathais]

In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.
I refuse to "realize" that repentance is a work. It is a verb, but it is not a "work" in any sense that the word "works" is used and applied in New Testament theology. "Shockingly," I was also the one who said to you, "Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

You resist Biblical terminology with your adamant neo-logisms and you have completely and repeatedly mischaracterized your opponents in this debate.

Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things. :)
It's probably none of my business, but that is certainly NOT the way to "close things properly" with a Brother.


I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise. Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

Your muddled rant here is quite puzzling to me since the last exchange we had ended with you saying:

Oops, I mistakenly typed words about righteousness to you that I meant for notofworks.

Anyway, I agree with you.

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. :) REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

Well, now that's better. I hope we can feel good about ourselves as we toil on together upon this mortal coil of woe, mutual sorrow and grief.

[mfblume]

I refuse to "realize" that repentance is a work. It is a verb, but it is not a "work" in any sense that the word "works" is used and applied in New Testament theology. "Shockingly," I was also the one who said to you, "Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

What does baptism save us from? I am not getting that answer.

And I agree that WORKS in "salvation by works" is not the sort of works repentance is, nor what baptism is, btw. How many times have I stated that it is works that render us righteous in and of themselves that are spoken against in the bible?

[mfblume]

Such a parsing of salvation will probably always be met with consternation from the bulk of Christendom. It is only those that have been through the wringer known as the "When Is the Blood Applied?" debate who will be able to even have a chance at understanding Mike's lonely plaint.
The New Testament never uses the terms of "when the blood is applied". What is that? Such terms lead to ends that are offkey. Stick to the New Testament terminology. :)

As Christian believers, we are only "saved" from one thing: The wrath of God; that is, the rightful punishment for our sinful rebellion. Given the fact that we are only saved from a single amercement, it is cumbersome to think that we need different "acts" (or "works" or whatever) to clear the debt. A single act suffices and that act is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Mike has correctly pointed out that the death of Jesus Christ meant nothing without His resurrection (actually I pointed that out to Mike and he has been quoting 1 Peter 3:21 with my emphasis ever since, but I am generous). And so, the "act" that saves is both the death AND the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For the record, while you continue to say YOU raised the issue of 1 Peter 3, since this is the second time you mentioned it, I have not read your words where you raised the issue. Not to say you didn't. And there are too many posts to find it. Anyway...

However Paul has us consider further "acts" as well. There was the "election of grace" from "the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). To this foreknowledge of Christ's Paul then adds "predestination" (Romans 8:29). To predestination is added our "calling" (Romans 8:30), justification and glorification.

So, which "act" on the part of Jesus Christ saves us? It is clearer to simply say that "Jesus saves us." That sums it all up nicely.

How do we participate in this salvation and make it "our own" salvation in particular? Well, here we can develop a similar progression of events, each with its own merit and purpose; however, it's simpler to say "The just shall live by faith."

Mike's alarming plea that "no one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from" is a poor rhetorical tool for such a good preacher of the Gospel,

Oh please. It is not rhetoric. I am asking a straightforward question and simply noted that I have not gotten a direct answer yet.

unless his conceptualization of the problem is so compartmentalized that he sincerely believes that water baptism is intended to save us from something other than what "calling on the name of the Lord" saves us from (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:12-13).

Not at all. While you distort my words, let me say that I never stated what baptism saves us from or what it does not save us from. I simply asked what DOES it save from. And I asked those who see baptism as not being a part of salvation.

I suspect that Mike sees a need for salvation from just a single common peril;

I never said. But while you repeat your idea that baptism saves from the only thing anyone needs salvation from, then how can anyone say baptism is not required for salvation, especially you?

but what act "saves" us from that peril? Belief, repentance, water baptism, speaking in tongues, or our holy conduct?

It is much plainer to simply say, "Jesus saves us and we shall live by faith." There are certainly matters of conduct that will need to be addressed in due time, but if we don't get this part right, none of the rest will make any sense.

Regardless, the Word says "baptism saves". And while you and others say you agree with Peter saying "baptism saves", yet you claim one does not need baptism to be saved. Whatever.

[mfblume]

N.O.W.

But at any rate, chats like this always get away from the issue and become personally oriented. Don't let that happen. It's not a competition thing. The issue if passive aggression was tongue in cheek to begin with, as well.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=897538&postcount=941

[notofworks]

N.O.W.



http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=897538&postcount=941


Either I didn't read it, don't remember it, or breezed through it. Either way, it was probably 6 months after you said it originally.

And I would great disagree that your initial vicious attack:lol on me with the "Passive-Aggressive" thing was anywhere NEAR "tongue-in-cheek."

Here it is from August 28, 2009:

"First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong."

See anything TIC there? I don't.

Furthermore, the first time I brought it up a few weeks ago, you said you didn't remember it. How do you suddenly now remember that it was TIC? Interesting.

[pelathais]

The New Testament never uses the terms of "when the blood is applied". What is that? Such terms lead to ends that are offkey. Stick to the New Testament terminology. :)
Silliness aside, the "When is the Blood Applied" question is the context of this entire discussion.

I agree about the "ends" you mention, but this is where we found ourselves from the time we first took up the mantle in our respective ministries; even before that time.

For the record, while you continue to say YOU raised the issue of 1 Peter 3, since this is the second time you mentioned it, I have not read your words where you raised the issue. Not to say you didn't. And there are too many posts to find it. Anyway...
So what is your point here?

My point was merely to attempt to show agreement.

Oh please. It is not rhetoric. I am asking a straightforward question and simply noted that I have not gotten a direct answer yet.

And yet it was answered, "at least two times by your count" (above).

Not at all. While you distort my words, let me say that I never stated what baptism saves us from or what it does not save us from. I simply asked what DOES it save from. And I asked those who see baptism as not being a part of salvation.
I guess your question was directed to those off this board then. People who would probably never even know that you had asked such a question. Sorry.

I never said. But while you repeat your idea that baptism saves from the only thing anyone needs salvation from, then how can anyone say baptism is not required for salvation, especially you?
Indeed.

Or you, with your "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized" story.

Regardless, the Word says "baptism saves". And while you and others say you agree with Peter saying "baptism saves", yet you claim one does not need baptism to be saved. Whatever.
And you've repeatedly said the same thing. Whatever?

[TheLegalist]

and still... no answer. What also is amazing is the scripture clearly teaches when the blood is applied as blood and death are synonymous. Romans 6 says when we are united with him in his death.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

[mfblume]

Either I didn't read it, don't remember it, or breezed through it. Either way, it was probably 6 months after you said it originally.

And I would great disagree that your initial vicious attack:lol on me with the "Passive-Aggressive" thing was anywhere NEAR "tongue-in-cheek."

Here it is from August 28, 2009:

"First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong."

See anything TIC there? I don't.

Furthermore, the first time I brought it up a few weeks ago, you said you didn't remember it. How do you suddenly now remember that it was TIC? Interesting.

Will you not stop? I thought you wanted it to fizzle out? I said what I said and have never lied to you.

[notofworks]

Will you not stop? I thought you wanted it to fizzle out? I said what I said and have never lied to you.


When you part by hurling yet another accusation when you said, "but you cannot get away with fabricating things", when in fact, you are clearly making things up......No, I won't just let that drop.

Do you really think I'm going to just say, "Hey thanks Mike for another accusation" and hit the trail? Even Pel took exception to the way you spoke. Sorry, you don't get to hurl multiple baseless accusations, attempt to make excuses for your egregious accusations that aren't true, AND misrepresent the way you originally presented them, and have no one say anything.


Here's the chronology:

1) You called me passive-aggressive and I provided the original quote. Nowhere in that quote was there any hint of kidding.

2) I brought it up and you told me you didn't remember why you said it.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=863532&postcount=30

3) You now claim you were kidding, and I can't imagine how anyone could read the original post and believe that.

4) You tell me the discussion is finished but reprimand me for "fabricating" things, which is ironic considering this chronology.


Sorry, but no, I won't go away quietly and allow you to say these things.

[mfblume]

When you part by hurling yet another accusation when you said, "but you cannot get away with fabricating things", when in fact, you are clearly making things up......No, I won't just let that drop.

Then go and look for one post in which I namecalled you. Prove your point, for all you are doing is making empty claims about namecalling. Regarding the "passive aggression", whether you see it or not, I said it was tongue in cheek. If you disagree, then call me a liar. If you cannot believe what I am saying as though I lied, then why continue to talk to a liar? Would you not only continue to get lies?

This does not need to be on the forum. Let's take it to a PM.

[mfblume]

The issue of when the blood is applied is a hairy one. It gets into all sorts of confusion, I think. So I do not use it.

For instance, since the blood was applied to the three posts of the Hebrew doors in Goshen during Passover, some say there is a three-fold application to denote repentance, baptism and Spirit infilling. No one stepper would agree with that. I would be called a three stepper, but I do not agree with that correlation either. However, that is the sort of can of worms one opens when one discusses when the blood is applied, when the New Testament does not use that terminology. Since it is not used, then neither sides of the steppers' views are proposed in relation to it.

We do read of BLOOD SHEDDING and BLOOD SPRINKLING. And that is another category altogether, though. Sprinkling of the blood occurs on thy human conscience and depicts a changing process of coming to full assurance of faith in Hebrews 9 - 10, after salvation.

[notofworks]

Then go and look for one post in which I namecalled you. Prove your point, for all you are doing is making empty claims about namecalling. Regarding the "passive aggression", whether you see it or not, I said it was tongue in cheek. If you disagree, then call me a liar. If you cannot believe what I am saying as though I lied, then why continue to talk to a liar? Would you not only continue to get lies?

This does not need to be on the forum. Let's take it to a PM.


Before I go digging through dozens of pages of this thread for something that you'll, most likely just explain away, let's deal with what I've already provided.

Here's is the original post you gave, in its entirety, in which you called me "Passive-Aggressive", which is a very serious behavioral/personality disorder:

First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong.

The epistles all spoke to saved people. And the focus in each and every epistle to churches is spiritual maturity. I can get into each and every epistle to prove that if you wish. References to salvation were given in some cases only to reinforce the need for the manner in which saints were to continue onward.

To say Romans 10;9-10 is the entire scope of what anyone needs to know to be saved is simply incorrect. No one intends to belittle Romans 10:9-10 when saying Acts shows the details. But if you are correct, Peter was preaching false doctrine in Acts 2. Now, was he or wasn't he? And why did Peter give his answer in Acts 2:38 to their question? Furthermore, if that question has not changed today, why should we give any other answer. Show me where anything like Romans 10:9-10 was all that the people heard in the sermons in Acts where folks were saved as a result.

It is simply that Romans 10:9-10 is not speaking in detail as any sermon in Acts is. Otherwise we have grave contradiction in the Word, and the view I hold seems to me to be the only view that makes no contradiction of the Word.


So are you seriously, with a straight face,going tell me that you were only kidding with this post? If you say that, after reading it in its entirety, then I'll fly away and be at rest, Psalm 55-style, and then it'll be up to you to sleep at night. :lol

I'm not sure I want to dig through dozens of pages for your name-calling...I'm sure you'd just explain it away, but it's noteworthy that Pel also recalls the name-calling. So for now, can we just deal with what we DO have, rather than what we don't? For me, this post of calling me "Passive-Aggressive" is name-calling and it's what I'm displeased with the most, and it's also what you refuse to make right.

[mfblume]

Pelathais,

Just to bring things up to speed on everyone's behalf, let me say your words are confusing. This is not to slap you. I am trying to get your point.

You claim one does not need to be baptized to say they are saved. I ONLY say such a thing if there is a situation where baptism is physically impossible, as in the guy in the car scenario. And that is because it is FAITH THAT WORKS. (I know I am repeating this, but you still indicate you cannot understand why I say someone can be saved without having been baptized when I claim baptism is part of salvation). The FAITH in FAITH THAT WORKS is what saves directly. If no works like baptism follow, then there was no FAITH that saves. And when someone has FAITH that saves, one WILL WANT TO BE baptized, and THE WANT TO is the evidence of the saving FAITH. So regardless if the person did not get baptized due to some mishap, THE FAITH that saves was present since they would have done so.

Anyway, you said that demand for baptism for salvation is error. But when I say baptism is part of salvation you agree. Now, that is why TL said the question has not been answered, and why I said I have not gotten an answer. When we get to this point with you, you then state something like this is a very complicated issue and would take many more words (or something to that effect).

I said baptism is necessary for salvation. You said it is not, I THINK. And then you said it is part of salvation. Now, what is the difference between baptism necessary for salvation and baptism part of salvation? This is where your words confuse me, not saying my words never confused you. But bouncing these things off one another helps us each understand where the other is coming from more clearly.

[mfblume]

N.O.W. if you want me to say I never meant a tongue-in-cheek with those words then take this as what you want. But I told you already more than twice now that I did not lie when I said it was tongue in cheek, whether I forgot and then later remembered, or not.

Now, I stated my claim about that issue in finality. So find ONE POST where I called you a name. That was the issue you took issue with in your refusal to let this drop. Come good with one post where I called you a name, and I will sincerely ask forgiveness for saying you fabricated that accusation. I promise! Ok?

[notofworks]

N.O.W. if you want me to say I never meant a tongue-in-cheek with those words then take this as what you want. But I told you already more than twice now that I did not lie when I said it was tongue in cheek, whether I forgot and then later remembered, or not.

Now, I stated my claim about that issue in finality. So find ONE POST where I called you a name. That was the issue you took issue with in your refusal to let this drop. Come good with one post where I called you a name, and I will sincerely ask forgiveness for saying you fabricated that accusation. I promise! Ok?

When I have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, I'll go looking. Like I said, calling me "Passive-Aggressive" IS name-calling and you won't admit that so I'm not very hopeful that you'll make anything else right either. Whatever I produce, you'll just pass off as "joking" so it really won't do any good. If you can't admit the original was serious, there's nothing you'll admit.

The bottom line, however, is that, "The Cross Alone Can Save!":bliss

But when I have some time, I'll look.

[Pressing-On]

When I have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, I'll go looking. Like I said, calling me "Passive-Aggressive" IS name-calling and you won't admit that so I'm not very hopeful that you'll make anything else right either. Whatever I produce, you'll just pass off as "joking" so it really won't do any good. If you can't admit the original was serious, there's nothing you'll admit.

The bottom line, however, is that, "The Cross Alone Can Save!":bliss

But when I have some time, I'll look.

Hey, NOW! Did you know that Mike Blume has written a book, "Take A Bite of Eternal Life, The Kingdom of God, The Garden Restored!"

You should buy it from him. It's a good read. And, incidentally, you called him "long winded" in a previous post. Guess what? The book is only Volume One! :toofunny

[notofworks]

Hey, NOW! Did you know that Mike Blume has written a book, "Take A Bite of Eternal Life, The Kingdom of God, The Garden Restored!"

You should buy it from him. It's a good read. And, incidentally, you called him "long winded" in a previous post. Guess what? The book is only Volume One! :toofunny


Good grief, even the title is long! Can I get a comped copy?:lol

Interestingly enough, I'm in the process of writing a book!. The problem is, I can't get more than three pages written!:lol

[Pressing-On]

Good grief, even the title is long! Can I get a comped copy?:lol

Interestingly enough, I'm in the process of writing a book!. The problem is, I can't get more than three pages written!:lol
Well, if he was boring, that would be another story, but he always writes something thought provoking and interesting, so I don't mind the length.

Billy Cole's father said, "Thirty minutes is long enough for a good preacher and too long for a bad one!" :thumbsup :ursofunny

He'll autograph it for ya! LOL! He did mine - "God Bless you as you enjoy His eternal life! Mike Blume, Phil 3:10".

I'm saving it to sell on e-bay when he gets really big. So, write your book, we will buy it and wait to sell yours on e-bay too! :toofunny

[mfblume]

When I have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, I'll go looking. Like I said, calling me "Passive-Aggressive" IS name-calling and you won't admit that so I'm not very hopeful that you'll make anything else right either. Whatever I produce, you'll just pass off as "joking" so it really won't do any good. If you can't admit the original was serious, there's nothing you'll admit.

The bottom line, however, is that, "The Cross Alone Can Save!":bliss

But when I have some time, I'll look.

Amen. I give you permission to call me a liar, since you insist I lied. But that would be namecalling. And do you not recall me kidding with you in a PM after the fact about passive aggression? Passive aggression is a condition, too, not a name. A name is something like "Pumpkinhead" that Pelathais called me. :lol In fact, ironically enough, Pelathais said I WAS PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE and I never blew a gasket about it. But it is interesting you cannot find any namecalling.



For Pressing-On,

It is wonderful to know that createspace.com is a website where one can order books on demand and get as little as ONE BOOK printed for &.50. So "hello!" for writing more books!

[notofworks]

Amen. I give you permission to call me a liar, since you insist I lied. But that would be namecalling. And do you not recall me kidding with you in a PM after the fact about passive aggression? Passive aggression is a condition, too, not a name. A name is something like "Pumpkinhead" that Pelathais called me. :lol In fact, ironically enough, Pelathais said I WAS PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE and I never blew a gasket about it. But it is interesting you cannot find any namecalling.




Didn't say I couldn't find any and that was VERY clear. I said I hadn't yet looked. See there how you twist things?? WOW!!!! Nor have I insisted you "lied". However, you said, that I "Fabricated things" and the very definition of "Fabricate" is "To forge, fake, or to lie". So in actuality, you've called ME a liar! So that would be name-calling example #1.

The habit here is, I quote you with copying and pasting, and your habit is answer things I said, that I never said. Great debate strategy. You're not the first one to use it here.

So..."The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save!!!":)

[pelathais]

and still... no answer.
How plainer could I have been?

"As Christian believers, we are only "saved" from one thing: The wrath of God; that is, the rightful punishment for our sinful rebellion. Given the fact that we are only saved from a single amercement, it is cumbersome to think that we need different "acts" (or "works" or whatever) to clear the debt. A single act suffices and that act is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ."

You sound like "Baghdad Bob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Bob#During_the_Iraq_war)," TheLegalist. Denial, self deception... the works.

What also is amazing is the scripture clearly teaches when the blood is applied as blood and death are synonymous. Romans 6 says when we are united with him in his death.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Was the blood of Jesus Christ shed in the tomb or at the cross? See also Galatians 2:20-21.

T.L. - How do you feel about Mike's hypothetical "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized?" Mike asserts that such a man is saved inspite of the fact that he was never water baptized. Would you agree?

[pelathais]

The issue of when the blood is applied is a hairy one. It gets into all sorts of confusion, I think. So I do not use it.

For instance, since the blood was applied to the three posts of the Hebrew doors in Goshen during Passover, some say there is a three-fold application to denote repentance, baptism and Spirit infilling. No one stepper would agree with that. I would be called a three stepper, but I do not agree with that correlation either. However, that is the sort of can of worms one opens when one discusses when the blood is applied, when the New Testament does not use that terminology. Since it is not used, then neither sides of the steppers' views are proposed in relation to it.

We do read of BLOOD SHEDDING and BLOOD SPRINKLING. And that is another category altogether, though. Sprinkling of the blood occurs on thy human conscience and depicts a changing process of coming to full assurance of faith in Hebrews 9 - 10, after salvation.

Historically, the debate's primary ramifications were whether or not other Christian groups should be considered as "saved" by the newly formed org in 1945.

The fact that the "Three Stepper" approach has become increasingly dominant is the primary reason the UPC is so often labeled as a "cult." This exclusivistic approach consigns everyone - even the "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to Be Baptized" - to hell. It simply cannot be maintained in the light of Scripture (and I know you don't take it to that extreme, Mike).

Also, the glaring fact that the "Acts 2:38 message" was not preached for at least 1,700 years of the Church Age also puts the more extreme "Three Steppers" in a bit of a bind.

I would not call you a "Three Stepper" Mike, despite the fact that sometimes you do jump into a discussion as if you were one. I see the need for someone who isn't fully wed to an opinion to feel as though they need to clear things up along their lines of thinking. We all do this in one way or the other.

And, your point about the "application" of the blood (Hebrews 9-10) is excellent. "The blood" was NOT shed only on the Day of Atonement in the OT. It was a part of the daily rituals and prayers of Israel. The NT illustration is that Jesus once died for our sins and that this blood from Calvary is still available through faith for the needs of our daily lives today. So in a sense, the blood is really applied continually in the life of the NT believer.

The issue of that older debate, however, might be said to focus upon the question of when is the blood initially applied?

[mfblume]

Didn't say I couldn't find any and that was VERY clear. I said I hadn't yet looked. See there how you twist things?? WOW!!!! Nor have I insisted you "lied". However, you said, that I "Fabricated things" and the very definition of "Fabricate" is "To forge, fake, or to lie". So in actuality, you've called ME a liar! So that would be name-calling example #1.

The habit here is, I quote you with copying and pasting, and your habit is answer things I said, that I never said. Great debate strategy. You're not the first one to use it here.

So..."The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save!!!":)

You can surely write a lot when the issue is not biblical, but otherwise. lol. Don't tell me you have short attention span. :lol

Anyway, you learned my secret. I never call anyone a liar but I will say whether I think they lied or not. I will never call anyone a name, but will say how I feel they acted. So while I will say you, perhaps unintentionally, fabricated (fabricated is a much nicer term than lied) the idea of me calling you names, I would never call you a liar. But I will say that if you think that me saying you were passive aggressive is name-calling, which I would never say was namecalling (in such a case I would call you a passive aggressor), I apologize for making you feel like I called you a "name". I would not call that a name, but evidently you think it is namecalling.

