The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


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

[deltaguitar]

"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.

Amen. :thumbsup

[notofworks]

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


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



5) He started the statement by saying "I'm using large letters here. I want you to pay special attention to this." I suppose it would be similar to bolding and increasing the size of part of a post in order to draw attention to it. Obviously, this meant a lot to him and he wanted it to mean a lot to others.

[Sam]

Amen

God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...

[pelathais]

AMEN! :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Philippians 3:8-10

[Orthodoxy]

"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.


Hallelujah! This is true Christianity. :thumbsup

[NotforSale]

Amen, and Amen!

[Michael The Disciple]

I believe this to be false. Obviously Christs death on the cross was the BASIS for our salvation. But Paul never thought anyone would try to segment his teachings like we see today.

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.

Paul himself added somethings to this.

8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:8-12

Was Paul a heretic? He said we must CONFESS the Lord Jesus in order to be saved!

He also said we must CALL ON HIS NAME in order to be saved!

[Jeffrey]

What is the root of this confession? (Hint v8 gives a great lead in with "the word of faith" that's near your heart and mouth. Calling on the Lord, confessing the Lord are all ways faith is expressed. The saving comes by believing in Jesus and the Gospel story. Bottom line. We can justify things like confessing and believing to be add-ons to justify the dozens of other steps people connect it to, but you're missing the point of what Paul is claiming.

You said it right in how we "segment" his teachings today.

[notofworks]

I believe this to be false. Obviously Christs death on the cross was the BASIS for our salvation. But Paul never thought anyone would try to segment his teachings like we see today.

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.

Paul himself added somethings to this.

8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:8-12

Was Paul a heretic? He said we must CONFESS the Lord Jesus in order to be saved!

He also said we must CALL ON HIS NAME in order to be saved!


You believe what to be false?

[Pressing-On]

I believe this to be false. Obviously Christs death on the cross was the BASIS for our salvation. But Paul never thought anyone would try to segment his teachings like we see today.

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.

Paul himself added somethings to this.

8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:8-12

Was Paul a heretic? He said we must CONFESS the Lord Jesus in order to be saved!

He also said we must CALL ON HIS NAME in order to be saved!
Acts 2 also references the same: Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Peter goes on to explain to them what has just happened. In the ensuing verses he goes over the death, burial, resurrection and Holy Ghost infilling - Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

There is more involved in "calling on His name". There is more involved than just saying that His death on the Cross "alone" is all we need to be saved.

You are right - His death is the basis. Peter explains to them what is involved and what is meant by "calling on His name".

[Jeffrey]

Acts 2 also references the same: Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Peter goes on to explain to them what has just happened. In the ensuing verses he goes over the death, burial, resurrection and Holy Ghost infilling - Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

There is more involved in "calling on His name". There is more involved than just saying that His death on the Cross "alone" is all we need to be saved.

You are right - His death is the basis. Peter explains to them what is involved and what is meant by "calling on His name".

Stick to the context, which in these verses is Romans, not Acts. Let's not make Paul speak for Luke.

In no way, in any capacity is Paul articulating a doctrine of anything other than salvation by faith, which has been since Abraham (before even the law). Your treatment of Acts 2 is can be addressed another time.

[Pressing-On]

Stick to the context, which in these verses is Romans, not Acts. Let's not make Paul speak for Luke.

In no way, in any capacity is Paul articulating a doctrine of anything other than salvation by faith, which has been since Abraham (before even the law). Your treatment of Acts 2 is can be addressed another time.

Paul is saying the same thing that Peter said, so, I will have to bring that up. You are not going to find anything in the Epistles that doesn't keep spiraling back to the Book of Acts in some way.

[Fiyahstarter]

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.



Could someone please answer Michael's question. I'm a bit curious too.

[Sam]

...
How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.
...


yes

[notofworks]

I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.



Beautiful, isn't it?!!

[Fiyahstarter]

yes

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?

[Sam]

Beautiful, isn't it?!!

like looking at the brass serpent on the pole (ref John 3:14-21)
where Jesus instructed Nicodemus on how to
be born again
be saved
not perish
escape condemnation
receive everlasting life

[notofworks]

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?


Wow dang, I never thought of that.

[notofworks]

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?


Ok, actually I have thought of it. Oldest argument in the history of exegesis. No, the devil does NOT believe and confess that "Jesus is Lord."

[Fiyahstarter]

Wow dang, I never thought of that.

Well, sure you have.

So why not answer? I'm just trying to understand what you believe, my friend.

[Sam]

Ok, actually I have thought of it. Oldest argument in the history of exegesis. No, the devil does NOT believe and confess that "Jesus is Lord."

to quote something Michael said about a month ago regarding 1 Corinthians 12:3:

In the Aramaic Peshitta version of scripture the verse says No one can say Jesus is MARYAH except by the Holy Spirit.

MARYAH is Aramaic for "Master YAH".

That would seem to be pointing to the deity of Jesus Christ.

[Jeffrey]

Paul is saying the same thing that Peter said, so, I will have to bring that up. You are not going to find anything in the Epistles that doesn't keep spiraling back to the Book of Acts in some way.

Where do you come up with that supposition?

[Jeffrey]

"believing" is not on the head level, it's on the heart level.
The Satan didn't believe God at the heart level, that He is on the throne and was a Provider, the proof was his actions of Pride, in attempt to lift himself up toward God. The devil is reprobate and believes his own lie.

His believing is a head knowledge -- not a heart level response and realization that Jesus is LORD, the conqueror of all:

The demons are not atheists; they believe there is a God, and tremble at the thought of Him. They know all about Him and His power. They knew Christ when He was here. We hear the legion of demons in the man of Gadara say, "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" (Matt. 8:29). They not only recognized and acknowledged Christ, but they actually prayed to Him and had their prayers answered. "So the devils besought Him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go" (Matt. 8:31, 32). Yet for all this, demons are not saved, nor can they be.

[Pressing-On]

Where do you come up with that supposition?

Well, look at Romans 10:8-12 for instance. Paul is preaching what Peter preached. The tenets of the Gospel have already been laid out in Acts. The Epistles just simply reinforce it all. That's what I've come across in studying the NT. Look at Galatians 1 as another example - Paul is teaching the same thing that Peter covered in Acts 2 - death, burial, resurrection. You aren't going to be able to bypass that, no matter how hard you try.

There is more involved than just saying the cross alone saves us.

[Jeffrey]

Well, look at Romans 10:8-12 for instance. Paul is preaching what Peter preached. The tenets of the Gospel have already been laid out in Acts. The Epistles just simply reinforce it all. That's what I've come across in studying the NT. Look at Galatians 1 as another example - Paul is teaching the same thing that Peter covered in Acts 2 - death, burial, resurrection. You aren't going to be able to bypass that, no matter how hard you try.

There is more involved than just saying the cross alone saves us.

Interesting. It is accepted that Acts was written well after Romans.

No doubt that will consistently refer to the Gospel with synonymous terms, no one will argue that. But to say Acts is the primary focus and standards that all writers must reconcile with is simply not true.

Luke's purpose for writing is not Paul's purpose for writing. Luke's emphasis will not be Paul's. For example, Luke perspective of the Spirit, is to show that all are included in the Promise (Gentiles as well) and to tell the story of how wildly the Church began. He reflects on the Spirit as an empowerment for mission. Paul often refers to the Spirit more in terms of sanctification, living an overcoming life, and of course has a didactic concerning order with the charismata. John refers to the Spirit in terms of its function and role in salvation. All are quite unique and beautiful as they stand on their own.

[pelathais]

I believe this to be false. Obviously Christs death on the cross was the BASIS for our salvation. But Paul never thought anyone would try to segment his teachings like we see today.

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.

Paul himself added somethings to this.

8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:8-12

Was Paul a heretic? He said we must CONFESS the Lord Jesus in order to be saved!

He also said we must CALL ON HIS NAME in order to be saved!
LOL. Nice once Michael.

Verse 10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation...

... does NOT identify TWO DIFFERENT things, but is a common parallelism. No one is suggesting that a true believer in Jesus Christ would "just believe in his/her heart" and then never say of do anything else with their lives.

We are saved because Jesus Christ saved us - John 1:29.

We could not and we simply cannot do anything to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:12-13 and Acts 2:21-40). We must call out to Him for salvation (as you have said) and then trust in His salvation, the cross of Calvary.

[Pressing-On]

Interesting. It is accepted that Acts was written well after Romans.

No doubt that will consistently refer to the Gospel with synonymous terms, no one will argue that. But to say Acts is the primary focus and standards that all writers must reconcile with is simply not true.