And I used no strategy of saying you said what you did not say. If I said you claimed something, then I was honest in believing you said it. Again, I did not lie nor do I lie.

Now, can we go on from here yet?

[mfblume]

So in a sense, the blood is really applied continually in the life of the NT believer.

That is the very point I once brought out to someone who asked when the blood is applied. Since the blood stands as a microcosm of the work of the cross, then it never ceases to be applied.

[notofworks]

You can surely write a lot when the issue is not biblical, but otherwise. lol. Don't tell me you have short attention span. :lol

Anyway, you learned my secret. I never call anyone a liar but I will say whether I think they lied or not. I will never call anyone a name, but will say how I feel they acted. So while I will say you, perhaps unintentionally, fabricated (fabricated is a much nicer term than lied) the idea of me calling you names, I would never call you a liar. But I will say that if you think that me saying you were passive aggressive is name-calling, which I would never say was namecalling (in such a case I would call you a passive aggressor), I apologize for making you feel like I called you a "name". I would not call that a name, but evidently you think it is namecalling.

And I used no strategy of saying you said what you did not say. If I said you claimed something, then I was honest in believing you said it. Again, I did not lie nor do I lie.

Now, can we go on from here yet?

If you'd like to tip-toe through the tulips of honesty, by saying that telling me I lied is not calling me a liar, then enjoy yourself. But I won't be bullied like that and not call you on it. Sorry. I get the impression that very few, if any, people have ever stood up to you.

For me to say, "I don't have time to look up the evidence right now" and then have you proclaim that I was unable to find any evidence, is either a blatant falsehood or an inattention to detail. I'm not fond of either one.

[mfblume]

If you'd like to tip-toe through the tulips of honesty, by saying that telling me I lied is not calling me a liar, then enjoy yourself. But I won't be bullied like that and not call you on it. Sorry. I get the impression that very few, if any, people have ever stood up to you.

For me to say, "I don't have time to look up the evidence right now" and then have you proclaim that I was unable to find any evidence, is either a blatant falsehood or an inattention to detail. I'm not fond of either one.

Bro., say whatever you want. It's a free world. But I stand by all I said. I explained myself. To me, describing what someone did is different than calling them a name. To you it may not be that way. Your choice and mine. But that is honestly how I think of it. So let it stand that I think you lied and you think I lied. And may God bless you! :)

This is my last post. You can write as much more as you wish. Sorry for my part in wasting people's time in this thread.

Speaking of the cross saving, this thread needs to be saved from this banter.

[pelathais]

Bro., say whatever you want. Tally ho, Don Quixote! It's a free world. But I stand by all I said. I explained myself. To me, describing what someone did is different than calling them a name. To you it may not be that way. Your choice and mine. But that is honestly how I think of it. So let it stand that I think you lied and you think I lied. And may God bless you! :)

This is my last post. You can write as much more as you wish. Sorry for my part in wasting people's time in this thread.

Speaking of the cross saving, this thread needs to be saved from this banter.
That's a pretty good example of your passive/aggressive approach to most of your forum postings Mike. You jump in saying things like,

"None of the One Steppers could ever explain..." and

"They just have no answers for ..." and

"Everyone who doesn't see it my way has no real education and is schtoopid!"

Then, after having turned up the heat to a boiling a temperature, you immediately start to whine whenever someone responds back to you in kind.

"Oh boy! You must really have anger management issues!" exclaims Mike... right after he has scornfully denigrated everyone else.

You're the classic mouthy little kid in the playground. You try and pick a fight wherever you go and when someone stands up to you, you immediately start crying, "Teeeacher!"

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[Jeffrey]

That's a pretty good example of your passive/aggressive approach to most of your forum postings Mike. You jump in saying things like,

"None of the One Steppers could ever explain..." and

"They just have no answers for ..." and

"Everyone who doesn't see it my way has no real education and is schtoopid!"

Then, after having turned up the heat to a boiling a temperature, you immediately start to whine whenever someone responds back to you in kind.

"Oh boy! You must really have anger management issues!" exclaims Mike... right after he has scornfully denigrated everyone else.

You're the classic mouthy little kid in the playground. You try and pick a fight wherever you go and when someone stands up to you, you immediately start crying, "Teeeacher!"

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


Well, looks like you being a jerk to everyone that disagrees with you today... not just me. Same ol' lines too. Maybe you need to take a time-out?

[mfblume]

That's a pretty good example of your passive/aggressive approach to most of your forum postings Mike. You jump in saying things like,

"None of the One Steppers could ever explain..." and

"They just have no answers for ..." and

"Everyone who doesn't see it my way has no real education and is schtoopid!"

Then, after having turned up the heat to a boiling a temperature, you immediately start to whine whenever someone responds back to you in kind.

"Oh boy! You must really have anger management issues!" exclaims Mike... right after he has scornfully denigrated everyone else.

You're the classic mouthy little kid in the playground. You try and pick a fight wherever you go and when someone stands up to you, you immediately start crying, "Teeeacher!"

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


See, notofworks? I get called passive aggressive here, too. (Just saw I called you Don Quixote. Sorry for the namecalling. I finally did it.)

Thanks, bro.

[notofworks]

That's a pretty good example of your passive/aggressive approach to most of your forum postings Mike. You jump in saying things like,

"None of the One Steppers could ever explain..." and

"They just have no answers for ..." and

"Everyone who doesn't see it my way has no real education and is schtoopid!"

Then, after having turned up the heat to a boiling a temperature, you immediately start to whine whenever someone responds back to you in kind.

"Oh boy! You must really have anger management issues!" exclaims Mike... right after he has scornfully denigrated everyone else.

You're the classic mouthy little kid in the playground. You try and pick a fight wherever you go and when someone stands up to you, you immediately start crying, "Teeeacher!"

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


Well explained, Pel. The condescension gets incredibly old and I'm sick of it.

I don't like internet bullies! Of course, Mike, I didn't CALL you a bully just now, I only said I didn't LIKE internet bullies. (I guess that's the game you play.)

[notofworks]

See, notofworks? I get called passive aggressive here, too. (Just saw I called you Don Quixote. Sorry for the namecalling. I finally did it.)

Thanks, bro.

No, that's not true. He just said you had a passive-aggressive approach. :razz

[pelathais]

Yeah. And Jeffery - do I have your permission to post your Private Messages from this evening?

Cyberstalking is so ugly.

[pelathais]

Well, looks like you being a jerk to everyone that disagrees with you today... not just me. Same ol' lines too. Maybe you need to take a time-out?
I am a "sage" when you agree with me and a "jerk" when you don't. Your words. Sad.

[Jeffrey]

Yeah. And Jeffery - do I have your permission to post your Private Messages from this evening?

Cyberstalking is so ugly.

Sorry, NOW, I don't think Pel can be an advocate against condescension.

Cyberstalking LOL You're hilarious.

[notofworks]

Bro., say whatever you want. It's a free world. But I stand by all I said. I explained myself. To me, describing what someone did is different than calling them a name. To you it may not be that way. Your choice and mine. But that is honestly how I think of it. So let it stand that I think you lied and you think I lied. And may God bless you! :)

This is my last post. You can write as much more as you wish. Sorry for my part in wasting people's time in this thread.

Speaking of the cross saving, this thread needs to be saved from this banter.


So by my expert calculations (it's probably too difficult for you to understand, but I'll try) this here post of yours was #1299 and you say it's your last.

However, upon deep study, research and analysis, I see that post #1302 is yours. So did you:

1) Lie;
2) Forget;
3) Misremember (Roger Clemens word);
4) Relapse;
5) Have inattention to detail.

I'll take my answer off the air.

[Jeffrey]

I am a "sage" when you agree with me and a "jerk" when you don't. Your words. Sad.

I thought of you as a sage :grampa However, as I explained in our private note (that you are so itching at the gills to share with the masses) I still think you're a really smart guy. But sages are those older types filled with wisdom. You seem to still enjoy a good brawl.

And don't misrepresent what I said. The "your words" was not "when you agree with me" and "when you don't." My disappointment with you was not because you disagreed. I do believe you are smart enough to realize that. But as irrational as you've been lately, I'll cut you some slack.

[Jeffrey]

So by my expert calculations (it's probably too difficult for you to understand, but I'll try) this here post of yours was #1299 and you say it's your last.

However, upon deep study, research and analysis, I see that post #1302 is yours. So did you:

1) Lie;
2) Forget;
3) Misremember (Roger Clemens word);
4) Relapse;
5) Have inattention to detail.

I'll take my answer off the air.

Cheap shot, NOW :ursofunny We've all been guilty of one of those before.

[Jeffrey]

I am a "sage" when you agree with me and a "jerk" when you don't. Your words. Sad.

I thought of you as a sage. But as I explained in our private note (that you are so itching at the gills to share with the masses) I still think you're a really smart guy. But sages are those older types filled with wisdom. You seem to still enjoy a good brawl.

And don't misrepresent what I said. The "your words" was not "when you agree with me" and "when you don't." My disappointment with you was not because you disagreed. I do believe you are smart enough to realize that. But as irrational as you've been lately, I'll cut you some slack.

[pelathais]

I thought of you as a sage. But as I explained in our private note (that you are so itching at the gills to share with the masses) I still think you're a really smart guy. But sages are those older types filled with wisdom. You seem to still enjoy a good brawl.

And don't misrepresent what I said. The "your words" was not "when you agree with me" and "when you don't." My disappointment with you was not because you disagreed. I do believe you are smart enough to realize that. But as irrational as you've been lately, I'll cut you some slack.
Mrs. Richardson taught our First Grade class about quotation marks. Your words that I quoted were in quotation marks. This fact seems to have not escaped you; yet you still say that I misrepresented your words.

And, I won't embarass you further by posting the PMs. You've done enough for yourself. Why don't you call it an evening?

[notofworks]

I thought of you as a sage. But as I explained in our private note (that you are so itching at the gills to share with the masses) I still think you're a really smart guy. But sages are those older types filled with wisdom. You seem to still enjoy a good brawl.

And don't misrepresent what I said. The "your words" was not "when you agree with me" and "when you don't." My disappointment with you was not because you disagreed. I do believe you are smart enough to realize that. But as irrational as you've been lately, I'll cut you some slack.

I only took it as him saying that you called him both a sage and a jerk. It didn't seem to be misrepresented to me, at least, not from my point of view.

[Jeffrey]

Mrs. Richardson taught our First Grade class about quotation marks. Your words that I quoted were in quotation marks. This fact seems to have not escaped you; yet you still say that I misrepresented your words.

And, I won't embarass you further by posting the PMs. You've done enough for yourself. Why don't you call it an evening?

Embarrass me? You've already broke rules and shared private messages. I have nothing to hide. You are on a rampage. Feel free to do it. The majority of my comments to you were "hahahahahahahahaha."

What's the point? What do you want to prove tonight, Pel?

You correctly used the quotation marks with some rather implied commentary in-between. A passerby may get the wrong idea. So, let's just put it out there how it was rightly said, and not on how you chose to reinterpret what I said.

[Jeffrey]

I only took it as him saying that you called him both a sage and a jerk. It didn't seem to be misrepresented to me, at least, not from my point of view.

Glad you figure it out. I want to make sure everyone does.

My words were actually to the degree of:

I'm disappointed in you. Considered you the sage of AFF... something about now seeing him as a jerk. If the forum really cares :razz

[Jeffrey]

Actually... the exact quote of mine:

I had an impression of you initially on AFF as the articulate sage. Amazing what 48 hours can do.

[Jeffrey]

Feeling the love on the "Cross of Christ" thread hahaha.

[notofworks]

Glad you figure it out. I want to make sure everyone does.

My words were actually to the degree of:

I'm disappointed in you. Considered you the sage of AFF... something about now seeing him as a jerk. If the forum really cares :razz


Well, for me, he'd still be very much the "sage". I've learned more from Pel than all my college combined and many of the years beyond. He's the reason I initially stayed on AFF.

I'm not sure what happened but I just know that I got sick of Mike doing his, "You poor people could never understand this like I do" schtick so that's my current warpath!:lol I don't like having my words twisted beyond recognition.

But don't bash Pel too hard, I'm the president of his fan club!:)

[Jeffrey]

Well, for me, he'd still be very much the "sage". I've learned more from Pel than all my college combined and many of the years beyond. He's the reason I initially stayed on AFF.

I'm not sure what happened but I just know that I got sick of Mike doing his, "You poor people could never understand this like I do" schtick so that's my current warpath!:lol I don't like having my words twisted beyond recognition.

But don't bash Pel too hard, I'm the president of his fan club!:)

I like him too... most of the time. On the AZ Bill posting that got locked up now, things took a turn. Knowledgeable and smart... not that it matters to him, but not sage-like. Not about "fan clubs" for me... and I don't like to think I'm "bashing him" ... but I won't take all night explaining or reasoning that out either.

[pelathais]

Embarrass me? You've already broke rules and shared private messages.
And just when was that?

Reality appears to be something ephemeral to you. You can't quite grasp or get a hold on it.


I have nothing to hide. You are on a rampage. Feel free to do it. The majority of my comments to you were "hahahahahahahahaha."
Too many repeated PMs with the frenetic nervous laughter.

What's the point? What do you want to prove tonight, Pel?

You correctly used the quotation marks with some rather implied commentary in-between. A passerby may get the wrong idea. So, let's just put it out there how it was rightly said, and not on how you chose to reinterpret what I said.
You said what I have already characterized you as saying, and then you repeated it. The context of the "sage" remark was concerning my posts in this thread, a thread that you now malign. Yet I have been as frank and "fun" here as I was on that thread about AZ's SB1070.

The context of the "jerk" comment was your realization in that thread that I probably don't agree with you about everything and that I have little patience for those who seem to need to post ... frenetically.

It suddenly occurs to me that I also appear to have dropped in your esteem when you discovered that I was not as wealthy financially as you had for some reason imagined.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" ?

[Jeffrey]

Too many repeated PMs with the frenetic nervous laughter.
Is that how you interpreted it? hahahahahahahahahaa

You said what I have already characterized you as saying, and then you repeated it. The context of the "sage" remark was concerning my posts in this thread, a thread that you now malign. Yet I have been as frank and "fun" here as I was on thread that about AZ's SB1070.

You've been so fun that Admin got involved and locked the thread.

The context of the "jerk" comment was your realization in that thread that I probably don't agree with you about everything and that I have little patience for those who seem to need to post ... frenetically.
Nice try. You really truly believe (all your irrationality aside) I think your a jerk because you don't agree with me?

[Jeffrey]

It suddenly occurs to me that I also appear to have dropped in your esteem when you discovered that I was not as wealthy financially as you had for some reason imagined.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" ?

Your last remark... huh?
I could careless if you were a bazillionnaire or living on a shoe string budget.
This whole day has been so unlike you. Are you really Pel? Who has hijacked your screen name?

I am concerned about the implications of the bill and don't think it's a reactive response, not a solution. Sorry we disagree.

[mfblume]

...but I just know that I got sick of Mike doing his, "You poor people could never understand this like I do" schtick so that's my current warpath!:lol I don't like having my words twisted beyond recognition.

For the record, bro., I did not mean any one was stupid when saying they were not getting any points I made.

Here is where I tried explaining it.

I was explaining that there is no contradiction if you actually got my point. Neither of us are stupid, bro. It's just that it is sometimes hard to relate viewpoints, and when that occurs the recipient of the explanation thinks contradiction abounds where there actually is none. For some reason you think I am insulting you when I claim you cannot get my point. Notofoworks is touchy that way, too.

...from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=900209&postcount=1114


And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

...from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=904823&postcount=1271

No one paid attention to that explanation I guess.

If anything, I was simply unclear in my writing. Blame me! :) But I said, as you can see, more than once that I did not imply you were stupid or dumb.

[Jeffrey]

Question for TL and Blume (and others) -- do you agree with this excerpt from the Augsburg Confession?

For it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction,
and not true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.

False also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God
because of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].

False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love
God above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear
God to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to
obey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet what
belongs to others, etc.; although reason can work civil works.

Are we capable, by our own will, of even loving God and wanting to obey Him?

[Jeffrey]

More from Augsburg:

False also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who,
without grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments
of God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in
their hearts].

(Was there already a whole thread about Augsburg?)

My question is to understand how you view man's (perceived) role in salvation.

[TheLegalist]

More from Augsburg:

False also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who,
without grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments
of God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in
their hearts].

(Was there already a whole thread about Augsburg?)

My question is to understand how you view man's (perceived) role in salvation.

Let me put it to you this way....

God according to scripture and prophecy gives us a heart of flesh so that we will do his commandments.

1) I don't believe in total depravity
2) our works are not the source of justice for our sin. the atonement of christ is.
3) our obedience has a direct affect on our relationship and standing with Christ. We are either true to the purchase price for eternal life or not and we will be judged faithful or wanting.
4) Our obedience is not the source of grace though grace is only given to the humble
5) We cannot receive the promise without obedience and judged "just" to our call and then chosen from those whom are called.
6) It is by the power of his Spirit we become perfect in our work instead of the reasoning and wading the waters of confusion of the mind of how to obey God's law.
7) The Spirit bears witness with our spirit if we are being responsive to him and if not it is unto the flesh and death. God cannot have pleasure or dwell(have relationship) with a heart at enmity with him. This is basic relationship law. The Spirit will still compel to turn but dwelling is a matter of synergistic communion.

[TheLegalist]

I) God - Lutherans believe in the Triune God and reject other interpretations regarding the nature of God.

uh they can't really explain it either so this is amusing.

II) Original Sin - Lutherans believe that the nature of man is sinful, described as being without fear of God, without trust of God and with concupiscence. The only 'cure' for sin is to be reborn through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The first part is contradictive to 18. It's a compromise.

III) The Son of God - Lutherans believe in the incarnation, that is, the union of the fully human with the fully divine in the person of Jesus. Jesus Christ alone brings about the reconciliation of humanity with God.

about time something good is said.

IV) Justification By Faith - Man cannot be justified before God through our own abilities; we are wholly reliant on Jesus Christ for reconciliation with God. (This is often described as the one article by which the "Lutheran church stands or falls".)

own abilities must be defined. does it mean outside of God's request or simply our own initiative. If it is a reference to works of our own initiative I agree but I doubt it.




V) The Office of Preaching Lutherans believe that to see to it that the gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed throughout the world, Christ has established his office of the holy ministry.
VI) Of The New Obedience - Lutherans believe that good deeds of Christians are the fruits of faith and salvation, not a price paid for them.

While we are at it let's just throw out Christ's Word that receiving the kingdom of God is like purchasing a field or a great pearl. Also let's ingore basic understanding of contract law and how it works.

VII) Of The Church Lutherans believe that there is one holy Christian Church, and it is found wherever the gospel is preached in its truth and purity and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel.
VIII) What The Church Is Despite what hypocrisy may exist in the church (and among men), the Word and the Sacraments are always valid because they are instituted by Christ, no matter what the sins may be of the man who administers them.
IX) Of Baptism Lutherans believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God. Children are baptized as an offering to them of God's grace.

1/2 right

X) Of the Lord's Supper Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood is truly present in with and under the bread and wine of the sacrament, and reject those that teach otherwise.
XI) Of Confession Lutherans believe that private absolution should remain in the church, though a believer does not need to enumerate all of his sins as it is impossible for a man to enumerate all of the sins for which he should be forgiven.
XII) Of Repentance Repentance comes in two parts: in contrition for sins committed according to the Law and through faith offered through the Gospel. A believer can never be free from sin, nor live outside of the grace of God.
XIII) Of the Use of the Sacraments The Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) are physical manifestations of God's Word and his commitment to us. The sacraments are never just physical elements, but have God's word and promises bound to them.
XIV) Of Ecclesiastical Order Lutherans only allow those who are "rightly called" to administer the Sacraments.
XV) Of Ecclesiastical Usages Lutherans believe that church holidays, calendars and festivals are useful for religious observance, but that observance and ritual is not necessary for salvation. Human traditions (such as observances, fasts, distinctions in eating meats) that are taught as a way to "merit" grace work in opposition to the Gospel.
XVI) Of Civil Affairs Secular governments and vocations are considered to be part of God's natural orders; Christians are free to serve in government, the military and engage in the business and vocations of the world. Laws are to be followed unless they are commandments to sin.
XVII) Of Christ's Return to Judgment Lutherans believe that Christ will return to judge the world and all men; the 'godly' will be given everlasting joy, the 'ungodly' will be condemned. This article rejects notions of the earthly kingdom of the godly, or that Christ's judgment will not be final.
XVIII) Of Free Will Lutherans believe that we have free will in the realm of "civil righteousness" (or "things subject to reason"), but that we do not have free will in "spiritual righteousness". In other words, we are free to choose and act in every regard except for the choice of salvation. Faith is not the work of men, but of the Holy Spirit.

This is totaly ignorant and stupid while being contradictive.

XIX) Of the Cause of Sin God does not cause people to sin — sin is instead the work of the 'ungodly and the devil'. (i.e. our selfish concerns of this world)
XX) Of Good Works The Lutheran notion of justification by faith does not somehow condemn good works; our faith causes us to good works as a sign of our justification (or salvation), not a requirement for salvation.

This clearly ignores the whole of scripture and that works are the very essence of judgment of what "faithfulness" is. This also fails as it makes salvation ONLY a single realized point in time vs a whole view of a promise to be realized by judgment in the end. Typical failure of understanding Abraham and WAY over reaching what Gen 15:6 is about. Promises and covenants mean rights to obtain. Abraham had conditions, Jesus gave conditions and faithfulness is always the judge of obtaining the promise BY THE CONDITIONS of the contract!

XXI) Of the Worship of the Saints Lutherans keep the saints, not as saviors or intercessors to God, but rather as examples and inspirations to our own faith and life.

[mfblume]

Lutherans are like Calvinists. They believe in predestination and election the way Calvinists do, in my assessment. Correct me if I am wrong.

[TheLegalist]

Lutherans are like Calvinists. They believe in predestination and election the way Calvinists do, in my assessment. Correct me if I am wrong.

pretty close in many areas...

The problem is Luther was all over the map in his life. So whic Luthers belief are you talking about. LOL! Lutherans have a very wide set of beliefs. Some are antinomians and some are charged as legalists by the other side. LOL! Oh wait I thought htat only happened in the UPC.

[mfblume]

pretty close in many areas...

The problem is Luther was all over the map in his life. So whic Luthers belief are you talking about. LOL! Lutherans have a very wide set of beliefs. Some are antinomians and some are charged as legalists by the other side. LOL! Oh wait I thought htat only happened in the UPC.

I was amazed at the list you provided of all the Lutheran branches! WOW! It is quite similar to the UPC in some ways, isn't it.

[notofworks]

I was amazed at the list you provided of all the Lutheran branches! WOW! It is quite similar to the UPC in some ways, isn't it.


Ok, this is my last post!!!!!
:ursofunny
That's it, I just wanted to say that.

[notofworks]

For the record, bro., I did not mean any one was stupid when saying they were not getting any points I made.

Here is where I tried explaining it.
...from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=900209&postcount=1114
...from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=904823&postcount=1271
No one paid attention to that explanation I guess.
If anything, I was simply unclear in my writing. Blame me! :) But I said, as you can see, more than once that I did not imply you were stupid or dumb.


I changed my mind about what was posted here. When I play in the mud, my clothes get dirty.:lolAdios!

[n david]

That's a pretty good example of your passive/aggressive approach to most of your forum postings Mike. You jump in saying things like,

"None of the One Steppers could ever explain..." and

"They just have no answers for ..." and

"Everyone who doesn't see it my way has no real education and is schtoopid!"

Then, after having turned up the heat to a boiling a temperature, you immediately start to whine whenever someone responds back to you in kind.

"Oh boy! You must really have anger management issues!" exclaims Mike... right after he has scornfully denigrated everyone else.

You're the classic mouthy little kid in the playground. You try and pick a fight wherever you go and when someone stands up to you, you immediately start crying, "Teeeacher!"

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Right!

Oh wait, you're talking about mfblume and not someone else. Sorry, my mistake.

Carry on!

:thumbsup

[notofworks]

Right!

Oh wait, you're talking about mfblume and not someone else. Sorry, my mistake.

Carry on!

:thumbsup



:lolFunny.

[mfblume]

Question for TL and Blume (and others) -- do you agree with this excerpt from the Augsburg Confession?

For it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction, and not true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.

False also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God because of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].

False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love God above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear God to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to obey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet what belongs to others, etc.; although reason can work civil works.

Are we capable, by our own will, of even loving God and wanting to obey Him?

I believe that ability to love God is offered to us to join with the ability we already have to love Him by choice. We can choose to accept that offer with our own reasoning and then God enjoins with us and empowers us to be able to love Him to the fullest.

It looks like the Lutherans here are saying even conscious decisions are impossible for us to make on our own in order to get so far away from salvation by works, that they believe predestination like the Calvinists. This leads to the Calvinistic and Lutheran belief that we can never really have victory over sin, either. I think their belief stems from a non-regenerate heart that has to excuse lack of victory in their lives over sin, so they conclude God predestines who will be saved, and one will not lose their salvation regardless of how much sin one commits. So I distance myself from any Lutheran and Calvinistic proposals. They have an agenda of concocting an excuse for lack of spiritual victory.

[TheLegalist]

I believe that ability to love God is offered to us to join with the ability we already have to love Him by choice. We can choose to accept that offer with our own reasoning and then God enjoins with us and empowers us to be able to love Him to the fullest.

It looks like the Lutherans here are saying even conscious decisions are impossible for us to make on our own in order to get so far away from salvation by works, that they believe predestination like the Calvinists. This leads to the Calvinistic and Lutheran belief that we can never really have victory over sin, either. I think their belief stems from a non-regenerate heart that has to excuse lack of victory in their lives over sin, so they conclude God predestines who will be saved, and one will not lose their salvation regardless of how much sin one commits. So I distance myself from any Lutheran and Calvinistic proposals. They have an agenda of concocting an excuse for lack of spiritual victory.

Absolutely and Totaly agree! Mike think about it. The doctrine they teach truly is falling away from the realization of Grace! As Grace is the law of God placed on our hearts through the blood of Christ BY WHICH WE ACTUALLY OVERCOME SIN! Not simply positionally but OVERCOME by doing his will.

[mfblume]

Absolutely and Totaly agree! Mike think about it. The doctrine they teach truly is falling away from the realization of Grace! As Grace is the law of God placed on our hearts through the blood of Christ BY WHICH WE ACTUALLY OVERCOME SIN! Not simply positionally but OVERCOME by doing his will.

Wow. Powerful thought! GRACE is DIVINE EMPOWERMENT! Talk about distorting grace by trying to understand it better! Hooboy!

[mfblume]

TL, ever hear of this interpretation of God's answer to Paul's prayer for deliverance from the thorn in his flesh? Our most recent thoughts on grace reminded me of it.

Paul was in a learning curve throughout Acts. When he prayed for God to deliver him from the thorn in his flesh, he was desiring God to do all the work. God in effect told him, "No, I have given you GRACE (divine empowerment) and you can overcome and drive that thorn away yourself in MY POWER."

I heard a minister mention that last year and it really grabbed me.

[TheLegalist]

TL, ever hear of this interpretation of God's answer to Paul's prayer for deliverance from the thorn in his flesh? Our most recent thoughts on grace reminded me of it.

Paul was in a learning curve throughout Acts. When he prayed for God to deliver him from the thorn in his flesh, he was desiring God to do all the work. God in effect told him, "No, I have given you GRACE (divine empowerment) and you can overcome and drive that thorn away yourself in MY POWER."

I heard a minister mention that last year and it really grabbed me.

I firmly believe this as this is the foundational model of my belief system. His Grace(empowerment to overcome) is sufficient. There view of grace does allow temptation beyond what we can bear. We can't stop sinning they say. Like we are some savage robots to the flesh that rape and pillage everything in sight. Then they(calvinists) say God makes us believe to be declared righteous.... yet somehow he drops the ball all the other times we are sinning and allows us to live in sin but yet WOW he gave us a little faith to believe once and here a little there a little. sheesh this a one of the great heresies at it highest and it's totaly infiltrated Christian thought. Whether your a calvinist or not it's tentacles are there in many belief systems.

They truly make the Grace of God non effect!

[mfblume]

I firmly believe this as this is the foundational model of my belief system. His Grace(empowerment to overcome) is sufficient. There view of grace does allow temptation beyond what we can bear. We can't stop sinning they say. Like we are some savage robots to the flesh that rape and pillage everything in sight. Then they(calvinists) say God makes us believe to be declared righteous.... yet somehow he drops the ball all the other times we are sinning and allows us to live in sin but yet WOW he gave us a little faith to believe once and here a little there a little. sheesh this a one of the great heresies at it highest and it's totaly infiltrated Christian thought. Whether your a calvinist or not it's tentacles are there in many belief systems.

They truly make the Grace of God non effect!

HAHAHA. RIGHT!

They believe in grace to cause us to be saved, without so much as our choice, and with all that overcoming power over human will, as though we really had no will, they do not believe grace can empower us in victory over sin!

[notofworks]

HAHAHA. RIGHT!

They believe in grace to cause us to be saved, without so much as our choice, and with all that overcoming power over human will, as though we really had no will, they do not believe grace can empower us in victory over sin!



May I interrupt this theological and self-satisfactory high-fiving, to point out that "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save."

Romans 4:2 Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride.


Romans 4:3 For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous."


Romans 4:4 When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive.


Romans 4:5 But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work.

[mfblume]

LT,

Romans 6, which speaks of baptism by the way, teaches that we have died with Christ when baptized into His death to such a degree that we can present ourselves alive from the dead, since we died with Christ to sin and arose with Him, for God to empower us to dominate sin in our lives. Calvinism and Lutheranism deny this. But Paul said Christ died to -- of all things -- sin. And we died with Him to -- of all things -- sin.

Romans 6:10-11 KJV For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.


The whole point is that the work of the cross in our lives in dying with Christ, rising with Him and being seated with Him over all powers, including sin, has caused us to be veritable powerhouses if we can only accept this and act upon it by faith.

If people believe they cannot have victory over sin, they will find a way to fulfill it. We look forward to the things we expect. If we expect to sin, we will. Romans 6 removes the expectancy to sin away from us by walking through the understanding that we are dead to sin to engender faith in us, so why should we expect it to dominate us all our lives if we have HIS GRACE upon us to empower us over it?

This is the victory of the cross after the cross saved us.

I like what one teacher said. The blood was shed ON EARTH to save us, and the BLOOD IS SPRINKLED IN HEAVEN to empower us with FAITH of HIS WORK that saved us to LIKEWISE keep us above sin. Paul also called this walking after the Spirit. So long as we walk after the Spirit, and not the flesh, by not looking to the flesh to make itself ANYTHING powerful, God can continue to work as He first worked to save us. In both cases, it takes our faith.

[TheLegalist]

May I interrupt this theological and self-satisfactory high-fiving, to point out that "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save."

Romans 4:2 Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride.


Romans 4:3 For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous."


Romans 4:4 When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive.


Romans 4:5 But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work.


ehhh when you think of the POWER of his resurrection that we experience to overcome LITERALLY! high five is weak.... it makes you want to...

:shockamoo


oh and who is the "one" Paul is talking about in verse 5. Also are these "believers" in the church Paul is talking about? Also what works are Paul talking about? Mans works of self initiative or response to his Word?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

[TheLegalist]

LT,

Romans 6, which speaks of baptism by the way, teaches that we have died with Christ when baptized into His death to such a degree that we can present ourselves alive from the dead, since we died with Christ to sin and arose with Him, for God to empower us to dominate sin in our lives. Calvinism and Lutheranism deny this. But Paul said Christ died to -- of all things -- sin. And we died with Him to -- of all things -- sin.

Romans 6:10-11 KJV For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.


The whole point is that the work of the cross in our lives in dying with Christ, rising with Him and being seated with Him over all powers, including sin, has caused us to be veritable powerhouses if we can only accept this and act upon it by faith.

If people believe they cannot have victory over sin, they will find a way to fulfill it. We look forward to the things we expect. If we expect to sin, we will. Romans 6 removes the expectancy to sin away from us by walking through the understanding that we are dead to sin to engender faith in us, so why should we expect it to dominate us all our lives if we have HIS GRACE upon us to empower us over it?

This is the victory of the cross after the cross saved us.

I like what one teacher said. The blood was shed ON EARTH to save us, and the BLOOD IS SPRINKLED IN HEAVEN to empower us with FAITH of HIS WORK that saved us to LIKEWISE keep us above sin. Paul also called this walking after the Spirit. So long as we walk after the Spirit, and not the flesh, by not looking to the flesh to make itself ANYTHING powerful, God can continue to work as He first worked to save us. In both cases, it takes our faith.

yep... we become new and servants of the most high God. If we are still walking in sin we are not his servant. As the Spirit will not lead us to sin. As pointed out we are now not debtors to sin anymore but to Christ by death. Which is unto covenant! Covenant brings us into a newness of purpose and life. Thus we are dead to the past and all things have become NEW IN HIM!

Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

oh wait... I can't stop sinning isthe foundation of this theology and the ABOVE clearly shows Paul was showing power over such. Paul was not talking about postionally righteous but PRACTICAL righteousness that is brought about by the empowering grace we realize by coming INTO and ABIDING in him and HIM through US.

[mfblume]

yep... we become new and servants of the most high God. If we are still walking in sin we are not his servant. As the Spirit will not lead us to sin. As pointed out we are now not debtors to sin anymore but to Christ by death. Which is unto covenant! Covenant brings us into a newness of purpose and life. Thus we are dead to the past and all things have become NEW IN HIM!

Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

oh wait... I can't stop sinning isthe foundation of this theology and the ABOVE clearly shows Paul was showing power over such. Paul was not talking about postionally righteous but PRACTICAL righteousness that is brought about by the empowering grace we realize by coming INTO and ABIDING in him and HIM through US.

AMEN!!!

It seems practical righteousness is absent from those who propose any aberrant teaching apart from the truth of the cross the bible is really trying to relate. Things practical make all the world of a difference. LORD, teach me Your Way!

So, the work of the cross saves and continues to work in victory over sin. First, victory FROM SINS, and then victory OVER SIN.

Someone once pointed out that SINS (the acts) are the issues from Romans 1 up to the middle of chapter 5, and then it switches to speak about SIN (the principle).

[notofworks]

This is funny.:toofunny

Why don't you two do a couple of laps around the sanctuary and when you're finished, start shouting.

:shockamoo

(Admin, can we please get a smilie of a guy frantically running around the church?)

[TheLegalist]

This is funny.:toofunny

Why don't you two do a couple of laps around the sanctuary and when you're finished, start shouting.

:shockamoo

(Admin, can we please get a smilie of a guy frantically running around the church?)


I second the motion!

[Jeffrey]

Let me put it to you this way....

God according to scripture and prophecy gives us a heart of flesh so that we will do his commandments.

1) I don't believe in total depravity you DON'T?? Partial? Almost TOTAL? Where are you on the continuum? Marred by sin but not depraved?
2) our works are not the source of justice for our sin. the atonement of christ is.
3) our obedience has a direct affect on our relationship and standing with Christ. We are either true to the purchase price for eternal life or not and we will be judged faithful or wanting.
4) Our obedience is not the source of grace though grace is only given to the humble What does the second half mean? How am I "humble?" There is a condition for offered grace? What do you think the scripture means on that?
5) We cannot receive the promise without obedience and judged "just" to our call and then chosen from those whom are called. Did Abram have a promise in Gen 12 before the rest of the story?
6) It is by the power of his Spirit we become perfect in our work instead of the reasoning and wading the waters of confusion of the mind of how to obey God's law.
7) The Spirit bears witness with our spirit if we are being responsive to him and if not it is unto the flesh and death. God cannot have pleasure or dwell(have relationship) with a heart at enmity with him. This is basic relationship law. The Spirit will still compel to turn but dwelling is a matter of synergistic communion.

Was my heart at enmity with God when he bestowed righteousness and grace upon me? The Spirit's action is conditional upon ours? Through the cross, are we still at enmity with God?

Thanks for your response, TL. In the middle of a paper on justification right now and thought I'd tag back in here.

[Jeffrey]

I) God - Lutherans believe in the Triune God and reject other interpretations regarding the nature of God.

uh they can't really explain it either so this is amusing.

II) Original Sin - Lutherans believe that the nature of man is sinful, described as being without fear of God, without trust of God and with concupiscence. The only 'cure' for sin is to be reborn through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The first part is contradictive to 18. It's a compromise.

III) The Son of God - Lutherans believe in the incarnation, that is, the union of the fully human with the fully divine in the person of Jesus. Jesus Christ alone brings about the reconciliation of humanity with God.

about time something good is said.

IV) Justification By Faith - Man cannot be justified before God through our own abilities; we are wholly reliant on Jesus Christ for reconciliation with God. (This is often described as the one article by which the "Lutheran church stands or falls".)

own abilities must be defined. does it mean outside of God's request or simply our own initiative. If it is a reference to works of our own initiative I agree but I doubt it.




V) The Office of Preaching Lutherans believe that to see to it that the gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed throughout the world, Christ has established his office of the holy ministry.
VI) Of The New Obedience - Lutherans believe that good deeds of Christians are the fruits of faith and salvation, not a price paid for them.

While we are at it let's just throw out Christ's Word that receiving the kingdom of God is like purchasing a field or a great pearl. Also let's ingore basic understanding of contract law and how it works.

VII) Of The Church Lutherans believe that there is one holy Christian Church, and it is found wherever the gospel is preached in its truth and purity and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel.
VIII) What The Church Is Despite what hypocrisy may exist in the church (and among men), the Word and the Sacraments are always valid because they are instituted by Christ, no matter what the sins may be of the man who administers them.
IX) Of Baptism Lutherans believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God. Children are baptized as an offering to them of God's grace.

1/2 right

X) Of the Lord's Supper Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood is truly present in with and under the bread and wine of the sacrament, and reject those that teach otherwise.
XI) Of Confession Lutherans believe that private absolution should remain in the church, though a believer does not need to enumerate all of his sins as it is impossible for a man to enumerate all of the sins for which he should be forgiven.
XII) Of Repentance Repentance comes in two parts: in contrition for sins committed according to the Law and through faith offered through the Gospel. A believer can never be free from sin, nor live outside of the grace of God.
XIII) Of the Use of the Sacraments The Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) are physical manifestations of God's Word and his commitment to us. The sacraments are never just physical elements, but have God's word and promises bound to them.
XIV) Of Ecclesiastical Order Lutherans only allow those who are "rightly called" to administer the Sacraments.
XV) Of Ecclesiastical Usages Lutherans believe that church holidays, calendars and festivals are useful for religious observance, but that observance and ritual is not necessary for salvation. Human traditions (such as observances, fasts, distinctions in eating meats) that are taught as a way to "merit" grace work in opposition to the Gospel.
XVI) Of Civil Affairs Secular governments and vocations are considered to be part of God's natural orders; Christians are free to serve in government, the military and engage in the business and vocations of the world. Laws are to be followed unless they are commandments to sin.
XVII) Of Christ's Return to Judgment Lutherans believe that Christ will return to judge the world and all men; the 'godly' will be given everlasting joy, the 'ungodly' will be condemned. This article rejects notions of the earthly kingdom of the godly, or that Christ's judgment will not be final.
XVIII) Of Free Will Lutherans believe that we have free will in the realm of "civil righteousness" (or "things subject to reason"), but that we do not have free will in "spiritual righteousness". In other words, we are free to choose and act in every regard except for the choice of salvation. Faith is not the work of men, but of the Holy Spirit.

This is totaly ignorant and stupid while being contradictive.

XIX) Of the Cause of Sin God does not cause people to sin — sin is instead the work of the 'ungodly and the devil'. (i.e. our selfish concerns of this world)
XX) Of Good Works The Lutheran notion of justification by faith does not somehow condemn good works; our faith causes us to good works as a sign of our justification (or salvation), not a requirement for salvation.

This clearly ignores the whole of scripture and that works are the very essence of judgment of what "faithfulness" is. This also fails as it makes salvation ONLY a single realized point in time vs a whole view of a promise to be realized by judgment in the end. Typical failure of understanding Abraham and WAY over reaching what Gen 15:6 is about. Promises and covenants mean rights to obtain. Abraham had conditions, Jesus gave conditions and faithfulness is always the judge of obtaining the promise BY THE CONDITIONS of the contract!

XXI) Of the Worship of the Saints Lutherans keep the saints, not as saviors or intercessors to God, but rather as examples and inspirations to our own faith and life.

Are you citing part of the Confession or where are you citing from?

Contractual law. I think our hugest blunder is to see God through our constructed grids.

TL are you a Triumphalist? Do you believe we can attain perfection? How "faithful" must I be to deserve to be saved?

What I have now in salvation, is it not also futuristic? Is my name not written in the Book of Life now? Do you not have comfort in and security in the promise?

Is grace "you do this and I'll do this" or is grace "I've done this so you can do this?" :)

[mfblume]

Yes. More smilies are needed. Running the aisles smilies, casting out devils smilies and anti-liturgy smilies.

[TheLegalist]

AMEN!!!

It seems practical righteousness is absent from those who propose any aberrant teaching apart from the truth of the cross the bible is really trying to relate. Things practical make all the world of a difference. LORD, teach me Your Way!

So, the work of the cross saves and continues to work in victory over sin. First, victory FROM SINS, and then victory OVER SIN.

Someone once pointed out that SINS (the acts) are the issues from Romans 1 up to the middle of chapter 5, and then it switches to speak about SIN (the principle).

Yep.... they are stuck at the cross vs understanding of walking by thy realization of the power of the cross to do his will. there grace doesn't allow for a walk of righteousness unto faithfulness but a positional assurity without actually having to remain faithful. The cross is about empowerment not just some acquittal of sin. We are pardoned and brought unto newness of life with power over sin and the flesh. This is the GRACE of God which is by HIS power unto eternal life to them that obey.