Luke's purpose for writing is not Paul's purpose for writing. Luke's emphasis will not be Paul's. For example, Luke perspective of the Spirit, is to show that all are included in the Promise (Gentiles as well) and to tell the story of how wildly the Church began. He reflects on the Spirit as an empowerment for mission. Paul often refers to the Spirit more in terms of sanctification, living an overcoming life, and of course has a didactic concerning order with the charismata. John refers to the Spirit in terms of its function and role in salvation. All are quite unique and beautiful as they stand on their own.
They are all preaching the same message and do not stand on their own. It doesn't matter when any of it was written. It matters when it happened and it matters that they are all on the same page with their message. They are. The canon of the Bible was chosen for it's intertwining truths and message. Nothing stands on it's own.

You are right about what they preached. That is why I don't buy the "We only need the HG for empowerment", but it's not salvific." John does indeed refer to the Spirit in function AND it's role in salvation. We need the HG for both. It is the earnest of our inheritance.

Galatians speaks of receiving the Spirit by faith or by the law? And that we cannot be made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit. That allows me to know that it is not some "measure of the spirit" that some say they receive at repentance. The Bible doesn't ever bear it out that way. It does not say they received the HG any other way than how the Apostles identified their reception of the HG - speaking in tongues. But that issue has been discussed ad nauseam.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in Acts 2:38. I have never studied the Epistles where it did not take me back to Acts.

[pelathais]

Paul is saying the same thing that Peter said, so, I will have to bring that up. You are not going to find anything in the Epistles that doesn't keep spiraling back to the Book of Acts in some way.
Jude 1:6 and Jude 1:14?

[rgcraig]

LOL. Nice once Michael.

Verse 10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation...

... does NOT identify TWO DIFFERENT things, but is a common parallelism. No one is suggesting that a true believer in Jesus Christ would "just believe in his/her heart" and then never say of do anything else with their lives.

We are saved because Jesus Christ saved us - John 1:29.

We could not and we simply cannot do anything to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:12-13 and Acts 2:21-40). We must call out to Him for salvation (as you have said) and then trust in His salvation, the cross of Calvary.

Why do some have problems accepting this?

[Pressing-On]

Jude 1:6 and Jude 1:14?

Well, I was actually speaking of our salvation. I should have clarified that and not said "anything".

[NotforSale]

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?

We are not the Devil.

[Pressing-On]

We could not and we simply cannot do anything to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:12-13 and Acts 2:21-40). We must call out to Him for salvation (as you have said) and then trust in His salvation, the cross of Calvary.

How do you reconcile this scripture, Pel?

Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

[berkeley]

Jude 1:6 and Jude 1:14?

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation. :)

[Jeffrey]

They are all preaching the same message and do not stand on their own. It doesn't matter when any of it was written. It matters when it happened and it matters that they are all on the same page with their message. They are. The canon of the Bible was chosen for it's intertwining truths and message. Nothing stands on it's own.

You are right about what they preached. That is why I don't buy the "We only need the HG for empowerment", but it's not salvific." John does indeed refer to the Spirit in function AND it's role in salvation. We need the HG for both. It is the earnest of our inheritance.

Galatians speaks of receiving the Spirit by faith or by the law? And that we cannot be made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit. That allows me to know that it is not some "measure of the spirit" that some say they receive at repentance. The Bible doesn't ever bear it out that way. It does not say they received the HG any other way than how the Apostles identified their reception of the HG - speaking in tongues. But that issue has been discussed ad nauseam.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in Acts 2:38. I have never studied the Epistles where it did not take me back to Acts.

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only. On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.

[pelathais]

Why do some have problems accepting this?
I believe it is because they are beholden to churches and teachings that added more and more of the traditions of men to the truth of God.

Like frogs in a kettle that is approaching the boiling point after being slowly turned up, they react with alarm when cool fresh water is thrown on them. The sudden and invigorating change back to where they were when the Gospel was first preached is alarming to them and causes loud complaints.

They've just been lulled into slumber and mesmerized by the last couple generations of having the heat slowly turned up. They can't see that they've been robbed and blinded and are about to poached, blanched and served on a skewer.

[Pressing-On]

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation. :)
Thanks, Berkley! I did know my "anything" was going to get me in trouble, but I left it - just in case someone wasn't paying attention. Of course, Pel arrived on the scene! LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Why do some have problems accepting this?

I have a hunch why. And I have a hunch why in our human nature is a hesitancy to accept. But most would be tradition.