Note: There is no acquittal of sin. Sin DID happen it's not ignored and not judged to NOT have existed and no charges found. It is rather a pardon by payment of debt.

Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

[Jeffrey]

I believe that ability to love God is offered to us to join with the ability we already have to love Him by choice. We can choose to accept that offer with our own reasoning and then God enjoins with us and empowers us to be able to love Him to the fullest.

I'm not fully understanding you here. "No man comes to God except the Spirit draw" We didn't even come to him on our own to begin with. Grace was dispensed from the start, no matter Calvinist or Arminianist (or Pelagius). I don't think we can even take credit for "choosing God" and "finding Him." He found us. The next part where hairs cross is in response, to which I would agree with you more than John Calvin.

It looks like the Lutherans here are saying even conscious decisions are impossible for us to make on our own in order to get so far away from salvation by works, that they believe predestination like the Calvinists. This leads to the Calvinistic and Lutheran belief that we can never really have victory over sin, either. I think their belief stems from a non-regenerate heart that has to excuse lack of victory in their lives over sin, so they conclude God predestines who will be saved, and one will not lose their salvation regardless of how much sin one commits. So I distance myself from any Lutheran and Calvinistic proposals. They have an agenda of concocting an excuse for lack of spiritual victory. Correct. They, like many, believe in Total Depravity. Some maintain the TD position and rely on Prevenient Grace as an explanation. I don't think it leads Calvinist or Lutherans to believe we can't have victory over sin... on the contrary, our empowerment to "be who we are" and to "live as those of the light" is done by the working of the Spirit in us. Your assumptions about "them" are a huge stretch, for these beliefs span the minds of thousands of theologians. I've read some other papers by Calvinists and it's extremely unaccurate to say they "conjured up" this doctrine to pardon their own sin. Some of the New Calvinists (Driscol, Piper) are more vocal about sin than my fellows in orgs like UPC. They actually focus on sin... but they see Sanctification as not a "once and done" event. There is a place in their doctrine for Sanctification, to think otherwise, is to ignore volumes of books -- even the Confession includes excerpts. Your entire conclusion is woefully inaccurate Mike, and I hope you realize that. Debate TD, and the others points, but the rest is awful speculation.

...

[Jeffrey]

Absolutely and Totaly agree! Mike think about it. The doctrine they teach truly is falling away from the realization of Grace! As Grace is the law of God placed on our hearts through the blood of Christ BY WHICH WE ACTUALLY OVERCOME SIN! Not simply positionally but OVERCOME by doing his will.

Not true. I suggest reading their documents on Sanctification. The process is beautiful and does not equate to one "trying to better" to avoid going to the hot place. Because of our position, we CAN overcome. Though we won't fully overcome until the day of Redemption.

[Jeffrey]

I firmly believe this as this is the foundational model of my belief system. His Grace(empowerment to overcome) is sufficient. There view of grace does allow temptation beyond what we can bear. We can't stop sinning they say. Like we are some savage robots to the flesh that rape and pillage everything in sight. Then they(calvinists) say God makes us believe to be declared righteous.... yet somehow he drops the ball all the other times we are sinning and allows us to live in sin but yet WOW he gave us a little faith to believe once and here a little there a little. sheesh this a one of the great heresies at it highest and it's totaly infiltrated Christian thought. Whether your a calvinist or not it's tentacles are there in many belief systems.

They truly make the Grace of God non effect!

Can you stop sinning? Are you now perfect?

We aren't robots to the flesh. Paul clarifies that to be sure. But neither are we "already attained."

The tentaticles of perfectionism have done far worse damage, including driving people to damnation as a result of their own condemenation.

[Jeffrey]

HAHAHA. RIGHT!

They believe in grace to cause us to be saved, without so much as our choice, and with all that overcoming power over human will, as though we really had no will, they do not believe grace can empower us in victory over sin!

You guys don't get it.
Seriously, I know you'll disagree on their theology, but what you've both written on here shows a STRONG misunderstanding or a conscious choice to mischaracterize.

[Jeffrey]

ehhh when you think of the POWER of his resurrection that we experience to overcome LITERALLY! high five is weak.... it makes you want to...

:shockamoo


oh and who is the "one" Paul is talking about in verse 5. Also are these "believers" in the church Paul is talking about? Also what works are Paul talking about? Mans works of self initiative or response to his Word?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

What were the "works" he was addressing with the Jews? What about the Law did they think, if complied with, would save them? Was circumcision? Yes.

The audience question is only good to a point. Paul, here, is articulating his theology in rather clear terms. To suggest he's skipping the 'major stuff' in talking about Grace is exceptional.

[Jeffrey]

Right!

Oh wait, you're talking about mfblume and not someone else. Sorry, my mistake.

Carry on!

:thumbsup

Say what you mean and mean what you say. :thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

Are you citing part of the Confession or where are you citing from?


Yes... Wiki!

Contractual law. I think our hugest blunder is to see God through our constructed grids.

No, his ways have been made known. It's not m contruction but his.

TL are you a Triumphalist? Do you believe we can attain perfection? How "faithful" must I be to deserve to be saved?

Perfection? I have explained this many times. Blamelessness is about getting up by faith and walking in his light when we sin. Zach and Elizabeth where blameless not sinless. BIG difference. THe law provided for sin by atonement and they fulfilled the requirement with a heart of faith and true repentance. Just as JEsus taught!

Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.


What I have now in salvation, is it not also futuristic? Is my name not written in the Book of Life now? Do you not have comfort in and security in the promise?

could be but it can also be taken out. Yes, God is true to his promise in contract. You must be faithful to your end of the contract and that is to follow him and do the will of the Father as HE did. Then you will be called friend as Abraham was called friend. Salvation is conditional.

Exo 32:32 But now, if you will forgive their sin--but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written."
Exo 32:33 But the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.

Is grace "you do this and I'll do this" or is grace "I've done this so you can do this?" :)


I have done this (atonement) and offer you this IF... He offers freely but salvation has conditions. It is both a present realization(promise) with the hope of future realization by judgment. (consummation) Just as Abraham experienced. God will give you help but you choose to be a servant to whom you please.

God offered a promise to do(grace) to a humble man but it was not realized unless he walked by faith.

Gen 18:18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."

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."

Abraham was justified by doing what God commanded him to do and God's promise would be realized because of his faithfulness.

[mfblume]

Jeffrey,

Are you a Calvinist of any kind? Sorry if I missed your clarification of that question. If I misrepresented the Lutherans and Calvinists, then I did not do it intentionally. My conclusions are the impression I got after surveying the beliefs I have surveyed. Not saying I am not wrong about my conclusions. I know no one intentionally makes doctrines to excuse sin, but I feel this is the spirit undergirding such concepts, personally.

I see no room for Gal 5:16 in their thoughts.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

[TheLegalist]

Not true. I suggest reading their documents on Sanctification. The process is beautiful and does not equate to one "trying to better" to avoid going to the hot place. Because of our position, we CAN overcome. Though we won't fully overcome until the day of Redemption.


Whose? I am talking in general about different beliefs... Also lies are not beautiful. I agree we don't fully overcome as the flesh is ever present until death.

[TheLegalist]

What were the "works" he was addressing with the Jews? What about the Law did they think, if complied with, would save them? Was circumcision? Yes.

The audience question is only good to a point. Paul, here, is articulating his theology in rather clear terms. To suggest he's skipping the 'major stuff' in talking about Grace is exceptional.

actually.... living by faith was part of the law and IT DID SAVE THEM AS DID REPENTANCE which was ALSO part of the LAW.

Again WHO are these people.

[TheLegalist]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


Doing the commandments of God give you RIGHT by contract to the tree of life and that you can enter your eternal rest with the Lord. Thus he judges you faithful to obtain!

[pelathais]

Lutherans are like Calvinists. They believe in predestination and election the way Calvinists do, in my assessment. Correct me if I am wrong.
As Jeffery's anointed "sage" - (in this thread only!) I will agree with your assessment of Lutherans here, but only in the most general of terms.

Lutherans don't typically go with the "strong" Calvinism such as the "Five Points" of Calvin's "Evangelicalism." They do take their cues from Augustine's predestination which was also the source for the development of Calvinism.

It's probably fair from our Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness tradition to lump them all together - but we should remember that what we have left at the end of the day is still rather "lumpy." Properly they are two different sorts of critters.

[Jeffrey]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


Doing the commandments of God give you RIGHT by contract to the tree of life and that you can enter your eternal rest with the Lord. Thus he judges you faithful to obtain!

I follow you to a certain extent, then I read something like this. That's not Grace, TL.

Grace isn't an earned wage. The only wage we've earned is death. He doesn't love us out of obligation, or because he "owes" us.

[Jeffrey]

I think what we lose in this conversation is the separation from good works and salvation. I will agree that "good works" does not equal "sacraments" or things we do when we are saved. The question is "when" are we saved. It's impossible to separate obedience from the two, and that naturally follows the believer. But Paul is emphatic about not being saved by doing, but by the free grace of God. Our response in faith is what regenerates us, justifies us and sanctifies us (the process has begun). None of this says "go be a sinner" or that "obedience is not important." It's "what saves us."

So to direct the conversation back -- it is clearly about when are we saved.

That said, the discussion today opened up several side topics that I feel are important. But I also wanted to clarify what I thought the post was originally about as well, to keep that alive in the thread.

[Jeffrey]

For anyone interested, attached is some other pages of the Augsburg Confession.

[Jeffrey]

Speaking of Lutheranism (since that came up), is anyone familiar with the big debate: Lutheranism vs. the New Perspective (Sanders, Wright, etc)?

[Jeffrey]

Origen: Commenting on Rom 3:26, Origen writes: “God allowed
all this so that afterward, that is to say in
our time, he might show forth his righteousness.
For at the end of the age, in the most recent
times, God has manifested his righteousness and
given Christ to be our redemption. He has made
him our propitiator. . .. For God is just, and therefore
he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he
required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by
having faith in him those who could not be justified
by their own works might be justified.”22


“For it is by faith in the revelation of Jesus Christ that the
gift long ago promised by God is acknowledged and
received.”24 And Chrysostom explains Rom 3:22 in
this way: “In order to stop anyone from asking:
How can we be saved without contributing anything
at all to our salvation? Paul shows that in fact we
do contribute a great deal toward it—we supply
our faith!”25

I am not the only one or the first to say that faith also justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others; and if a man is going to read St. Paul and understand him, he will have to say the same thing and can say nothing else. . ..” Luther

[mfblume]

...and we supply repentance. Peter told the people to repent. John the Baptist and Jesus told people to repent. Their hearts were already pricked before Peter told them to repent, in Acts 2:37-38.

[pelathais]

...and we supply repentance. Peter told the people to repent. John the Baptist and Jesus told people to repent. Their hearts were already pricked before Peter told them to repent, in Acts 2:37-38.
And so... if their "hearts were pricked" before they repented - did they really "supply" the repentance, or was repentance the result of something that God had "supplied?"

That's what Augustine really was getting at. In his last book - a collection of two treatises written to two different recipients but on the same theme - The Predestination of the Saints - Augustine makes much of Romans 11:35.

Romans 11:35 is a rhetorical question asked by Paul for which the obvious answer is "No one." Here's the context:

Romans 11:32-36

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." - - - -

There is nothing that we have "given to Him" (God) that has caused Him to repay us with the gift of grace. God has concluded that we are all "in unbelief" and desperately lost. In this state of helplessness God finds us and He sends His Spirit to convict.

That was the condition of the hearers of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (according to this view). They were guilty of having crucified the very One that God had made "both Lord and Christ." They were helpless not only in sin, but helpless in their inability to even do anything about that sin.

It is at this point that we read that they were "pricked in their hearts..." This was a sovereign act of a merciful God. God did not cause them to become "pricked in their hearts" in repayment for any "merit" they had earned nor anything that they had done. The only thing we are told that they all had even done was that they had crucified Jesus Christ!

Thus, grace comes to us - unmerited, undeserved and even unbidden!

[TheLegalist]

Speaking of Lutheranism (since that came up), is anyone familiar with the big debate: Lutheranism vs. the New Perspective (Sanders, Wright, etc)?

yep..... some good stuff that has been missed for a long time. Though some of it I don't agree with. Sanders has some good points but in the end it's has some issues as a book by Chris Vanlandingham has pointed out. Works are clearly associated with justification and judgment and the end result of salvation.

[pelathais]

Speaking of Lutheranism (since that came up), is anyone familiar with the big debate: Lutheranism vs. the New Perspective (Sanders, Wright, etc)?
Robert Shank touches on this in his books Life in the Son and Elect in the Son - though not from the Lutheran perspective so much as an Evangelical and Baptist angle. Shank was a professor of theology at a Baptist seminary and actually lost his post because he was becoming "too Arminian" in the words of the administration.

He wasn't really "Arminian" so much as grappling with the issue of predestination and free will in the NT, but most folks (myself included at times) can't seem to shake the debates of the 16th Century out of our terminology.

The "Context Group (http://www.contextgroup.org/)" goes after this looking very closely at the social-cultural milieu. The whole discussion in the NT is probably best understood in the terms of the Hellenistic philosophical debates of the First Century rather than the the debates that raged 1500 years later.

John H. Walton (http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0830837043/mockerybird/ref=nosim) at Wheaton performs a similar service for readers of the Old Testament.

Instead of trying to understand the writings of the ancients in either the context of the Reformation era disputes or today's rational materialism, it best if we actually immersed ourselves in antiquity and tried to understand what the writers of Scripture were actually saying to their immediate audiences.

[mfblume]

If we do not even choose to repent, then Peter, Jesus and John told people to do something they had no choice to do. And ultimately that is predestination of the individual. I do not agree.

Again, and I said this many times, the issue is not whether we do something but rather if what we do merits righteousness in and of itself. Since the cross alone directly was the work that provided righteousness, repentance required for salvation is not "salvation by works." I see no other concept that fits the Word.

And so... if their "hearts were pricked" before they repented - did they really "supply" the repentance, or was repentance the result of something that God had "supplied?"

That's what Augustine really was getting at. In his last book - a collection of two treatises written to two different recipients but on the same theme - The Predestination of the Saints - Augustine makes much of Romans 11:35.

Romans 11:35 is a rhetorical question asked by Paul for which the obvious answer is "No one." Here's the context:

Romans 11:32-36

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." - - - -

There is nothing that we have "given to Him" (God) that has caused Him to repay us with the gift of grace. God has concluded that we are all "in unbelief" and desperately lost. In this state of helplessness God finds us and He sends His Spirit to convict.

That was the condition of the hearers of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (according to this view). They were guilty of having crucified the very One that God had made "both Lord and Christ." They were helpless not only in sin, but helpless in their inability to even do anything about that sin.

It is at this point that we read that they were "pricked in their hearts..." This was a sovereign act of a merciful God. God did not cause them to become "pricked in their hearts" in repayment for any "merit" they had earned nor anything that they had done. The only thing we are told that they all had even done was that they had crucified Jesus Christ!

Thus, grace comes to us - unmerited, undeserved and even unbidden!

[Jeffrey]

If we do not even choose to repent, then Peter, Jesus and John told people to do something they had no choice to do. And ultimately that is predestination of the individual. I do not agree.

Again, and I said this many times, the issue is not whether we do something but rather if what we do merits righteousness in and of itself. Since the cross alone directly was the work that provided righteousness, repentance required for salvation is not "salvation by works." I see no other concept that fits the Word.

Pel?

When I hear the word "repent," I hear in it, as I've seen it contextualized (in a positive way) as "turn your hearts toward God." The primary message of repentance is not a separate, ancillary items that comes as part of the faith package, but is all bound up together. What makes it confusing is that we can discuss and identify it as a "separate" component. This is no different than justification, sanctification and regeneration.

Blume, what is your comment to Romans 11 that Pel cited?

How much of our salvation is "on us" and how much is "on Jesus?"

[Jeffrey]

yep..... some good stuff that has been missed for a long time. Though some of it I don't agree with. Sanders has some good points but in the end it's has some issues as a book by Chris Vanlandingham has pointed out. Works are clearly associated with justification and judgment and the end result of salvation.

Thanks. I'm familiar with Wright's materials. Haven't read Sanders (who is the pioneer it seems) yet. I also read, to have balance, a pretty sound critique. I will try to find the attachment and share if anyone is interested. It's in defense of Luther. Not very lengthy. I'm sure someone on this thread will appreciate.

[notofworks]

How much of our salvation is "on us" and how much is "on Jesus?"

Good question. I know what my answer is, but good question. As I once heard Pel say, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

[mfblume]

Pel?

When I hear the word "repent," I hear in it, as I've seen it contextualized (in a positive way) as "turn your hearts toward God."

Then it is not automatic, but done by our volition, right? That is a work.

Think of the very labels "three step" and "one step." It is claimed that three-steppers preach salvation by works. But the is because they baptism and Spirit infilling are allegedly works required for salvation, whether or not those works make us righteous. But both views have the same INITIAL STEP. And if a step is a step, like baptism or Spirit infilling, and if those two latter steps are works, then why is not repentance a work? It's a STEP!

I get the impression that when three-steppers are accused of of salvation by works, the term "STEPS" implies WORKS. But this "work's" connotation suddenly vanishes when a single "STEP" of repentance is presented alone for salvation. For some reason, it seems a single step does not imply WORKS, but three steps implies works. That is not what is blankly stated, but is the underlying suggestion.

The primary message of repentance is not a separate, ancillary items that comes as part of the faith package, but is all bound up together. What makes it confusing is that we can discuss and identify it as a "separate" component. This is no different than justification, sanctification and regeneration.

The point is not whether it is part of a package or not, but whether we have to choose to do it, or whether God predestined us to do it without our choice in the matter.

Blume, what is your comment to Romans 11 that Pel cited?

How much of our salvation is "on us" and how much is "on Jesus?"

I only repeat what I have been trying to say for weeks now. When it comes to the bible's words about works and salvation, when a work in and of itself makes us righteous, without any inkling of the cross and the work by God, then it is salvation by works. But when a work is done in required obedience set forth by the covenant wherein we wish to take part, it is not salvation by works. It is OUR CHOICE to repent or not. It is OUR CHOICE to be baptized or not. But neither of these make us righteous. The faith that we experienced in hearing the Gospel, which is the same faith that moves us to "DO" as it did the hearers on the day of Pentecost, is what saves.

As Pel said, we cannot REPAY GOD ANYTHING. And repentance an baptism are not repaying God. They are answering God for the payment God made. It is taking advantage of the fact that God made the payment. If God demanded repentance and baptism in the New Covenant as OUR PART TO ANSWER to Him, then we have to do it, or the covenant is void. It's just that the covenant demands it, folks. Don't complain to me. Tell God. Otherwise repentance and baptism would never have been part of anything in the New Testament. Repentance is as much a work as baptism.

So, again, why are men told to repent, if repentance is something that God causes us to do? I really think I see, more than before, Calvinism as the one-step trend.

It reminds me of the question I asked Calvinists, "If we can choose to do nothing, and we do not have to decide to accomplish anything for God's will to be done, then why did Jesus tell us to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done'? And why did God say in 2 Chron. 7:14, 'If my people shall..., then I will...'?"

The cross saves, and God simply laid that "dinner" on the table and we come to eat by walking up to it by way of repentance and baptism. Using that picture, it is silly to say three steppers teach salvation by works.

[Jeffrey]

I get the impression that when three-steppers are accused of of salvation by works, the term "STEPS" implies WORKS. But this "work's" connotation suddenly vanishes when a single "STEP" of repentance is presented alone for salvation. For some reason, it seems a single step does not imply WORKS, but three steps implies works. That is not what is blankly stated, but is the underlying suggestion.



The point is not whether it is part of a package or not, but whether we have to choose to do it, or whether God predestined us to do it without our choice in the matter.



I only repeat what I have been trying to say for weeks now. When it comes to the bible's words about works and salvation, when a work in and of itself makes us righteous, without any inkling of the cross and the work by God, then it is salvation by works. So throw as many "works" and "requirements" in front of the cross, and put a disclaimer that "as long as these works or requirements point to and come from faith," then they are efficacious and effective to save us? But when a work is done in required obedience set forth by the covenant wherein we wish to take part, it is not salvation by works. It is a covenant of faith. It is OUR CHOICE to repent or not. Yes. But this repentance is simultaneous with believing in Christ IMO. It is not inseparable. When you say repentance and when I do, sometimes I think we are seeing different events. I see a heart proclaiming, seeing and confessing Jesus as Lord and making Him Lord in our heart. You may see us going through the morality check list to start making resolutions to not do those things anymore. Is that an unfair assumption? It is OUR CHOICE to be baptized or not. True. But I've still not heard of anyone having faith in Jesus and refuse to participate in baptism. So whether it's choice or not is quite irrelevant. But neither of these make us righteous. !!! TRUE!! The faith that we experienced in hearing the Gospel, which is the same faith that moves us to "DO" as it did the hearers on the day of Pentecost, is what saves. *falling off my chair* AMEN!

As Pel said, we cannot REPAY GOD ANYTHING. And repentance and baptism are not repaying God. They are answering God for the payment God made. Actually salvation, to us, is a gift, not a payment, whereby we owe Jesus particular merchandise. All we owe him is our heart, and consequently our hearts that he "paid for" on the cross. I can see where you get the "payment" metaphor. I see that more in terms of describing justification apart from our relationship. In our experience, it's a gift. Freely given. Our response is gratitude... and a life of gratitude. It is taking advantage of the fact that God made the payment. If God demanded repentance and baptism in the New Covenant as OUR PART TO ANSWER to Him, then we have to do it, or the covenant is void. Not sure I agree. But, like I said, I would questions someone's faith that does not want to participate in Christian baptism It's just that the covenant demands it, folks. The covenant is the same as Abram's. Don't complain to me. Tell God. lol Come on. Not that line. Otherwise repentance and baptism would never have been part of anything in the New Testament. Repentance is as much a work as baptism. Are you serious? Here we go again. A heart level, simultaneous with faith experience versus a conscious choice. They aren't the same. If you call them both "works" on the grounds of sameness, the burden is on you. That said, I don't consider either "works" in the purest sense of that word. But they become works when they are set-up as pre-requisites that "make us saved."

So, again, why are men told to repent, if repentance is something that God causes us to do? I really think I see, more than before, Calvinism as the one-step trend. Why tell people to believe if they can cognitively do it on their own? Why tell people to receive the Spirit if they can't do it on their own?

It reminds me of the question I asked Calvinists, "If we can choose to do nothing, and we do not have to decide to accomplish anything for God's will to be done, then why did Jesus tell us to pray, 'Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done'? And why did God say in 2 Chron. 7:14, 'If my people shall..., then I will...'?"

The cross saves, and God simply laid that "dinner" on the table and we come to eat by walking up to it by way of repentance and baptism. Using that picture, it is silly to say three steppers teach salvation by works.

...

[mfblume]

I get the impression that when three-steppers are accused of of salvation by works, the term "STEPS" implies WORKS. But this "work's" connotation suddenly vanishes when a single "STEP" of repentance is presented alone for salvation. For some reason, it seems a single step does not imply WORKS, but three steps implies works. That is not what is blankly stated, but is the underlying suggestion.



The point is not whether it is part of a package or not, but whether we have to choose to do it, or whether God predestined us to do it without our choice in the matter.

I only repeat what I have been trying to say for weeks now. When it comes to the bible's words about works and salvation, when a work in and of itself makes us righteous, without any inkling of the cross and the work by God, then it is salvation by works.

So throw as many "works" and "requirements" in front of the cross, and put a disclaimer that "as long as these works or requirements point to and come from faith," then they are efficacious and effective to save us?

I see no works thrown anywhere when the Bible said belief and baptism saves, and baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. I see no throwing in of anything when Jesus said we have to repent, and Peter repeated the command.

The bog oversight here is in not seeing covenantly requirements. We sign our name to the document and God signs his. What we do is simply our signature. Signing a document is not saving ourselves.

But when a work is done in required obedience set forth by the covenant wherein we wish to take part, it is not salvation by works. It is a covenant of faith. It is OUR CHOICE to repent or not. Yes. But this repentance is simultaneous with believing in Christ IMO. It is not inseparable. When you say repentance and when I do, sometimes I think we are seeing different events. I see a heart proclaiming, seeing and confessing Jesus as Lord and making Him Lord in our heart. You may see us going through the morality check list to start making resolutions to not do those things anymore. Is that an unfair assumption?

Well, Like I said, Peter told people to repent after their hearts were pricked. So I cannot agree it is inseparable from faith the way you present it. Otherwise we're into Calvinism.

It is OUR CHOICE to be baptized or not. True. But I've still not heard of anyone having faith in Jesus and refuse to participate in baptism.

Well, that is great! Sam noted this is exactly the picture of the two views that existed when the UPCI was formed. And they agreed to disagree so long as folks got baptized in Jesus' name either way.

So whether it's choice or not is quite irrelevant.

I disagree. Whether it's choice or not, it is Calvinism or not.

But neither of these make us righteous. !!! TRUE!! The faith that we experienced in hearing the Gospel, which is the same faith that moves us to "DO" as it did the hearers on the day of Pentecost, is what saves. *falling off my chair* AMEN!

As Pel said, we cannot REPAY GOD ANYTHING. And repentance and baptism are not repaying God. They are answering God for the payment God made. Actually salvation, to us, is a gift, not a payment,

It's a gift from our perspective, ,but the debt of death had to be paid by God's work.

whereby we owe Jesus particular merchandise. All we owe him is our heart, and consequently our hearts that he "paid for" on the cross. I can see where you get the "payment" metaphor. I see that more in terms of describing justification apart from our relationship. In our experience, it's a gift. Freely given. Our response is gratitude... and a life of gratitude. It is taking advantage of the fact that God made the payment. If God demanded repentance and baptism in the New Covenant as OUR PART TO ANSWER to Him, then we have to do it, or the covenant is void. Not sure I agree. But, like I said, I would questions someone's faith that does not want to participate in Christian baptism It's just that the covenant demands it, folks.

I think baptism is an answer in the manner i described above which I think is just as Peter said it was an answer.

The covenant is the same as Abram's. Don't complain to me. Tell God. lol Come on. Not that line. Otherwise repentance and baptism would never have been part of anything in the New Testament. Repentance is as much a work as baptism. Are you serious? Here we go again. A heart level, simultaneous with faith experience versus a conscious choice.

They are not simultaneous. Sorry. I have heard nothing you nor anyone else stated that can change my opinion of repentance being a work. ANYTHING done in thought to flesh that is or our power of choice is a WORK. But don't stop there, and say "WORK?" Again, not because anyone is STUPID (since that is always the reaction to my next thought) I do not see folks getting the point that WORKS THAT MAKE US RIGHTEOUS are the bad works. Not works because of faith that God sees, not the works, to make us righteous.

more later.

[Jeffrey]

I said:

So throw as many "works" and "requirements" in front of the cross, and put a disclaimer that "as long as these works or requirements point to and come from faith," then they are efficacious and effective to save us?

Blume said:
I see no works thrown anywhere when the Bible said belief and baptism saves, and baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. I see no throwing in of anything when Jesus said we have to repent, and Peter repeated the command.

The bog oversight here is in not seeing covenantly requirements. We sign our name to the document and God signs his. What we do is simply our signature. Signing a document is not saving ourselves.

My point was, there is a danger in making things dependent on Jesus while using the excuse "as long as it points to faith." I would say the event is a Christ event only as long as it points to Jesus and springs from faith. However, I think it's putting the cart before the horse otherwise. One has full faith in Jesus before they've stepped into the waters of baptism. Regeneration doesn't happen in the water, it happens at the heart level.

Our views of repentance. I will come back to that later. I believe they are simultaneous. You believe, because people were commanded to do these things, that they are not simultaneous. I challenged that (though I admit I did not fully engage your rebuttal) with the idea that we are also told to be "filled with the Spirit," to "be perfect," to "wash away our sins," and to "confess Jesus as Lord," but none of these things can we do for ourselves nor by our own will.

[mfblume]

My point was, there is a danger in making things dependent on Jesus while using the excuse "as long as it points to faith." I would say the event is a Christ event only as long as it points to Jesus and springs from faith. However, I think it's putting the cart before the horse otherwise. One has full faith in Jesus before they've stepped into the waters of baptism. Regeneration doesn't happen in the water, it happens at the heart level.

Our views of repentance. I will come back to that later. I believe they are simultaneous. You believe, because people were commanded to do these things, that they are not simultaneous. I challenged that (though I admit I did not fully engage your rebuttal) with the idea that we are also told to be "filled with the Spirit," to "be perfect," to "wash away our sins," and to "confess Jesus as Lord," but none of these things can we do for ourselves nor by our own will.

There is a common denominator in all these things you listed, as well as repentance. We are required to step up so that God can go to work, I think.

I cannot see how this is not Calvinism, otherwise.

[pelathais]

If we do not even choose to repent, then Peter, Jesus and John told people to do something they had no choice to do. And ultimately that is predestination of the individual. I do not agree.

Again, and I said this many times, the issue is not whether we do something but rather if what we do merits righteousness in and of itself. Since the cross alone directly was the work that provided righteousness, repentance required for salvation is not "salvation by works." I see no other concept that fits the Word.
I think you're painting too stern of an "either/or" here. Peter, Jesus and John (and everyone else who said it) were appealing to people to do what the Spirit of God was already "pricking their hearts" to do.

It's not a case of "either predestination OR free will." It is a case where BOTH elements are true. They simply describe the view from two different angles.

[mfblume]

I think you're painting too stern of an "either/or" here. Peter, Jesus and John (and everyone else who said it) were appealing to people to do what the Spirit of God was already "pricking their hearts" to do.

It's not a case of "either predestination OR free will." It is a case where BOTH elements are true. They simply describe the view from two different angles.

Well we just have to agree to disagree. Even if the Spirit is pricking their hearts to do something, they still make the choice of their own free will to do it.

[pelathais]

Well we just have to agree to disagree. Even if the Spirit is pricking their hearts to do something, they still make the choice of their own free will to do it.
You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"

[pelathais]

The important point that Paul is making in places like Romans 11:35, is that God graciously sends His Spirit to convict us BEFORE we have done anything worthy of this gift. To focus only upon the human aspect of making up one's own mind is deficient and doesn't take into account the activity of God "behind the scenes."

It is this same unbalanced approach to evangelism that has led to the plethora of frauds and hoaxes that have plagued the Christian faith. Because people think that they "have to do something" in order to persuade others that they in turn "have to do something" we end up with piles of literature and outrageous claims like we have from AnswersInGenesis, the ICR, Benny Hinn, Steve Munsey and the rest of the frauds and hoaxes.

When we fail to incorporate the activity of God into our understanding of salvation, we may end up leaving God out entirely. John 6:44-45.

[TheLegalist]

You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"


A monkey genetically matches human DNA 98% of the time and that the monkey's genome is about 93 percent similar to the human genome,..... it's still a monkey.

[mfblume]

You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"

We disagree because you do not interpret that as a work we do. WE make a choice and WE decide to either give in to the Lord or not. So WE are meant to DO something. And no matter which way you slice it, that is a work on our behalf as much as baptism is. This is just how water baptism comes into the picture as well. It is an answer to God's offer of righteousness and salvation, not a cause.

[TheLegalist]

We disagree because you do not interpret that as a work we do. WE make a choice and WE decide to either give in to the Lord or not. So WE are meant to DO something. And no matter which way you slice it, that is a work on our behalf as much as baptism is. This is just how water baptism comes into the picture as well. It is an answer to God's offer of righteousness and salvation, not a cause.

Mike I totaly agree but one thing I would note... The more proper term I would believe would be "justice" or the sense of "justice done" than righteousness. God's source of justice on our part is based on CHrist's atonement to them that respond/obey/have faith. Thus repentance is not justice done or the source which we do on our behalf but part of the reason WHY we have justice done on our behalf by his deeming and authority. Thus it is a work as you have shown and also not the source of our righteousness.

He became the source of salvation to them that obey. Thus he was the source of justice done on our part because he died to obtain and have authority to administer such justice as our kindsman redeemer. Why because he is the "Son of man" who overcame and obtained authority and sits at the right hand of power. Thus he deems our response worthy of his suffering which we obtain by faith which is contextual of the whole meaning, not a isolate point in time which is as James says is good but not the whole. Which Paul AS WELL AS James points to the whole of what the believed in referenced to and the "counting" was.

[mfblume]

Mike I totaly agree but one thing I would note... The more proper term I would believe would be "justice" or the sense of "justice done" than righteousness. God's source of justice on our part is based on CHrist's atonement to them that respond/obey/have faith. Thus repentance is not justice done or the source which we do on our behalf but part of the reason WHY we have justice done on our behalf by his deeming and authority. Thus it is a work as you have shown and also not the source of our righteousness.

He became the source of salvation to them that obey. Thus he was the source of justice done on our part because he died to obtain and have authority to administer such justice as our kindsman redeemer. Why because he is the "Son of man" who overcame and obtained authority and sits at the right hand of power. Thus he deems our response worthy of his suffering which we obtain by faith which is contextual of the whole meaning, not a isolate point in time which is as James says is good but not the whole. Which Paul AS WELL AS James points to the whole of what the believed in referenced to and the "counting" was.

Amen. Good words. I have always emphasized righteousness since the Old Testament made Israel keenly aware of righteousness and how they cannot get it by their own works. God knew law would not do it, because law listed all the do's and don'ts one would have to do without fault in order to be righteous by works, but he needed man to know that beyond doubt. So law came, man tried and realized no one could successfully keep all the law flawlessly. And once law was over with, God showed how he would GIVE righteousness to man without works (Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works - Rom 4:6). And since righteousness is stressed as much as it is in the New Testament, that was my point of emphasis.

I think I was referring to righteousness in a different manner than you might have.

I like how you noted justice. Great bro!

[mfblume]

Bump for Pel,

I do not think you directly answered this yet. Forgive me if you did.

Pelathais,

Just to bring things up to speed on everyone's behalf, let me say your words are confusing. This is not to slap you. I am trying to get your point.

You claim one does not need to be baptized to say they are saved. I ONLY say such a thing if there is a situation where baptism is physically impossible, as in the guy in the car scenario. And that is because it is FAITH THAT WORKS. (I know I am repeating this, but you still indicate you cannot understand why I say someone can be saved without having been baptized when I claim baptism is part of salvation). The FAITH in FAITH THAT WORKS is what saves directly. If no works like baptism follow, then there was no FAITH that saves. And when someone has FAITH that saves, one WILL WANT TO BE baptized, and THE WANT TO is the evidence of the saving FAITH. So regardless if the person did not get baptized due to some mishap, THE FAITH that saves was present since they would have done so.

Anyway, you said that demand for baptism for salvation is error. But when I say baptism is part of salvation you agree. Now, that is why TL said the question has not been answered, and why I said I have not gotten an answer. When we get to this point with you, you then state something like this is a very complicated issue and would take many more words (or something to that effect).

I said baptism is necessary for salvation. You said it is not, I THINK. And then you said it is part of salvation. Now, what is the difference between baptism necessary for salvation and baptism part of salvation? This is where your words confuse me, not saying my words never confused you. But bouncing these things off one another helps us each understand where the other is coming from more clearly.

Also I made this question to Jeffery, I believe it was.

Why then does the book of Revelation say plagues will strike people and, for all that, they would still not repent? Why even comment on their refusal to repent if one cannot choose to repent or not of one's own volition? If one gets true faith and has no choice but to repent, removing it from a personal decision (ironic), then there is no reason in noting some do not repent. It should say God refused to give them true faith. But it put the onus on their shoulders and said they refused to repent.

If repentance is done by someone EVERYTIME God's Spirit moves them to do it, like Baptism, then why do we read this?

[mfblume]

Catching up on some lost posts. lol.

The Legalist, what are your thoughts about this?

I think this is the problem many have... God's righteousness toward us is seen in several ways. The righteousness that saves in the sense of what brought about salvation or the offering of it is not of "anything" we can do or did.Amen. Only what God did can make anyone righteous. People do not realize that contriving enough good deeds to award oneself righteousness is the entire error that Paul had in mind when speaking against salvation by works. Somehow that contrivance issue got lost with many.

I am referring to what Paul said was the gift of righteousness. God deemed Abraham righteous when Abraham believed God.

Paul stated that this sort of righteousness did not come by law. People thought Law's deeds of obedience would make one righteous without any such work of the cross that Paul preached is the sole cause of righteousness. The only WORK anyone can do to be righteous is the work GOD DID in in the work of the cross. Today many do not even know that the work of the cross speaks of the vicarious nature of Christ's death, with His death, burial, resurrection, ascension and even seating at the right hand throne, and so they wonder what you mean by work of the cross. But, the point is only God can do a work that is responsible for the righteousness given to us as a gift.

Instead of righteousness coming by deeds of law, which Jews tried to attain by law keeping, Paul stated righteousness is available aside from any concept of deeds of the Law.

Romans 3:21-22 KJV But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Two roads led to righteousness. Had humanity not had sin in us all, we could attain righteousness by the law. We would not need the cross. However, the law could not accomplish that for us due to the sins of the flesh. We clashed with law.

Romans 8:3-4 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Law was intended to make us righteous.

1 Timothy 1:5 KJV Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Galatians 3:12 KJV And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


One had to DO all the law's requirements in order to be righteous.

The goal of law to produce charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and true faith could not be accomplished by law keeping, but it was granted by grace.

1 Timothy 1:14 KJV And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is where Romans 8:3-4 comes in and says what the law could not accomplish in us, God did through the cross. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. But it is not by works of the law or walking after the flesh to make self righteous by deeds. It is accomplished by walking after the Spirit, or believing in the power of God to instill it into us because of the work God did with the cross.

We believe as Abraham believed, and God makes us righteous. It's a gift.

Romans 5:17 KJV For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

The cross is the only work directly related to righteousness and justification. But any faith that is real is faith that obeys covenantal requirements stipulated by God. James informs us that true faith that is alive and real is faith that works. And when that faith is present, God sees it and justifies the person as well as makes them righteous. And if it is not such a faith, there never follows obedience to the requirements of the covenant.

How does that fit in with your thoughts, Legalist?

I really enjoyed a study on righteousness several years ago that answered all my questions about legalism, etc. The above is part of that study.

Righteousness is right standing with God. That is our ticket to heaven. Sin put us out of right standing, or made us unrighteous, and grace gives us righteousness, right standing, without our works. So I think I have been using "righteousness" in a context differently here than you have, whereas you may have been emphasizing how God acts righteously (just) as opposed to us being given righteousness, or person aright standing with God.

[mfblume]

bump

[TheLegalist]

I will give a response soon.

[notofworks]

I will give a response soon.



Well, I figured six months was enough waiting. You ever gonna speak up?

[TheLegalist]

Well, I figured six months was enough waiting. You ever gonna speak up?

Well considering you did not follow the converation as it was started in another thread.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30132

Also I have not been on the board in a long time as I have devoted my energy to several other things that needed my attention.

[notofworks]

Well considering you did not follow the converation as it was started in another thread.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30132

Also I have not been on the board in a long time as I have devoted my energy to several other things that needed my attention.



Don't know anything about another thread. I just know you said you'd respond, and didn't.

[Apprehended]

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


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

Regards to no. 4 above; what price are you paying? Are you being persecuted?

Incidentally,

I have a few neighbors. One of them is named Guido. His brother's name is Luigi. Their parents are Pasquale and Rosa. The cross has not done anything for them. They are all as mean as snakes, especially Rosa. She will shoot and ask questions later. Ask Pasquale. He's had to duck lead more than once. Guido and Pasquale just stay away as much as possible. Nice folks except that a Peace Bond alone seems to be the only thing that helped any of them, much less a cross alone. It hasn't helped them at all.

What happened to the cross alone theory?

[Apprehended]

Maybe I ought to tell you about two or their cousins, Vinnie and Salvatore...speaking of the cross alone.

[Apprehended]

I guess no one wants to respond as to why the "cross alone" didn't help Guido, his brother Luigi, their parents Pasquale and Rosa.

Anyone would like to render an opinion? It would help me a lot.

[notofworks]

I guess no one wants to respond as to why the "cross alone" didn't help Guido, his brother Luigi, their parents Pasquale and Rosa.

Anyone would like to render an opinion? It would help me a lot.


Are you saying that the cross alone doesn't save? So far I can't really make heads or tails out of much of anything you're saying.

[Apprehended]

Are you saying that the cross alone doesn't save? So far I can't really make heads or tails out of much of anything you're saying.

If the cross alone saves, why isn't Rosa, Luigi, Guido, Pasquali saved? Is the cross alone selective?

The cross alone never done anything for any of them, especially Rosa. She is as mean as two rattlesnakes.

Wait until I tell you about Vinne and Salvatore.

[notofworks]

If the cross alone saves, why isn't Rosa, Luigi, Guido, Pasquali saved? Is the cross alone selective?

The cross alone never done anything for any of them, especially Rosa. She is as mean as two rattlesnakes.

Wait until I tell you about Vinne and Salvatore.



I just read your thoughts about loving sinners on the DADT, and you're either posting just for shock value or you have launched into a mental orbit that's beyond any of our reaches. If you're serious about not loving sinners and loving Paul less because he was the chief of sinners, and don't love him because the things he didn't want to do, he did???......then you're completely off your rocker and won't get a discussion out of me.

Enjoy Mars.

[Jack Shephard]

I just read your thoughts about loving sinners on the DADT, and you're either posting just for shock value or you have launched into a mental orbit that's beyond any of our reaches. If you're serious about not loving sinners and loving Paul less because he was the chief of sinners, and don't love him because the things he didn't want to do, he did???......then you're completely off your rocker and won't get a discussion out of me.

Enjoy Mars.

It only takes "30 Seconds" to get there....lol

[Apprehended]

I just read your thoughts about loving sinners on the DADT, and you're either posting just for shock value or you have launched into a mental orbit that's beyond any of our reaches. If you're serious about not loving sinners and loving Paul less because he was the chief of sinners, and don't love him because the things he didn't want to do, he did???......then you're completely off your rocker and won't get a discussion out of me.

Enjoy Mars.

Hey, I was kidding on those other threads. Couldn't you tell?