[Jeffrey]

Well, I was actually speaking of our salvation. I should have clarified that and not said "anything".

Interesting. So only the "salvation parts" refer "back" to Acts?

:nah

[Jeffrey]

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation. :)

Well, actually Pel was taking her statement at face value, in perfect context. As if all truth in the Bible revolves around Acts.

I've shown why this is false based on the dating of the writings. And I've also posited why this should be false based on the idea that somehow Acts is the gold standard of the NT that all other writers must point back to.

Paul, nor James, need Luke's permission to give their testimony and witness. It's a common fallacy to interpret a writing of Luke by the words of Paul.

[Fiyahstarter]

We are not the Devil.

"What is thy name?" Mark 5:9

:ursofunny


p.s. I found the thread I needed.

[NotforSale]

"What is thy name?" Mark 5:9

:ursofunny


p.s. I found the thread I needed.

:toofunny

[Pressing-On]

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.
Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.
Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only.
Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.

On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.
I don't agree with you here and there is no sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.

[pelathais]

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation. :)
Hey! I was picking on P.O.!

[pelathais]

Well, I was actually speaking of our salvation. I should have clarified that and not said "anything".
I was just picking at you.

[Pressing-On]

Interesting. So only the "salvation parts" refer "back" to Acts?

:nah
Not just, but I can't say "everything" that is written in the Epistles is in Acts, obviously. I was meaning salvation and the example of the operation of the gifts are there, the more spiritual things of the NT church. The Epistles speak of these things, but there is more detail in Acts and them some further instructions in other places like I Cor 12, etc. But, the basis of where to begin, after it was arranged, would be in Acts. I'm not going to go to Romans to find out how to be saved. If I read that I need to "call on His name", I'm going to study that out to see what it entails. Hence, I find more detail in Acts 2.

[Pressing-On]

I was just picking at you.

I know you were. LOL! But, I did feel that I should clarify my words.

[Jeffrey]

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).


Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.
Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.
I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.

I don't agree with you here and there is not sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.
If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.

[rgcraig]

Not just, but I can't say "everything" that is written in the Epistles is in Acts, obviously. I was meaning salvation and the example of the operation of the gifts are there, the more spiritual things of the NT church. The Epistles speak of these things, but there is more detail in Acts and them some further instructions in other places like I Cor 12, etc. But, the basis of where to begin, after it was arranged, would be in Acts. I'm not going to go to Romans to find out how to be saved. If I read that I need to "call on His name", I'm going to study that out to see what it entails. Hence, I find more detail in Acts 2.

But, what about the people back in the Bible days - - they didn't have the Bible to go "study" out from other writings. Do we not complicate things sometimes?

[Neck]

"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.

amen!

[Pressing-On]

But, what about the people back in the Bible days - - they didn't have the Bible to go "study" out from other writings. Do we not complicate things sometimes?

Girl, if we operated in the humility of the NT Church, you'd know why they didn't need things written down at the beginning. Besides, Paul wrote out instructions to the churches and had the letters passed around later.

[Sam]

...
Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.
...


I don't think anyone on here would say that we don't need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Some of us distinguish between a birth of the Spirit when the Spirit comes in to dwell and a subsequent baptism in the Spirit when the Spirit comes upon to fill and empower.

[Jeffrey]

Not just, but I can't say "everything" that is written in the Epistles is in Acts, obviously. I was meaning salvation and the example of the operation of the gifts are there, the more spiritual things of the NT church. The Epistles speak of these things, but there is more detail in Acts and them some further instructions in other places like I Cor 12, etc. But, the basis of where to begin, after it was arranged, would be in Acts. I'm not going to go to Romans to find out how to be saved. If I read that I need to "call on His name", I'm going to study that out to see what it entails. Hence, I find more detail in Acts 2.

Then we've made progress :)

So are you saying all that is written on salvation is exhaustive in Acts? Romans is only reiterating explanations of Acts? John is only mimicking the authoritative Acts? "More spiritual things?" Meaning?

I'd challenge you that there is more in Acts concerning the activity of the Spirit, the movement among people, groups and congregations, but there is not more in Acts with regard to theology, teaching, instruction, etc..

Why wouldn't you go to Romans to learn how to be saved? Why such prejudice? Where do you get that from? If you want to know Paul's thoughts on salvation, you ought to read all of Paul's letters if that's important to you -- but don't twist and distort Paul's words into Luke's. The truth is, Luke says very little on "how to" anything. He is telling a story. A beautiful story. What a tragedy that we view this book as the Ultimate Creed of all Faith. That's insecurity and dishonesty at the core. Is Paul so ignorant not to articulate fully what he means by salvation? Really? Is Luke's focus in Acts to show us how to be saved? Are you sure??? I challenge you to study Acts asking some of those questions first.

[Jeffrey]

But, what about the people back in the Bible days - - they didn't have the Bible to go "study" out from other writings. Do we not complicate things sometimes?

Paul must've been an awful failure. The biggest pen of the NT, but he couldn't tell anyone how to be saved. He needed Luke's story to complete his own testimony. He says he wasn't ashamed of the Gospel, but maybe the tongues as necessary for salvation part he was ashamed. What a loser! TIC

[Neck]

I believe this to be false. Obviously Christs death on the cross was the BASIS for our salvation. But Paul never thought anyone would try to segment his teachings like we see today.

How does this doctrine that the cross only saves play out? I suppose that all one must do is believe Christ died on the cross for us.

Paul himself added somethings to this.

8: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:8-12

Was Paul a heretic? He said we must CONFESS the Lord Jesus in order to be saved!

He also said we must CALL ON HIS NAME in order to be saved!

All part of the same Mike all part of the same!

[Jeffrey]

Girl, if we operated in the humility of the NT Church, you'd know why they didn't need things written down at the beginning. Besides, Paul wrote out instructions to the churches and had the letters passed around later.

Tell me about the NT church humility in the context of Renda's remarks.

Later? What did you mean by that emphasis. Can we both agree that Paul's letters were written before your How-to manual called "Acts?" I'll let you look it up first (sarcasm of course) :)

[Michael The Disciple]

All part of the same Mike all part of the same!

Some of us believe Acts 2:38 works the same way!:thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

Some of us believe Acts 2:38 works the same way!:thumbsup

You make Acts 2:38 a doctrinal creed, when it was never intended as such. In doing so, you frustrate yourself by making a circle fit like a square in the rest of scripture. That a believer should be baptized and is promised the Spirit is understood as part of Luke's fast-moving story. When a person is saved is not answered, but we can't find it any clearer than by Paul, who labors on this subject in Romans. It's not incomplete writing he gives us.

[Neck]

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?

The Devil believes and trembles but is also a being for which Christ did not die? So for the Devil to believe in an event that has nothing to do with his soul-less being does not attach any merit, to say that if the Devil believes and is not saved. Then we must do more than believe to start our salvation experience is nothing near the truth. A demon and a human are not subject to the same laws nor the does Grace or Mercy apply to a demon. The main problem with the Devil's belief is he is still holding out hope that he will not get his in the end.

[Neck]

Some of us believe Acts 2:38 works the same way!:thumbsup

The difference is many make the beginning of a true believers salvation an election a sure thing only after completing the 3 Acts in Acts 2:38. Some believe that the seal is applied by believing that Christ died for our sins and repenting for our sins. Then the opportunity to walk into the waters of Baptism and to seek the spirit is part of the Christian experience.

[Pressing-On]

If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.
I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).
I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure. Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined! :D

I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.
You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for no apparent reason. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

I don't think anyone on here would say that we don't need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Some of us distinguish between a birth of the Spirit when the Spirit comes in to dwell and a subsequent baptism in the Spirit when the Spirit comes upon to fill and empower.

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

[Jeffrey]

I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.


I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined! :D


You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

You haven't? Maybe I felt it was implied. "All books refer 'back' to this one"

Of course they are in agreement. Being agreement and saying the books don't have unique material, some new, some expanded on, etc is where what I am contending. I understand they are established churches. Nor is Acts the history of all individual churches. It's shows the continuation of Luke's account to Theopholis, how the church grew, how it was open to Gentiles "all who believed," how it was affirmed by signs and wonders, how great persecution fell on the church yet still it progressed, etc...

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined! :D

I think my point was valid, but if we insist on semantics, I'll agree with you. If by intertwined, you mean they are separate "braids" forming one picture or piece, then OF COURSE!

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I really don't think you'll find even one person who doesn't agree to the role of the Spirit in salvation.