On this one I am dead serious.

Is the cross selective? Why is Rosa so mean if the cross alone saves?

[Apprehended]

It only takes "30 Seconds" to get there....lol

Slow poke!

[Jack Shephard]

Slow poke!

I am talking about the band....

[Apprehended]

I am talking about the band....

Are there more slow pokes too?

Heaven help us!

Anyway,

Some one wake up "Not Of Works." He's gone back to sleep. He seems to be adverse to any kind of effort...called WORK!

:D

[notofworks]

Hey, I was kidding on those other threads. Couldn't you tell?

On this one I am dead serious.

Is the cross selective? Why is Rosa so mean if the cross alone saves?


No, I couldn't tell! Based on your Super Nintendo Mario Brothers posts here, which doesn't make any sense to me, combined with the goofy stuff on the DADT thread, I thought maybe you were in orbit. I even emailed someone who's been here longer than me and asked, "Is this guy on the level or is this a spoof?"

As far as "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save".....you'll have to argue with the bible. That's what it says.

[Apprehended]

No, I couldn't tell! Based on your Super Nintendo Mario Brothers posts here, which doesn't make any sense to me, combined with the goofy stuff on the DADT thread, I thought maybe you were in orbit. I even emailed someone who's been here longer than me and asked, "Is this guy on the level or is this a spoof?"

As far as "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save".....you'll have to argue with the bible. That's what it says.

Sorry...

That's not what the bible says.

That's what you say it says.

The evidence is in my neighbor Rosa. She is meaner than the devil himself. Cross alone never done anything for her.

Billions have died without the cross alone doing anything for them.

There is no magic in two planks nailed together. Not that I know of anyway.

[notofworks]

Sorry...

That's not what the bible says.

That's what you say it says.

The evidence is in my neighbor Rosa. She is meaner than the devil himself. Cross alone never done anything for her.

Billions have died without the cross alone doing anything for them.

There is no magic in two planks nailed together. Not that I know of anyway.


Well, you're gonna have to go back and read the opening post. The bible is directly quoted and the verse ends with, ".....the cross of Christ alone can save."

[Apprehended]

Well, you're gonna have to go back and read the opening post. The bible is directly quoted and the verse ends with, ".....the cross of Christ alone can save."

Read my opening statement here. I not only read your opening post but I also quoted it.

As I said, that is not what the Word of God said.

Rosa is evidence enough that the cross alone does not save. You should not be a party to making the Word of God a lie. Not good.

[notofworks]

Read my opening statement here. I not only read your opening post but I also quoted it.

As I said, that is not what the Word of God said.

Rosa is evidence enough that the cross alone does not save. You should not be a party to making the Word of God a lie. Not good.


Ok dude, you're losing me. It can't more clear than this:

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT

[Apprehended]

Ok dude, you're losing me. It can't more clear than this:

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT

You should know better than to use such a corrupted version of the bible. The devil himself could not have been any more skillful in his infernal work of destroying the faith than this less than 15 year old perversion. Not even the American Standard Version or the New International Version uses such vile language in depicting the cross of Christ.

Just how many ways would you like to have your faith destroyed? Would a Satanic Bible accomplish the goal any better? Not likely. At least, that bible does not purport to be Holy Writ while this corrupted version does.

A question.

Why not get a good Greek Lexicon or at least stay with the more standard versions of the Holy Word. The best is the KJV or the NKJV.

Nevertheless, even if we were to use this corrupted version exclusively, knowing that the Word of God will not contradict itself, it can be shown that this interpretation of vs. 12 is corrupted.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2.html

As I said...

Rosa has not been affected by the cross alone in the least. Evidence enough that this version is a lie.

[DAII]

So where ya been Apprehended?

[Apprehended]

So where ya been Apprehended?

Been looking for you, dude.

Every time I go to Houston knocking on your door to collect on that stake dinner you promised me, I hear a male voice behind a door saying, "tell 'im I'm not home."

When I go peeking through the windows for you, you seem to be hid in the closet.

One of these days...

mark my word...one of these days.... :D

[DAII]

Been looking for you, dude.

Every time I go to Houston knocking on your door to collect on that stake dinner you promised me, I hear a male voice behind a door saying, "tell 'im I'm not home."

When I go peeking through the windows for you, you seem to be hid in the closet.

One of these days...

mark my word...one of these days.... :D

If I got you a stake dinner it would be in lieu of a reed or a rod ...

But I do owe you a steak dinner, my friend.

You need to hold me to it ....

[notofworks]

You should know better than to use such a corrupted version of the bible. The devil himself could not have been any more skillful in his infernal work of destroying the faith than this less than 15 year old perversion. Not even the American Standard Version or the New International Version uses such vile language in depicting the cross of Christ.

Just how many ways would you like to have your faith destroyed? Would a Satanic Bible accomplish the goal any better? Not likely. At least, that bible does not purport to be Holy Writ while this corrupted version does.

A question.

Why not get a good Greek Lexicon or at least stay with the more standard versions of the Holy Word. The best is the KJV or the NKJV.

Nevertheless, even if we were to use this corrupted version exclusively, knowing that the Word of God will not contradict itself, it can be shown that this interpretation of vs. 12 is corrupted.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2.html

As I said...

Rosa has not been affected by the cross alone in the least. Evidence enough that this version is a lie.


Oh, ok. I was wondering if that might be your angle. I'm not interested in anyone's trashing of the New Living Translation, which is one of the finest works of literature and source of spiritual enrichment I've ever held in my hand, as well as one of, if not the most accurate translation we have.

I didn't even read the rest of the post. I've already heard all the anti-NLT rhetoric.

[Apprehended]

Oh, ok. I was wondering if that might be your angle. I'm not interested in anyone's trashing of the New Living Translation, which is one of the finest works of literature and source of spiritual enrichment I've ever held in my hand, as well as one of, if not the most accurate translation we have.

I didn't even read the rest of the post. I've already heard all the anti-NLT rhetoric.

OK...

That's fine. Use any corrupted version as you would like. Let's discuss your premise concerning the cross alone using your beloved version.

Question...

Are there any contradictions concerning the cross in your beloved version.

If you say no, we need to discuss that to disclose whatever there may or may not be.

If you say yes, the discussion is over.

So, what is the answer?

[notofworks]

OK...

That's fine. Use any corrupted version as you would like. Let's discuss your premise concerning the cross alone using your beloved version.

Question...

Are there any contradictions concerning the cross in your beloved version.

If you say no, we need to discuss that to disclose whatever there may or may not be.

If you say yes, the discussion is over.

So, what is the answer?


I understand where you're going with this and can probably recite your position as well as I can my own. So just go ahead and make your point.

[Apprehended]

Let's begin...

What is your definition of the cross?

[notofworks]

Let's begin...

What is your definition of the cross?



Like I said, make your point...if you wish.

[Apprehended]

Like I said, make your point...if you wish.

Your point was that the "cross alone" saves.

My point is that there is no magic in two boards nailed together.

If that is your idea of "the cross alone," I will bow out of the discussion and concede to your greater revelation of what constitutes "the cross alone."

Hey, I'm easy. Try me.

If you have another idea of what constitutes the cross alone, I need to hear it for a basis of discussion.

Here is what one lexicon gives as definitions of the cross.

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

What affect would you say that the preaching of a pointed "stake" would have upon anyone? Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners?

Just looking for a basis of discussion.

So far I find no sense in the statement that the cross alone saves.

Help me here.

[notofworks]

Your point was that the "cross alone" saves.

My point is that there is no magic in two boards nailed together.

If that is your idea of "the cross alone," I will bow out of the discussion and concede to your greater revelation of what constitutes "the cross alone."

Hey, I'm easy. Try me.

If you have another idea of what constitutes the cross alone, I need to hear it for a basis of discussion.

Here is what one lexicon gives as definitions of the cross.

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

What affect would you say that the preaching of a pointed "stake" would have upon anyone? Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners?

Just looking for a basis of discussion.

So far I find no sense in the statement that the cross alone saves.

Help me here.


I'd rather you just make your point. It's really no different than what's already been posted here in this thread. But I'm guessing you didn't read all 140+ pages of it.

So you tell me.....what saves us in addition to the cross?

[Apprehended]

I'd rather you just make your point. It's really no different than what's already been posted here in this thread. But I'm guessing you didn't read all 140+ pages of it.

So you tell me.....what saves us in addition to the cross?

I am very disappointed that anyone in the whole wide world would think that two beams nailed together can save anyone. Not far from here several years ago, the KKK burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, it didn't save them at all. It caused them to move away...sadly.

So, if that is your premise, I have to wonder about the sanity of that conclusion...regardless what your beloved version has to say.

If Jesus would have died by stoning, the preaching of the stoning would have had the effect of saving if heard by someone who in turn placed their faith in the stoning. But, never mind that, hearing and placing faith in the stoning, like the preaching of the cross would be adding something to the cross alone.

So, there we are on the slippery slope of adding to the cross alone. Now we have hearing, believing and the addition of faith in the hearts of the hearers. Never mind adding confession with the mouth. The list goes on.

No sir, the cross alone saves no one. If it did Rosa would be saved as millions of others She aint. She meaner than a mama wolverine in a honey log. Jesus does not love Rosa less than he does me or you. In fact, the cross alone did not save me...or you...if indeed you are truly saved.

So, you must have some idea what is meant by the cross alone. You must have some idea what is meant by the "cross." Surely, your mind did not just go blank? But then, maybe it did.

To say that the cross alone saves then have no idea what is meant by the cross is sort of...

well, it's sort of spaced out...like maybe on mars, for instance.

:D

[notofworks]

I am very disappointed that anyone in the whole wide world would think that two beams nailed together can save anyone. Not far from here several years ago, the KKK burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, it didn't save them at all. It caused them to move away...sadly.

So, if that is your premise, I have to wonder about the sanity of that conclusion...regardless what your beloved version has to say.

If Jesus would have died by stoning, the preaching of the stoning would have had the effect of saving if heard by someone who in turn placed their faith in the stoning. But, never mind that, hearing and placing faith in the stoning, like the preaching of the cross would be adding something to the cross alone.

So, there we are on the slippery slope of adding to the cross alone. Now we have hearing, believing and the addition of faith in the hearts of the hearers. Never mind adding confession with the mouth. The list goes on.

No sir, the cross alone saves no one. If it did Rosa would be saved as millions of others She aint. She meaner than a mama wolverine in a honey log. Jesus does not love Rosa less than he does me or you. In fact, the cross alone did not save me...or you...if indeed you are truly saved.

So, you must have some idea what is meant by the cross alone. You must have some idea what is meant by the "cross." Surely, your mind did not just go blank? But then, maybe it did.

To say that the cross alone saves then have no idea what is meant by the cross is sort of...

well, it's sort of spaced out...like maybe on mars, for instance.

:D


:lol

When someone says, "Only the cross can save", you know perfectly well what they mean and your act of being bewildered by the meaning of that is getting rather stale. You're a sharp cookie. I did a little digging and read some of your writings...you're capable of doing the math, so go ahead and can the act.

Like I said, I know your position, can recite it well and I'm not going to play the game with you of answering your questions so that you can finally get to the point that it's the application of the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us and exactly what constitutes said application.

I know, and others reading know, that you believe that the sacrifice of Calvary means nothing if one doesn't repent, be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, and then filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in other tongues and only then is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross applied to their lives.

So go ahead....get on with it.

[Apprehended]

:lol

When someone says, "Only the cross can save", you know perfectly well what they mean and your act of being bewildered by the meaning of that is getting rather stale. You're a sharp cookie. I did a little digging and read some of your writings...you're capable of doing the math, so go ahead and can the act.

Like I said, I know your position, can recite it well and I'm not going to play the game with you of answering your questions so that you can finally get to the point that it's the application of the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us and exactly what constitutes said application.

I know, and others reading know, that you believe that the sacrifice of Calvary means nothing if one doesn't repent, be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, and then filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in other tongues and only then is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross applied to their lives.

So go ahead....get on with it.

Ok, So if you are going to clam up and not talk, there is not much that can be said and not much understanding can come of it.

But, I would ask this one question. See if you can help me out...

Does the cross (whatever that means to you) have to be preached to the unsaved?

Thanks for your response.

[notofworks]

Ok, So if you are going to clam up and not talk, there is not much that can be said and not much understanding can come of it.

But, I would ask this one question. See if you can help me out...

Does the cross (whatever that means to you) have to be preached to the unsaved?

Thanks for your response.


So when Paul said, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness", what did he mean by, "The preaching of the cross"?

[Apprehended]

So when Paul said, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness", what did he mean by, "The preaching of the cross"?

Evidently Paul preached the cross. But why?

Do you think that preaching of the cross was really necessary in the "cross alone" theory?

[notofworks]

Evidently Paul preached the cross. But why?

Do you think that preaching of the cross was really necessary in the "cross alone" theory?


Paul "preached the cross"? So he preached two boards nailed together? What does that mean?

If "The cross alone" is only a "theory", what is it in addition to the cross that we need?

[Apprehended]

Paul "preached the cross"? So he preached two boards nailed together? What does that mean?

If "The cross alone" is only a "theory", what is it in addition to the cross that we need?

The cross alone is your position. It isn't mine.

The cross alone are two planks nailed together. The Greek calls it a "Stake." I gave you the definition above.

Never thought that there was a lot of magic in two boards nailed together. Evidently you and your version of the bible seems to think so.

Seems kind of weird to me.

Anyway, I'm still looking for why two beams nailed together never did Luigi, Guido, Pasquale and mama Rosa any good whatsoever.

[Apprehended]

If "The cross alone" is only a "theory", what is it in addition to the cross that we need?

I would venture to say that it must be preached...

but that would be taking away from the "cross alone" theory.

What do you think?

[notofworks]

The cross alone is your position. It isn't mine.

The cross alone are two planks nailed together. The Greek calls it a "Stake." I gave you the definition above.

Never thought that there was a lot of magic in two boards nailed together. Evidently you and your version of the bible seems to think so.

Seems kind of weird to me.

Anyway, I'm still looking for why two beams nailed together never did Luigi, Guido, Pasquale and mama Rosa any good whatsoever.


Are you going to slither away from answering the question? Paul preached "The cross." What does that mean?

[Apprehended]

Are you going to slither away from answering the question? Paul preached "The cross." What does that mean?


Slither?

As in the progression of a snake?

Lovely personality you are.

According to you, preaching of the cross is preaching two board nailed together.

My position is that of Paul when he explained what the gospel is. It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:1-4)

It is not two beams nailed together as in "cross alone" theory. It involves events involving the Cross of Christ

Am I wrong about that?

Help me out here. You have completely clammed up.

Does it have to be preached?

[notofworks]

Slither?

As in the progression of a snake?

Lovely personality you are.

According to you, preaching of the cross is preaching two board nailed together.

My position is that of Paul when he explained what the gospel is. It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:1-4)

It is not two beams nailed together as in "cross alone" theory. It involves events involving the Cross of Christ

Am I wrong about that?

Help me out here. You have completely clammed up.

Does it have to be preached?


"Lovely personality you are." Ah, the first personal remark in the discussion.:lol

So the cross is, "The death, burial, and resurrection"? So you're saying that the burial and resurrection are part of "The cross"? Wouldn't those be events after the cross?

[Apprehended]

"Lovely personality you are." Ah, the first personal remark in the discussion.:lol

So the cross is, "The death, burial, and resurrection"? So you're saying that the burial and resurrection are part of "The cross"? Wouldn't those be events after the cross?

Let's dispense with the snake reference, ok? I don't slither too well. I'm too old for that. Besides, I look more like a rumpled back alligator.

Burial and resurrection after the cross? Of course not.

Remember, the cross is more than just two boards nailed together as in the "cross alone" theory. According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4

So, once again I ask....

Does the cross have to be preached?

Don't continue to clam up. Talk to me. I earnestly want to get to the bottom of the "cross alone" doctrine you get from your beloved translation.

[mfblume]

When the New Testament mentioned the CROSS in the epistles, as in Paul glorying in the cross, it was a microcosm of the entire work of salvation spanning death, burial and resurrection. It is the same with reference to the BLOOD or "In the name of Jesus". It is encapsulation of all the work of redemption in one small term. It's what the elders used to mean when they "claimed the blood". It would be more clear to say THE WORK OF THE CROSS.

[Apprehended]

When the New Testament mentioned the CROSS in the epistles, as in Paul glorying in the cross, it was a microcosm of the entire work of salvation spanning death, burial and resurrection. It is the same with reference to the BLOOD or "In the name of Jesus". It is encapsulation of all the work of redemption in one small term. It's what the elders used to mean when they "claimed the blood". It would be more clear to say THE WORK OF THE CROSS.

This is correct.

Our friend needs to understand that.

[notofworks]

When the New Testament mentioned the CROSS in the epistles, as in Paul glorying in the cross, it was a microcosm of the entire work of salvation spanning death, burial and resurrection. It is the same with reference to the BLOOD or "In the name of Jesus". It is encapsulation of all the work of redemption in one small term. It's what the elders used to mean when they "claimed the blood". It would be more clear to say THE WORK OF THE CROSS.


This is your opinion, of course. I noticed you referenced the traditions of elders and not scripture.

[notofworks]

Let's dispense with the snake reference, ok? I don't slither too well. I'm too old for that. Besides, I look more like a rumpled back alligator.

Burial and resurrection after the cross? Of course not.

Remember, the cross is more than just two boards nailed together as in the "cross alone" theory. According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4

So, once again I ask....

Does the cross have to be preached?

Don't continue to clam up. Talk to me. I earnestly want to get to the bottom of the "cross alone" doctrine you get from your beloved translation.


There was no snake reference so there's no need to get touchy in the middle of our friendly conversation about The Cross.

Yes, the burial and resurrection were events that happened AFTER the cross. You can't possibly deny that. Furthermore, you make a completely erroneous statement when you say, "According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4." He didn't say that.

[mfblume]

This is your opinion, of course. I noticed you referenced the traditions of elders and not scripture.

I was not saying the elders formed my doctrine, but rather used them by way of example that others see the same thing in scripture, and use varying terms to describe it, much like Apprehended used the "cross". The cross is where we come into contact with Christ for the first time. That is why Paul stated in Romans 6 that we died with Christ. And such a death is inseparable from the following burial and resurrection, since that death is intended to lead to resurrection. That shows that the thought of the cross involves the burial and resurrection, for the death of the cross is nothing without those. We died with Him that we might live with him.

It's like putting blood on the doors of the Hebrews' homes. Why do it if one will not ENTER THAT DOOR.

This shows that the death was only the means to the end. With that in mind, anyone who mentions the cross automatically has burial and resurrection in mind, including Paul.

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE=notofworks;1006164]There was no snake reference so there's no need to get touchy in the middle of our friendly conversation about The Cross.

FTR, I do not slither. I don't know how to slither. I've never slithered. So don't use that metaphor associated with me. Slithering calls to mind the mannerisms of a snake.

I will use the word "squirm" and plead with you to quit it and start answering some questions...unless of course you are adamant in your (two boards nailed together) "cross alone" doctrine. If you are THAT adamant, I will concede nothing but will just shake my head in amazement and walk away to wonder at one of the several marvels that post here on an "Apostolic" forum.

Yes, the burial and resurrection were events that happened AFTER the cross. You can't possibly deny that.

It is plain from the writings in the N.T. that the Cross of Jesus is more than two planks nailed together as in the idea of "cross alone." The cross of Jesus is the Gospel. Too many references in the NT to miss the obvious.

Furthermore, you make a completely erroneous statement when you say, "According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4." He didn't say that.

I am very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God. YES, he did say that!

I'll quote it for you in his own words to prove the obvious...which has no need of proving.

1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

See if you can get the connection from this 18th verse above:

1. Preaching
2. Cross
3. Saved
4. Power of God

See any connection with the gospel in these words?

To begin with we see that the power to save is resident in the PREACHING of the cross...NOT THE CROSS ALONE.

Also, in the "duh" category: The cross of Jesus is inextricably the gospel which cannot be divided and set apart from the gospel. It becomes the gospel (the good news) when it is preached. Also, in the "duh" category, it is well known that both Luther and Calvin acknowledged the obvious which you seem unwilling to do.

It is becoming more and more plain that you are advocating for "another" gospel that does not involve the burial and resurrection of Jesus. The DEATH of Jesus alone, carries no good news. That seems to be what you are contending for. If so, that indeed is ANOTHER gospel. Luther and Calvin would be gravely disappointed. At least they believed in MIXING FAITH alone with the gospel. But of course, that would be adding to the cross ALONE theory wouldn't it?

So, let's see what the preaching of the (cross) Gospel of Jesus Christ involves:

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

What might a normal level-headed student of the Word deduce from the writing in the first verse here?

a. Paul preached the gospel. (1st on the to do list)
b. The Corinthians received the gospel. (2nd on the to do list)
c. They STAND in the gospel. (3rd on the to do list)

Right of the bat we have dispensed with the foolish notion of "cross alone" theory.

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

"By which also ye are saved...?"

Say it ain't so Joe!

Preaching of the gospel?

Lest we need to be reminded, Paul had earlier said that the preaching of the CROSS was SAVING power, only 14 chapters earlier. But, alas, alas, he adds to the to do list connected to the two boards nailed together "...IF YOU KEEP IN MEMORY..."