[pelathais]

I know you were. LOL! But, I did feel that I should clarify my words.
You said "trouble" and I felt bad. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

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

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

[Pressing-On]

Then we've made progress :)

So are you saying all that is written on salvation is exhaustive in Acts? Romans is only reiterating explanations of Acts? John is only mimicking the authoritative Acts? "More spiritual things?" Meaning?
Probably anything you needed to know about our initial salvation and the promise of God would be in Acts. I never said "exhaustive". The Epistles elaborate even more and cement what is taught in Acts, IMO.

I'd challenge you that there is more in Acts concerning the activity of the Spirit, the movement among people, groups and congregations, but there is not more in Acts with regard to theology, teaching, instruction, etc..
Again, I was speaking of our initial salvation. We know that we cannot be saved without continuing in the faith. The Epistles show us more.

Why wouldn't you go to Romans to learn how to be saved? Why such prejudice? Where do you get that from? If you want to know Paul's thoughts on salvation, you ought to read all of Paul's letters if that's important to you -- but don't twist and distort Paul's words into Luke's. The truth is, Luke says very little on "how to" anything. He is telling a story. A beautiful story. What a tragedy that we view this book as the Ultimate Creed of all Faith. That's insecurity and dishonesty at the core. Is Paul so ignorant not to articulate fully what he means by salvation? Really? Is Luke's focus in Acts to show us how to be saved? Are you sure??? I challenge you to study Acts asking some of those questions first.
Luke tells a whole lot about what do to. Goodness, are you kidding me?

How ridiculous for you to call me insecure and dishonest to the core. Puleeze, stop being so ridiculous. LOL!

[Fiyahstarter]

The Devil believes and trembles but is also a being for which Christ did not die? So for the Devil to believe in an event that has nothing to do with his soul-less being does not attach any merit, to say that if the Devil believes and is not saved. Then we must do more than believe to start our salvation experience is nothing near the truth. A demon and a human are not subject to the same laws nor the does Grace or Mercy apply to a demon. The main problem with the Devil's belief is he is still holding out hope that he will not get his in the end.

(Re: the bolded/underlined)

I think I know quite a few people who are doing the same! :ursofunny

So... help me out here.

My husband believes. He earns an honest living. He takes care of his family. He doesn't hurt anyone. He does not go to church. He does not have a relationship with God. He likes to drink a few times a week. He chews tobacco. He loves his family. He does not lie nor cheat.

Saved or not Saved?

[Neck]

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

Just because 3 men at the alter tell you to repeat words after them in a speed manner and they then tell you that you spoke in tongues does not make you spirit filled either, we shall know them by their fruits...

[mizpeh]

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!Funniest thing I've read all day!

[Jeffrey]

Probably anything you needed to know about our initial salvation and the promise of God would be in Acts. I never said "exhaustive". The Epistles elaborate even more and cement what is taught in Acts, IMO.
That's just an unfounded comment. I could go on and on why it is. But that's silly. Really PO.

Again, I was speaking of our initial salvation. We know that we cannot be saved without continuing in the faith. The Epistles show us more.
Romans is not just "continuing salvation."

Luke tells a whole lot about what do to. Goodness, are you kidding me?
No, I'm not kidding you. No one sees this as the purpose of Acts, nor as even a minor theme.

How ridiculous for you to call me insecure and dishonest to the core. Puleeze, stop being so ridiculous. LOL! Unless you are Pentecostalism in general, I wouldn't take it personal. If you believe you are Pentecostalism, then... well... I can't think of anything witty to comeback on.

Sorry... responding in bold is easier for me.

[Pressing-On]

You said "trouble" and I felt bad. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

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

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?
Pel,
Acts had already got a hold of them all before it was written. They were the beginning. What is the big deal of when Acts was written? How to continue, the letters from Paul, would have served them more.

The Epistles are addressed to established churches. Logically, we would figure that out.

And, if it were me, I would read Luke's letter - Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:" I would want to start at the point of when Jesus was taken up and check out this Holy Ghost, when it occurred, what was involved.

[Neck]

(Re: the bolded/underlined)

I think I know quite a few people who are doing the same! :ursofunny

So... help me out here.

My husband believes. He earns an honest living. He takes care of his family. He doesn't hurt anyone. He does not go to church. He does not have a relationship with God. He likes to drink a few times a week. He chews tobacco. He loves his family. He does not lie nor cheat.

Saved or not Saved?

I will take the opposite approach and answer your question with a thought, "There will be many that we thought met all the steps and looked to have lived a perfect Christian life". When the pages get turned their name will not be found in the book. Your husbands life is not over and his experience with Christ may be more than you are able to see, when you are looking through the eyes of a preconceived belief system. It is all in the hands of God...

[Jason B]

"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.

amen:thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

Pel,
Acts had already got a hold of them all before it was written. They were the beginning. What is the big deal of when Acts was written? How to continue, the letters from Paul, would have served them more.

The Epistles are addressed to established churches. Logically, we would figure that out.

And, if it were me, I would read Luke's letter - Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:" I would want to start at the point of when Jesus was taken up and check out this Holy Ghost, when it occurred, what was involved.

I love how a story becomes a systematic theology.

Of course it matters.

[Pressing-On]

Sorry... responding in bold is easier for me.
Well, it isn't easier for me. I guess I have to stop talking to you. I'm starting to get annoyed with all the work you are placing on me. LOL!

I'm not dragging your text down this time. Now you have to figure out which comments I am responding to. :smack

Yes, Romans is a continuation. - Romans 1:7 "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

No one sees this as the theme of Acts? Okay, Jeffery. LOL!

I wasn't raided UPC, so I have no traditional loyalties.

[Pressing-On]

Just because 3 men at the alter tell you to repeat words after them in a speed manner and they then tell you that you spoke in tongues does not make you spirit filled either, we shall know them by their fruits...

Neck,
I love you, man, but I don't have any bitter stories to relate. LOL!

[Fiyahstarter]

I will take the opposite approach and answer your question with a thought, "There will be many that we thought met all the steps and looked to have lived a perfect Christian life". When the pages get turned their name will not be found in the book. Your husbands life is not over and his experience with Christ may be more than you are able to see, when you are looking through the eyes of a preconceived belief system. It is all in the hands of God...

Thanks, Neck. Nice thoughts.

I'll tell you this, my husband is a lot nicer than many of the "supposed" holy ghost filled people I know.

And to tell you more truth... I used to sit on bar stools with nicer people than some of the ones I sit with now in church pews.

Sad witness, huh?

[Jeffrey]

Well, it isn't easier for me. I guess I have to stop talking to you. I'm starting to get annoyed with all the work you are placing on me. LOL!

I'm not dragging your text down this time. Now you have to figure out which comments I am responding to. :smack

Yes, Romans is a continuation. - Romans 1:7 "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

No one sees this as the theme of Acts? Okay, Jeffery. LOL!

I wasn't raided UPC, so I have no traditional loyalties.

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

[Pressing-On]

Funniest thing I've read all day!

Girl, you know this is true! LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Thanks, Neck. Nice thoughts.

I'll tell you this, my husband is a lot nicer than many of the "supposed" holy ghost filled people I know.

And to tell you more truth... I used to sit on bar stools with nicer people than some of the ones I sit with now in church pews.

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

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

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

[mizpeh]

Probably anything you needed to know about our initial salvation and the promise of God would be in Acts. I never said "exhaustive". The Epistles elaborate even more and cement what is taught in Acts, IMO.


Again, I was speaking of our initial salvation. We know that we cannot be saved without continuing in the faith. The Epistles show us more.


Luke tells a whole lot about what do to. Goodness, are you kidding me?

How ridiculous for you to call me insecure and dishonest to the core. Puleeze, stop being so ridiculous. LOL!I think your good friend, Jeffrey, believes Peter and Paul taught different ways of salvation because of Luke's emphasis. Did Paul preach any thing different than what Peter preached in Acts 2? See Galatians 1 and 2.

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

[crakjak]

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


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

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

[Pressing-On]

I'm sorry, there is no book (Romans) that gives such an exhaustive description of salvation. That's not "continuation" language. He is writing to believers, explaining, in didactic, sometimes theological, and always descriptive terms of salvation-history. Nothing gets as exhaustive or as clear.
He is writing to believers - that is the point. I never said that Acts was exhaustive. That was your words. I merely implied that it laid out the foundation.

[Jeffrey]

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

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

[mizpeh]

You said "trouble" and I felt bad. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

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

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

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

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

[Pressing-On]

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

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

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

[Jeffrey]

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

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

REALLY??? That's what I believe?

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

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

[Pressing-On]

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

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

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

[Jeffrey]

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

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

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

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

[Fiyahstarter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pressing-On]

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

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.
All Galatians is speaking of is the Jews coming against the New Covenant by keeping and trying to enforce the law of circumcision when Jesus talked about receiving His Spirit, which is a circumcision of the heart.