The "to do" list is growing as we add to the cross alone...which is no longer "ALONE."

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul seems to be unable to give it up. He is now saying that a part of the gospel is the death of Jesus.

4 And that he was buried,

Now, he incorporates the burial of Jesus with the work of the cross as integral to the cross. After all, every dead body must be buried lest it stinks. No good news or a gospel that involves a dead rotting corpse unburied lest what you preach becomes a noisome abomination. "Cross only" that you advocate equates to "death only," even less...just two boards nailed together without the death.

and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Now here we are receiving the "good news," which is to say the "gospel," the preaching of the cross.

Anyone with at least one level brain cell can quickly deduce that...

a death without a burial is NOTHING.

a burial without a resurrection is NOTHING.

A RESURRECTION from the grave after the deathand burial is THE GOOD NEWS...i.e., THE GOSPEL.

So, YES, Paul DID say it.

Only you deny it.

This is truly sad.

[Apprehended]

I was not saying the elders formed my doctrine, but rather used them by way of example that others see the same thing in scripture, and use varying terms to describe it, much like Apprehended used the "cross". The cross is where we come into contact with Christ for the first time. That is why Paul stated in Romans 6 that we died with Christ. And such a death is inseparable from the following burial and resurrection, since that death is intended to lead to resurrection. That shows that the thought of the cross involves the burial and resurrection, for the death of the cross is nothing without those. We died with Him that we might live with him.

It's like putting blood on the doors of the Hebrews' homes. Why do it if one will not ENTER THAT DOOR.

This shows that the death was only the means to the end. With that in mind, anyone who mentions the cross automatically has burial and resurrection in mind, including Paul.

A great post with good understanding in regards to the initial contact a believer has with the gospel. It is the cross of Christ.

[mfblume]

Sometimes the term CROSS in the bible refers to the literal gallows they used to "gibbet" a person, hanging by hands, not noose. At other times it means THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS, and in those cases, burial and resurrection are also implied without doubt.

Preaching of the cross is doctrine of the cross. (1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.) That doctrine teaches His sacrifice removed our sins. The epistles teach that resurrection proved His sacrifice was effective! So in those instances where preaching of the cross is mentioned in order for salvation, it is understood that burial and resurrection are noted. But not simply observational burial and physical resurrection in and of themselves, as though to say Paul ONLY MEANT someone's death. The resurrection physically occurred, but for the purpose of confirming that the death was efficacious and that Jesus conquered death.

It's like Heb 2:14-15. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to be able to die so He could destroy the devil who had the power of death, and deliver those who were in bondage. You could use the reference to Christ's death and isolate it from the resurrection just as people isolate the cross from the burial and resurrection. But you would miss the fact that the MANNER in which Christ's death destroyed the devil was due to Christ's conquest of that death in His resurrection!

The preaching of the cross means that if we believe in Him we shall be saved from sin. But just considering the outward activities of His heart that stopped beating due to DEATH would not allow for that in Paul's reference to the preaching of the cross. This proves that Paul often encapsulated entire teachings with one word, just as CROSS, for otherwise what would the preaching of a heart ceasing to beat causing death mean to anyone if that was all that was preached to heathens who never heard anything about the concept of atonement and vicarious sacrifice? Imagine if CROSS only meant DEATH in the strictest sense, and we preached THE CROSS in that manner to heathens alone. Nothing is said about WHY He had to die, since the term DEATH alone does not strictly concern itself with WHY, but means cessation of life.

"A man named Jesus died for you!" Period.

We know that is not what is meant by the preaching of the cross any more than the "cross" likewise not implying burial and resurrection.

[Apprehended]

Sometimes the term CROSS in the bible refers to the literal gallows they used to "gibbet" a person, hanging by hands, not noose. At other times it means THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS, and in those cases, burial and resurrection are also implied without doubt.

Preaching of the cross is doctrine of the cross. (1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.) That doctrine teaches His sacrifice removed our sins. The epistles teach that resurrection proved His sacrifice was effective! So in those instances where preaching of the cross is mentioned in order for salvation, it is understood that burial and resurrection are noted. But not simply observational burial and physical resurrection in and of themselves, as though to say Paul ONLY MEANT someone's death. The resurrection physically occurred, but for the purpose of confirming that the death was efficacious and that Jesus conquered death.

It's like Heb 2:14-15. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to be able to die so He could destroy the devil who had the power of death, and deliver those who were in bondage. You could use the reference to Christ's death and isolate it from the resurrection just as people isolate the cross from the burial and resurrection. But you would miss the fact that the MANNER in which Christ's death destroyed the devil was due to Christ's conquest of that death in His resurrection!

The preaching of the cross means that if we believe in Him we shall be saved from sin. But just considering the outward activities of His heart that stopped beating due to DEATH would not allow for that in Paul's reference to the preaching of the cross. This proves that Paul often encapsulated entire teachings with one word, just as CROSS, for otherwise what would the preaching of a heart ceasing to beat causing death mean to anyone if that was all that was preached to heathens who never heard anything about the concept of atonement and vicarious sacrifice? Imagine if CROSS only meant DEATH in the strictest sense, and we preached THE CROSS in that manner to heathens alone. Nothing is said about WHY He had to die, since the term DEATH alone does not strictly concern itself with WHY, but means cessation of life.

"A man named Jesus died for you!" Period.

We know that is not what is meant by the preaching of the cross any more than the "cross" likewise not implying burial and resurrection.

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....

[Apprehended]

Even though I understand the point you're attempting to make (and not doing very well at it),

You seem to not be able to read very well.

[mfblume]

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....

Amen. To be as strict as to refer to the death alone, that same principle would require a person to talk about two boards nailed together and not even death!

[Apprehended]

Amen. To be as strict as to refer to the death alone, that same principle would require a person to talk about two boards nailed together and not even death!

That's the way I see it. Certainly seems reasonable to me.

Death would be adding something to the "cross alone" theory.

Then to suggest that confession with the mouth and forsaking sin would surely blow all cross alone circuits to smithereens.

The blood of Jesus ALONE saves but that entails more than just a cross alone, and much more than just death alone. It entails the WHOLE of the Gospel preached, believed and...YIKES...obeyed.

Seems that I recall Paul speaking (II Thes. 1)of Christ being revealed from heaven with a flaming sword taking vengeance upon all who obey NOT the gospel who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God.

Goodness!

Don't sound like "cross alone," to me.

[notofworks]

You seem to not be able to read very well.


These are the kinds of arrogant, condescending remarks that make your arguments worthless. You want to talk about the theology of The Cross and the great sacrifice of Christ and at the same time, attempt to insinuate that I'm illiterate.

No thanks.

[notofworks]

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....





When one uses the term, "The Cross", one calls into remembrance the most physically painful act that has ever been recorded in human history. And, it was done voluntarily for the atonement of our sins, as Jesus Christ took on Himself the sins of all mankind (I Peter 2:24).

Even though I understand the point you're attempting to make (and not doing very well at it), your repeated flippant reference to "Two boards nailed together" is incredibly disrespectful and reduces the greatest and most effective event in human history to a physical reference to wood. It's very difficult to read and discuss.

Now...your other post.........

[notofworks]

[QUOTE]

FTR, I do not slither. I don't know how to slither. I've never slithered. So don't use that metaphor associated with me. Slithering calls to mind the mannerisms of a snake.

I will use the word "squirm" and plead with you to quit it and start answering some questions...unless of course you are adamant in your (two boards nailed together) "cross alone" doctrine. If you are THAT adamant, I will concede nothing but will just shake my head in amazement and walk away to wonder at one of the several marvels that post here on an "Apostolic" forum.



It is plain from the writings in the N.T. that the Cross of Jesus is more than two planks nailed together as in the idea of "cross alone." The cross of Jesus is the Gospel. Too many references in the NT to miss the obvious.



I am very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God. YES, he did say that!

I'll quote it for you in his own words to prove the obvious...which has no need of proving.

1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

See if you can get the connection from this 18th verse above:

1. Preaching
2. Cross
3. Saved
4. Power of God

See any connection with the gospel in these words?

To begin with we see that the power to save is resident in the PREACHING of the cross...NOT THE CROSS ALONE.

Also, in the "duh" category: The cross of Jesus is inextricably the gospel which cannot be divided and set apart from the gospel. It becomes the gospel (the good news) when it is preached. Also, in the "duh" category, it is well known that both Luther and Calvin acknowledged the obvious which you seem unwilling to do.

It is becoming more and more plain that you are advocating for "another" gospel that does not involve the burial and resurrection of Jesus. The DEATH of Jesus alone, carries no good news. That seems to be what you are contending for. If so, that indeed is ANOTHER gospel. Luther and Calvin would be gravely disappointed. At least they believed in MIXING FAITH alone with the gospel. But of course, that would be adding to the cross ALONE theory wouldn't it?

So, let's see what the preaching of the (cross) Gospel of Jesus Christ involves:

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

What might a normal level-headed student of the Word deduce from the writing in the first verse here?

a. Paul preached the gospel. (1st on the to do list)
b. The Corinthians received the gospel. (2nd on the to do list)
c. They STAND in the gospel. (3rd on the to do list)

Right of the bat we have dispensed with the foolish notion of "cross alone" theory.

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

"By which also ye are saved...?"

Say it ain't so Joe!

Preaching of the gospel?

Lest we need to be reminded, Paul had earlier said that the preaching of the CROSS was SAVING power, only 14 chapters earlier. But, alas, alas, he adds to the to do list connected to the two boards nailed together "...IF YOU KEEP IN MEMORY..."

The "to do" list is growing as we add to the cross alone...which is no longer "ALONE."

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul seems to be unable to give it up. He is now saying that a part of the gospel is the death of Jesus.

4 And that he was buried,

Now, he incorporates the burial of Jesus with the work of the cross as integral to the cross. After all, every dead body must be buried lest it stinks. No good news or a gospel that involves a dead rotting corpse unburied lest what you preach becomes a noisome abomination. "Cross only" that you advocate equates to "death only," even less...just two boards nailed together without the death.

and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Now here we are receiving the "good news," which is to say the "gospel," the preaching of the cross.

Anyone with at least one level brain cell can quickly deduce that...

a death without a burial is NOTHING.

a burial without a resurrection is NOTHING.

A RESURRECTION from the grave after the deathand burial is THE GOOD NEWS...i.e., THE GOSPEL.

So, YES, Paul DID say it.

Only you deny it.

This is truly sad.





I'm not a fan of your posting style, from the initial entrance you made with your Mario Brothers analogy, to your "I hate sinners" nonsense on another thread, to your controlling dialogue mannerisms.

First, don't tell me the terms I can use and the terms I can't use. That's not for you to decide. While you question my knowledge of the bible, I'll tell you that I certainly am a student of psychology, and your style of attempting to control the environment of the dialogue is one to which I don't react very well and makes me feel as if I'm at a really sleazy used car lot, and your insistence on making me answer your questions so that you can use my answers as a gateway to your point isn't going to be fruitful. I haven't participated yet and I won't now.

Second, I am also a student of vocabulary and the word "Slither" is not inherently applicable to a snake. "Slithering" is a movement made by a snake and the word is no more automatically linked to a snake, than running is automatically linked to a cheetah. So in the future, if I desire to say that you are attempting to slither out of a discussion, I will do so. If you don't like that, you don't have to respond and are welcome to take your controlling dialogue tactics to another poster.

So yes, you actually DO slither in the way you attempt to deflect the questions I asked and return to your own questions.

Third, speaking to me you proclaimed that you are "very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God." Such pompous, condescending, doctrinally, and theologically arrogant remarks are not anything I'm interested hearing and gives me a clear indication of where this conversation is going to go. There are 140+ pages of dialogue in which I posted several dozen times. If you wish to know my thoughts, you're welcome to go read. If you're interested in learning anything....and considering your pompous remark about my not being a "Student of the Word", you're probably not....I would highly recommend the postings of "Jeffrey" and "Pelathais".

As for me, I'll move on. I have no desire to discuss this any further with you. Blessings.....

[Charnock]

When one uses the term, "The Cross", one calls into remembrance the most physically painful act that has ever been recorded in human history. And, it was done voluntarily for the atonement of our sins, as Jesus Christ took on Himself the sins of all mankind (I Peter 2:24).


I'm not sure you can prove this.

I don't think the purpose of the cross was to die in the most cruel manner imaginable.

The purpose was to destroy the curse of sin. The cross was merely the preferred tool of the Romans.

I'm sure it could be argued that "the rack" was more painful, or being boiled alive, or baked in an oven.

[notofworks]

I'm not sure you can prove this.

I don't think the purpose of the cross was to die in the most cruel manner imaginable.

The purpose was to destroy the curse of sin. The cross was merely the preferred tool of the Romans.

I'm sure it could be argued that "the rack" was more painful, or being boiled alive, or baked in an oven.



Correct, I cannot. It's a matter of medical debate.

This information actually comes from an old UPC Adult Sunday School teaching curriculum....probably from the 80's. They published a doctor's medical report (Mayo Clinic, I think) of the detailed breakdown of the chain reaction in the human body when nailed to the cross as Jesus was. His conclusion was an implosion of the heart and he and several others that did the research determined it was the most horrific death one could ever experience.

[Apprehended]

I'm not a fan of your posting style, from the initial entrance you made with your Mario Brothers analogy, to your "I hate sinners" nonsense on another thread, to your controlling dialogue mannerisms.

Never said, "I hate sinners."

Can't you see? You just confirmed that I am right about your reading ability. I will say it again. You do not read very well.

Now. Go back and copy and paste what I said about not loving sinners and how it equates to loving their sin along with their good.

First, don't tell me the terms I can use and the terms I can't use. That's not for you to decide. While you question my knowledge of the bible, I'll tell you that I certainly am a student of psychology, and your style of attempting to control the environment of the dialogue is one to which I don't react very well and makes me feel as if I'm at a really sleazy used car lot, and your insistence on making me answer your questions so that you can use my answers as a gateway to your point isn't going to be fruitful. I haven't participated yet and I won't now.

You sure are being persecuted, aren't you?

Why not address my points from I Cor. 15? After all, you asked me to make my point. I do, time after time but you clam up and will not address them.

Second, I am also a student of vocabulary and the word "Slither" is not inherently applicable to a snake. "Slithering" is a movement made by a snake and the word is no more automatically linked to a snake, than running is automatically linked to a cheetah.

Amazing!

So in the future, if I desire to say that you are attempting to slither out of a discussion, I will do so. If you don't like that, you don't have to respond and are welcome to take your controlling dialogue tactics to another poster.

Thanks for this sound bit of advice.

I think I am insulting my own intelligence by continuing this absurd conversation.

So yes, you actually DO slither in the way you attempt to deflect the questions I asked and return to your own questions.

Speaking of slithering...why not just answer the point which you asked me to make? Start with addressing the scripture in I Cor. 1:18 and then I Cor. 15:1-4. You asked me to make my point. I did. Then it is you that slithers away and will not answer by clamming up.

[QUOTE]Third, speaking to me you proclaimed that you are "very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God." Such pompous, condescending, doctrinally, and theologically arrogant remarks are not anything I'm interested hearing and gives me a clear indication of where this conversation is going to go.

Personality, benevolence and even friendship could be greatly enhanced without snake metaphors. Kind of a turn off.

There are 140+ pages of dialogue in which I posted several dozen times. If you wish to know my thoughts, you're welcome to go read. If you're interested in learning anything....and considering your pompous remark about my not being a "Student of the Word", you're probably not....I would highly recommend the postings of "Jeffrey" and "Pelathais".

If Jeffrey and Pelathais agree with your "cross alone" theory, I would be surprised. But, I would be happy to discuss it with them too so long as they will not degrade the conversation to the charges of me slithering.

As for me, I'll move on. I have no desire to discuss this any further with you. Blessings.....

Good idea.

As a side note, I would be very interested in discovering just how many posters here who claim to be Apostolic actually believe the "cross alone" theory. There is not a Greek lexicon on this side of the constellation Orion that would read the way your doctrine is presented by you...as I said, not even Luther or Calvin.

[Sarah]

[QUOTE]

Never said, "I hate sinners."

Can't you see? You just confirmed that I am right about your reading ability. I will say it again. You do not read very well.

Now. Go back and copy and paste what I said about not loving sinners and how it equates to loving their sin along with their good.


You sure are being persecuted, aren't you?

Why not address my points from I Cor. 15? After all, you asked me to make my point. I do, time after time but you clam up and will not address them.



Amazing!

.

Thanks for this sound bit of advice.

I think I am insulting my own intelligence by continuing this absurd conversation.



Speaking of slithering...why not just answer the point which you asked me to make? Start with addressing the scripture in I Cor. 1:18 and then I Cor. 15:1-4. You asked me to make my point. I did. Then it is you that slithers away and will not answer by clamming up.


If Jeffrey and Pelathais agree with your "cross alone" theory, I would be surprised. But, I would be happy to discuss it with them too so long as they will not degrade the conversation to the charges of me slithering.


Good idea.

As a side note, I would be very interested in discovering just how many posters here who claim to be Apostolic actually believe the "cross alone" theory. There is not a Greek lexicon on this side of the constellation Orion that would read the way your doctrine is presented by you...as I said, not even Luther or Calvin.



At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

[El Predicador]

[QUOTE=Apprehended;1006466]



At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

Yes it takes blood and water and spirit

[Apprehended]

At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

If there are such here, they in no wise can call themselves Apostolic. None of the Apostles preached a "cross alone" message.

They all preached believing, forsaking sin, and become identified with Jesus in the Death, Burial and Resurrection through obedience. This is true Apostolic doctrine.

If "cross alone" was truth then my neighbors Guido, Luigi, Pasquale and Rosa would be saved. They are not. Rosa especially is meaner than a nest of rattlesnakes. Cross alone has not worked for them. The cross did it's work in my life but I found that I had to become obedient to the gospel message preached to me.

No wonder Jesus said "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." The "cross alone" gospel is a wide gate and a broad way by which there is no demand for obedience or that of forsaking sin and/or keeping God's commandments. It is the way of death and destruction.

"If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?"

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE=Sarah;1006564]

Yes it takes blood and water and spirit

Blood, water and spirit. They agree in one plan of salvation. It worked for me.

[Liberal]

If there are such here, they in no wise can call themselves Apostolic. None of the Apostles preached a "cross alone" message.

They all preached believing, forsaking sin, and become identified with Jesus in the Death, Burial and Resurrection through obedience. This is true Apostolic doctrine.

If "cross alone" was truth then my neighbors Guido, Luigi, Pasquale and Rosa would be saved. They are not. Rosa especially is meaner than a nest of rattlesnakes. Cross alone has not worked for them. The cross did it's work in my life but I found that I had to become obedient to the gospel message preached to me.

No wonder Jesus said "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." The "cross alone" gospel is a wide gate and a broad way by which there is no demand for obedience or that of forsaking sin and/or keeping God's commandments. It is the way of death and destruction.

"If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?"


I've never been interested in calling myself an apostolic so your removing of that label from me is pointless. But I would be a "Cross alone" person. Maybe you should do a poll here and see what you find out. There could be quite a few of us who are as stupid as you seem to think we are.

[Apprehended]

I've never been interested in calling myself an apostolic so your removing of that label from me is pointless. But I would be a "Cross alone" person. Maybe you should do a poll here and see what you find out. There could be quite a few of us who are as stupid as you seem to think we are.

Interesting!

So tell me, why do you believe the cross alone theory?

[Liberal]

Interesting!

So tell me, why do you believe the cross alone theory?


Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.

[El Predicador]

Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.

[mizpeh]

Yes it takes blood and water and spiritIOW, appropriation.

[mizpeh]

Depending on how you want to define 'WORKS', appropriation of the gift given to us by God, righteousness, through the cross of Christ involves something on our part.

[mizpeh]

The cross of Christ is a sufficient sacrifice for the sin of all men. How do we receive the His gift? "through" faith or "at" faith?

[mizpeh]

I believe salvation is initiated by God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and is held out as a free gift to men. That's the starting point.

[houston]

starting point?

[Liberal]

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.


As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

[El Predicador]

As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

Of course not the inference was Clarke was infallible

and so great Apprehended could not be correct.

And yes they added that verse which does NOT appear in the NIV

or any of the newer translations.

[Apprehended]

Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.

I'm very interested in your doctrine as to how you arrived at it as truth. I'd be glad to discuss it with you. What version would you like to use? Use any Greek lexicon or manuscript that you would most prefer. Either would be fine with me. That might be a good starting point.

But, if you would prefer to use your beloved (less than 15 years old) version, we can use it too, even though it is highly discredited by most reputable scholars So give me the best rationale that you can employ to establish the grounds of your doctrine.

Love to hear from you.

Incidentally, I do not slither.

[Apprehended]

Clarke was a trinitarian that alone makes him fallible.

Of course. His personal prejudices were well pronounced through out his commentary.

As were the 47 translators of the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Since the King James Version is a bible assembled and translated by trinitarians, should we toss it? I think it was those danged trinnys that came up with I John 5:7 anyway.

This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

[James Griffin]

This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

Be gentle my friend, he is young. :-)

[Apprehended]

Be gentle my friend, he is young. :-)

That explains a lot.

I remember when I was in my twenties, I thought I was a genius and knew almost everything and few could tell me anything.

So, I've decided that I never knew anything...not then, not later and have concluded that I really will never know very much of anything at all. The wealth of my knowledge might possibly equate by comparison to one grain of sand in the Pacific Ocean.

Though later, looking back, I became embarrassed at how foolish I was when I was young, I am now entertained by so great of knowledge and wisdom of those of my age back then. They too will look back one day and, they too will feel a sense of embarrassment. Even that is entertaining.

I remember the remarks of Samuel Clement concerning how foolish and unlearned his Dad was when he lived at home with him. He later left home, traveled around the world, experienced many things. Many years later he went home to visit his aged Dad. He was shocked at how much the old man had learned. :D

:D ... I understand.

[James Griffin]

That explains a lot.

I remember when I was in my twenties, I thought I was a genius and knew almost everything and few could tell me anything.

So, I've decided that I never knew anything...not then, not later and have concluded that I really will never know very much of anything at all. The wealth of my knowledge might possibly equate by comparison to one grain of sand in the Pacific Ocean.

Though later, looking back, I became embarrassed at how foolish I was when I was young, I am now entertained by so great of knowledge and wisdom of those of my age back then. They too will look back one day and, they too will feel a sense of embarrassment. Even that is entertaining.

I remember the remarks of Samuel Clement concerning how foolish and unlearned his Dad was when he lived at home with him. He later left home, traveled around the world, experienced many things. Many years later he went home to visit his aged Dad. He was shocked at how much the old man had learned. :D

:D ... I understand.

age and youth are relative my friend, he is only is his 40s. :-)

[Jeffrey]

The phrase "the cross of Christ can save us" is a neither literal nor verbatim. It's the effectiveness of the Cross, the story, the outcome. Technically, the cross would fall short had Jesus not resurrected. But the reality of the cross, what the cross speaks, what is represents, what it means.... that's our salvation. It capstones the entire story of God...

Wood doesn't save me. But God's sacrifice does. And what He did is enough.

[Jeffrey]

Of course. His personal prejudices were well pronounced through out his commentary.



This is getting funny already.

Just like Clark, the 47 translators of the KJV were mere commentators!

Hahaha!

I can see that this is going to be fun.

God has spoken, the rest IS commentary :)

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;1006883]The phrase "the cross of Christ can save us" is a neither literal nor verbatim. It's the effectiveness of the Cross, the story, the outcome. Technically, the cross would fall short had Jesus not resurrected. But the reality of the cross, what the cross speaks, what is represents, what it means.... that's our salvation. It capstones the entire story of God...

The resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the New Testament Church by which all salvation and victory depends. The story of two boards nailed together is meaningless had not Jesus died there as a sacrifice, buried and rose again victorious over death and hell.

There is no power in the cross to save. It is the PREACHING of the cross that has power to save, which preaching includes not only the death but the burial and resurrection as well.

Wood doesn't save me. But God's sacrifice does. And what He did is enough.

What he did is enough if we understand what all he actually did. He did more than sacrifice himself for sins. He gained victory over all power of the enemy which includes the last enemy...death itself. Even what he did is not enough unless it is both preached and believed by those that hear the preaching. Faith comes by HEARING...and hearing the story of the cross.

So, there is more to salvation than just a cross alone. There are elements that must be added and mixed along with the gospel. We must add our faith and mix it with the power of the preached cross.

There are imperative elements of the cross than just two boards nailed together. The cross alone has no power to do anything. The cross alone can do nothing.

[Apprehended]

God has spoken, the rest IS commentary :)

To this we will agree. :D

The Word of God is yea and amen.

[Jeffrey]

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

[Jeffrey]

Love the old chorus tied in at the end: "Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe... Sin has left a crimson stain, he washed it white as snow..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herw8B1S3do

A Murrell Ewing tribute to this thread

[MrMasterMind]

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

His death paid for my sin, without His resurrection there would be no new birth.

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;1006903]You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

I'm perplexed by that charge. Surely, you must have some reason to think that. The truth is, I have been neither argumentative with you or disingenuous.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

I can't find that scripture in my bible anywhere. However, it is true that he died. It is also true that we can live. But, there must be some connection between, cross, died, and live. You didn't make that connection here. Would you please explain a little further?

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

Please tell that "someone" that they need to read their bible since they do not know it too well.

Hbr 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

First: "Them" heard the gospel preached.

Secondly: It did not profit "them."

Thirdly: Faith was not mixed in "them."

Conclusion from this scripture in Hebrews: Both unto US and "them" heard the gospel preached. "Us," mixed our faith with the preached gospel which included the story of the cross. "Them" were not profited by the preaching of the cross not having MIXED their faith with the power to save.

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation.

I disagree.

Actually, I don't care too much for semantics. However, I would like to stay with the Word of God.

When you say that the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation, surely you can't mean that one who continues living like the devil is free from guilt and condemnation? However, I am aware that there are some that believe that continuing on in sin while claiming the cross and the blood of Jesus as their justification. This concept is nothing less than profaning the Word of God and counting the blood of Jesus as worthless, treading it under foot. No sir, the cross alone neither satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Neither is there a substitute for the cross to cleanse sin in those who come to it, receiving its message of Death, Burial and Resurrection, who mixes their faith with its power to save.

Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

No one has ever suggested that there is anything that can substitute the power of the cross to cleanse sin. However, any casual reader of the bible quickly understands that without the cooperation of the will of man, the cross is worthless on his behalf.

[mizpeh]

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.Are you a universalist?

We all believe that his sacrifice is enough to bring remittance of sin and righteousness. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.

[Jeffrey]

When I say the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation, that's exactly what I mean.

'Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' 1

Now, this hardly means that it is impossible to say anything about Jesus’ death on the cross – that would clearly contradict the testimony of both Old and New Testaments. But it does suggest that we should learn to be content with the fact that Jesus’ death will never fit neatly into our theological categories or grids. As a result, we should never be surprised by the academic incredulity, if not scorn, which a biblical understanding of the cross inevitably generates.

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. The cross was a ransom paid.

Paul in Romans 8:18-21 and Colossians 1:19-20 gives no space for western individualism for this is a cosmic victory of reconciliation.

A cross-rescued human being has now undergone a Cosmic revolution, so that he or she is no longer the centre of the universe; the rescuing God is. Living for God is the life that we have been saved to live; and it is the best way to live. It is a life of confidence and freedom from fear, because it is based on our divine acceptance and adoption, our eternal belonging. Above all, it is a life made possible by Jesus death and his subsequent sending of his Holy Spirit (Romans 8:13-17).

The preaching of the cross is one sense, the entirety of the story (symbolized by the atoning sacrifice), as well as the pause and reality of his death. It's the culmination of a God coming to our rescue.

And I would add, that even on your willful behalf, you cannot believe. No one confesses Jesus as Lord, except by the Spirit. The Story speaks to us, Grace elects us, we simply accept that as truth, allow the generation of Grace, believe it at a heart level --- it's world and life-changing. A person who has been freed from such great debt in life is the most gracious of all. A person that feels God's Story plus their own works (and then continual work to keep themselves saved) is not the most gracious, for they never understood grace to begin with. He saved me, and nothing can separate me from His love (Romans 8). It is not my obligation to believe, it's His work in me that I can believe.

[Jeffrey]

Are you a universalist?

We all believe that his sacrifice is enough to bring remittance of sin and righteousness. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.

If you've read this entire thread and come away that I'm a universalist, then you've greatly misunderstood me.

[James Griffin]

His death paid for my sin, without His resurrection there would be no new birth.

That is true, may I also add that a pardon is of none effect until accepted.

[mizpeh]

That is true, may I also add that a pardon is of none effect until accepted.Exactly! It's in the "acceptance" that we find disagreement except for universalists who don't believe acceptance is required. :gift

[mizpeh]

And I would add, that even on your willful behalf, you cannot believe. No one confesses Jesus as Lord, except by the Spirit. The Story speaks to us, Grace elects us, we simply accept that as truth, allow the generation of Grace, believe it at a heart level --- it's world and life-changing. A person who has been freed from such great debt in life is the most gracious of all. A person that feels God's Story plus their own works (and then continual work to keep themselves saved) is not the most gracious, for they never understood grace to begin with. He saved me, and nothing can separate me from His love (Romans 8). It is not my obligation to believe, it's His work in me that I can believe.So are you saying that God forces us to believe in Christ whether we want to or not and once God makes us take his gift of salvation there is absolutely not way to give the gift back?

All those verses that tell us to do this or that (pray, keep, walk, live, crucify, deny...etc) are given for what reason if we don't have to keep those commands?

Reformed theology is wacky!

[James Griffin]

They simply confuse foreknowledge with predestination

[mfblume]

They simply confuse foreknowledge with predestination

That is IT in a nutshell! :thumbsup

[Apprehended]

A question for the "cross alone" crowd:

Who then can be saved?

In the 1970s, a sister to then President Jimmy Carter, witnessed to the publisher of one of the most vile magazines ever published filled with the raunchiest pornography that ever sold. If I remember correctly, his name was Larry Flynn or Larry Flint or something like that.

This publishing tycoon of the worlds worst filth accepted the witness of this lady. She prayed the sinner's prayer with him. Both she and Larry testified that he had been born again, accepting the atonement provided on the cross. I remember reading these statements very clearly.

Throughout the remainder of his life, he claimed to be saved and born again. I fully expected his to give up his most wicked life-style. I expected that there would be no further editions of Hustler magazine. I further expected that there would be a change in his life as I recognize that there are people who turn to God in repentance even without receiving the Holy Ghost.

Not one edition failed. He continued on with his evil, debauchery, and wickedness as though he had never confessed Christ or made him Lord. He never gave up his corrupting the lives and minds of his readers. His statements in the newspapers at the time reflected the same old man as full of sin as always. There was no change in his life at all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that someone who claimed to be saved to give up sin? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if someone had truly mixed their faith with the preached message of the (gospel) cross that they would repent from sin and live a new life being made a new creature in Christ? Is that rationale too far out to think possible?

The truth is:

1. A constructed cross of wood is not enough.

2. Jesus dying on it as a sin sacrifice paying the ransom is not enough.

3. The dead body of Jesus laid in the tomb is not enough.

4. Jesus resurrecting from the dead to overcome death and hell, is not enough.

5. Preaching the gospel is not enough.

6. All of the above, mixed with faith and obedience is sufficient. Anything less is not enough.

Had Larry Flynn believed the correct doctrine of the Apostolic Church founded on the day of Pentecost, carrying forward the message of Jesus after his resurrection that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem," to the heralding Apostles whose message never wavered, it is possible for Larry Flint to have been saved.

There is no wonder that Jesus said the gate is strait and the way is narrow and few there be that find it. The enemy of our souls wishes to convolute the doctrine of Christ to favor our foolish imaginations to our own peril.

The message to the Jews (who sought for signs) preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost is the same message to the Greeks (who sought wisdom) preached by Paul. There was no difference at all...both to the Jew and the Greek.

Larry Flynn might would have fully repented of his sin had he been preached the full message of the cross without alloy. Who can say for sure? If today he is dead, he could have been with Murrell Ewing, J.T. Pugh, Cleve Becton, Tom Barnes, Nathan and Jean Urshan and with Jesus too. But, he is not. The enemy came in and sowed tares, polluting the gospel and corrupting the message of the cross to Larry Flynn's eternal loss.

I fully believe, according to the words of Jesus, that they are both where the soul is bannished from the presence of God forever.

If the scriptures say that the Holy Ghost is given to them that Obey him...and it does. Then, I need to obey. Why? Because the same bible says that without the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Christ) we are none of his. It is not hard to put two and two together. The same message that Peter preached to the Jews and Paul preached to the gentiles is the same message that rings loudly, clearly, forcefully today without any room for doubt.

Let us be wary of the message that would dilute, pollute or divert the gospels' clarion call to faith, repentance and obedience. If you call this adding to the cross, I would disagree, for without the whole operation of the cross of Jesus, all else lost to confusion and unstable minds.

[Apprehended]

Foreknowledge is what God knew from the foundation of the world.

Predestination is based on that which God knew.

Simply put: Predestination is limited to foreknowledge from the foundation of the earth. The predestination will not go beyond what foreknowledge already knew. Predestination limited in scope to that of foreknowledge will never set aside the will of man.

It is true that GRACE elects. But election is limited to candidacy. Except a willing man chooses to become a candidate to the operation of grace, there is no election.

[Socialite]

Foreknowledge is what God knew from the foundation of the world.

Predestination is based on that which God knew.

Simply put: Predestination is limited to foreknowledge from the foundation of the earth. The predestination will not go beyond what foreknowledge already knew. Predestination limited in scope to that of foreknowledge will never set aside the will of man.

It is true that GRACE elects. But election is limited to candidacy. Except a willing man chooses to become a candidate to the operation of grace, there is no election.

So what comes first, the electing or the willing? :)

I'll let you think back to other characters in the story: Abram, Noah, David, Moses, Saul.... Peter, Paul... yourself. Go ahead... let's hear it

[Socialite]

So are you saying that God forces us to believe in Christ whether we want to or not and once God makes us take his gift of salvation there is absolutely not way to give the gift back?

All those verses that tell us to do this or that (pray, keep, walk, live, crucify, deny...etc) are given for what reason if we don't have to keep those commands?

Reformed theology is wacky!

I'll answer... while I'm not a Calvinist, or technically a New Calvinist to the letter, I do find something irresistible about grace. Once the Story is heard, the Spirit draws, I'll at least say it's extremely difficult for one to refuse.

I've always learned from my Reformed brothers -- that the salvation of Jesus isn't something fragile, fading away and completely dependent on my perfect performance. Those exhortations toward disciplines are not meant to be hard burdens, they are actually ways to keep the load light, and to keep life full.

We confuse soteriology with sanctification far too often, Mizpeh.

[sandie]

A question for the "cross alone" crowd:

Who then can be saved?

In the 1970s, a sister to then President Jimmy Carter, witnessed to the publisher of one of the most vile magazines ever published filled with the raunchiest pornography that ever sold. If I remember correctly, his name was Larry Flynn or Larry Flint or something like that.

This publishing tycoon of the worlds worst filth accepted the witness of this lady. She prayed the sinner's prayer with him. Both she and Larry testified that he had been born again, accepting the atonement provided on the cross. I remember reading these statements very clearly.

Throughout the remainder of his life, he claimed to be saved and born again. I fully expected his to give up his most wicked life-style. I expected that there would be no further editions of Hustler magazine. I further expected that there would be a change in his life as I recognize that there are people who turn to God in repentance even without receiving the Holy Ghost.

Not one edition failed. He continued on with his evil, debauchery, and wickedness as though he had never confessed Christ or made him Lord. He never gave up his corrupting the lives and minds of his readers. His statements in the newspapers at the time reflected the same old man as full of sin as always. There was no change in his life at all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that someone who claimed to be saved to give up sin? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if someone had truly mixed their faith with the preached message of the (gospel) cross that they would repent from sin and live a new life being made a new creature in Christ? Is that rationale too far out to think possible?

The truth is:

1. A constructed cross of wood is not enough.

2. Jesus dying on it as a sin sacrifice paying the ransom is not enough.

3. The dead body of Jesus laid in the tomb is not enough.

4. Jesus resurrecting from the dead to overcome death and hell, is not enough.

5. Preaching the gospel is not enough.

6. All of the above, mixed with faith and obedience is sufficient. Anything less is not enough.

Had Larry Flynn believed the correct doctrine of the Apostolic Church founded on the day of Pentecost, carrying forward the message of Jesus after his resurrection that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name beginning at Jerusalem," to the heralding Apostles whose message never wavered, it is possible for Larry Flint to have been saved.

There is no wonder that Jesus said the gate is strait and the way is narrow and few there be that find it. The enemy of our souls wishes to convolute the doctrine of Christ to favor our foolish imaginations to our own peril.

The message to the Jews (who sought for signs) preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost is the same message to the Greeks (who sought wisdom) preached by Paul. There was no difference at all...both to the Jew and the Greek.

Larry Flynn might would have fully repented of his sin had he been preached the full message of the cross without alloy. Who can say for sure? If today he is dead, he could have been with Murrell Ewing, J.T. Pugh, Cleve Becton, Tom Barnes, Nathan and Jean Urshan and with Jesus too. But, he is not. The enemy came in and sowed tares, polluting the gospel and corrupting the message of the cross to Larry Flynn's eternal loss.

I fully believe, according to the words of Jesus, that they are both where the soul is bannished from the presence of God forever.

If the scriptures say that the Holy Ghost is given to them that Obey him...and it does. Then, I need to obey. Why? Because the same bible says that without the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Christ) we are none of his. It is not hard to put two and two together. The same message that Peter preached to the Jews and Paul preached to the gentiles is the same message that rings loudly, clearly, forcefully today without any room for doubt.

Let us be wary of the message that would dilute, pollute or divert the gospels' clarion call to faith, repentance and obedience. If you call this adding to the cross, I would disagree, for without the whole operation of the cross of Jesus, all else lost to confusion and unstable minds.

That's a clear a teaching as I've ever read or heard in all the years since being baptized in the HG and His Name.

[Apprehended]

So what comes first, the electing or the willing? :)

I'll let you think back to other characters in the story: Abram, Noah, David, Moses, Saul.... Peter, Paul... yourself. Go ahead... let's hear it

Neither the electing or the willing comes first.

The call must come first.

Remember the scripture that says, "Many are called but few are chosen?" (Matt 22:14) The word for "called" is klētos. The word for "chosen" is eklektos It is the same word for "elect."

The two words have a close relationship. First comes the kletos, the call. Many are called. Millions are called. It is God grace that calls with his love and divine, heavenly attraction. the "call" is to submit to the message preached, for it is the power of God unto salvation. That call is faithful, striving always to turn men from sin to righteousness. This is graciousness...divine graciousness.

One submits himself to answer the call by submitting to the drawing power of God in the message preached. Jesus said, "No man can come to me except my father draw him." God, who is love tenderly calls us to Jesus, his Son, the Word of God.

When we submit to the call, we then become the chosen, the "eklektos" (chosen) which is the same word used for the "elect."

First the call. Next is the answer to the call and finally the chosen of God. However, it is one thing to be called (klētos), yet another to be the elect (eklektos), still quite another to be faithful.

At last, those that will be with Jesus in the end will not be just the called only. Neither will it be the elect only. But rather, it will be those who have heard the call, became a candidate to election, then elected or chosen, and finally remained faithful to the end. These are the saved ones.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

[Apprehended]

That's a clear a teaching as I've ever read or heard in all the years since being baptized in the HG and His Name.

Sandie, I could give you a tight hug. You just made my day and night too.

Thank you.

:christmaskiss

[Apprehended]

At last, those that will be with Jesus in the end will not be just the called only. Neither will it be the elect only. But rather, it will be those who have heard the call, became a candidate to election, then elected or chosen, and finally remained faithful to the end. These are the saved ones.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

After looking over this last statement, I felt like I needed to make some clarification lest it be misinterpreted. I should have said:

It is not necessarily the called who will be saved since millions have been called but have refused. Neither is it necessarily the elect that will be with Jesus in the final end for it is possible for them to be deceived to end up as the pruned vine branch gathered away by the workmen to the fire. Thus, in the end...not all who are called, neither all who are elected, but rather, all who have been called, chosen (elected) and who remain faithful to the end will be with Jesus in the final count.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, please allow me to quote the last of this verse once again. Maybe we should read it real, real slowly...

Rev 17:14 ...and they that are him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.[/QUOTE]

Kind of calls to mind the statement by Jesus concerning "...he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."

[DAII]

Pelagianism lives.

[sandie]

After looking over this last statement, I felt like I needed to make some clarification lest it be misinterpreted. I should have said:

It is not necessarily the called who will be saved since millions have been called but have refused. Neither is it necessarily the elect that will be with Jesus in the final end for it is possible for them to be deceived to end up as the pruned vine branch gathered away by the workmen to the fire. Thus, in the end...not all who are called, neither all who are elected, but rather, all who have been called, chosen (elected) and who remain faithful to the end will be with Jesus in the final count.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, please allow me to quote the last of this verse once again. Maybe we should read it real, real slowly...

Rev 17:14 ...and they that are him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.

Kind of calls to mind the statement by Jesus concerning "...he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."[/QUOTE]

I'm going to copy and paste the last two posts and put them to save on my computer.
I can see the very experience of salvation I've had in these two posts.
As a Jew who never dreamed it possible I could have a loving (never knew it would be salvational too) relationsip with Jesus I see how God does His salvational drawing and work to His creation. You have described my personal experience. It was a lovely look into what our Lord was doing with me all along.

I hope your day was made, I'm glad it was made...it is Jesus Who has made each of our days and my New Year prayer is now to be "faithful".
Thank you for these two posts, they mean much to me.

[Apprehended]

Pelagianism lives.

Dear ol' Pelagius was a dear old soul. At least his mama thought so. But he was wrong about the doctrine of original sin although he was right about the freedom of the will of man. God has left every man in freedom as to his will. Otherwise, he would be the most heinous of all entities, worse than the devil himself.

Give Pelagius a D-

:D