A game changer they did not want.

Can you elaborate on 4)?

[mizpeh]

Yes, Ma'am!!! Thanks for joining in. I was wondering where I was for a while. LOL!You're the Lone Ranger in these parts!

Those who bad mouth AFF for being too liberal really ought to come back here and defend the doctrine they so strongly believe in instead of going behind closed doors to fight amongst themselves. They leave it to the women to defend the ranch!

[Pressing-On]

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

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

But I do agree with you on the prayer conference thing. It's nice to get with people who are serious about "getting with God." :kiss
I didn't think that your husband was a drunk. I wasn't getting that impression from you. LOL!

I was a licensed bartender and there are drunks that do not stay home! LOL! I'll refrain from any stories. I was a very friendly drunk. ;) but, I have a younger sister who was not! Oh, boy! LOL!

I'm telling you! It changed my view of the UPCI - totally! Everyone needs to attend a prayer conference. There is noting more horrible than a Pentecostal that does not have a prayer life! Or a church full of women that are not prayed up! LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Don't look at it as a fight. It's really a discussion with information presented.

But such as it is, I must say good night.

[Sam]

...
Can you elaborate on 4)?


You didn't address this to me but I'll give it a shot.
number 4 said "There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Just look at the reaction when a person preaches that we are saved by faith and not by works. We hear epithets like
Charismatic,
Greasy Grace,
easy believism,
false doctrine,
Bapticostal,
nominal,
compromiser,
one-stepper,
PCI,
Trinnie,
not declaring the whole counsel of God,
not rightly dividing the Word,
backslid,
prodigal,
reprobate,
etc.

[Pressing-On]

You're the Lone Ranger in these parts!

Those who bad mouth AFF for being too liberal really ought to come back here and defend the doctrine they so strongly believe in instead of going behind closed doors to fight amongst themselves. They leave it to the women to defend the ranch!
LOL! I'm probably just talking to myself more than defending anything. Sometimes when I lay out my thoughts they become even more solid. So, I go along for the ride, for a while. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

You didn't address this to me but I'll give it a shot.
number 4 said "There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Just look at the reaction when a person preaches that we are saved by faith and not by works. We hear epithets like
Charismatic,
Greasy Grace,
easy believism,
false doctrine,
Bapticostal,
nominal,
compromiser,
one-stepper,
PCI,
Trinnie,
not declaring the whole counsel of God,
not rightly dividing the Word,
backslid,
prodigal,
reprobate,
etc.

Well, I wouldn't call anyone a name, but "wrong' comes to mind. :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

Don't look at it as a fight. It's really a discussion with information presented.

But such as it is, I must say good night.

Thank God! I'm so tired of talking about this tonight! :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

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

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

Excellent post, Mizpeh! :thumbsup

[mizpeh]

REALLY??? That's what I believe?

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

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

Why is it a mistake to look at the books of Acts as a "how to book?" Are you suggesting that we go to the epistles to learn how to baptize? Paul certainly didn't teach that baptism is by immersion in the epistles. Are the epistles "how-to" books?

I connect tongues to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and then I connect the necessity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to being part of the body of Christ and then I connect the necessity of being part of the body of Christ to salvation.

On a side note...I'm thankful for the promise that God made to Noah. I'm hoping to see the sun soon. I'm tired of all of this rain!

[mizpeh]

Well, I wouldn't call anyone a name, but "wrong' comes to mind. :toofunnySnowballs are thrown from both sides of the fence. (Maybe not in Texas! LOL!)

[Pressing-On]

Snowballs are thrown from both sides of the fence. (Maybe not in Texas! LOL!)
LOL! I've thrown about three snowballs. That's enough for me. LOL! Today, was a beautiful, clear and much warmer day! I saw some Bluebonnets! :heart

Yes, they do come from both sides of the fence! :thumbsup

[notofworks]

(Re: the bolded/underlined)

I think I know quite a few people who are doing the same! :ursofunny

So... help me out here.

My husband believes. He earns an honest living. He takes care of his family. He doesn't hurt anyone. He does not go to church. He does not have a relationship with God. He likes to drink a few times a week. He chews tobacco. He loves his family. He does not lie nor cheat.

Saved or not Saved?


100%, absolutely, completely, through & through, saved!!

[notofworks]

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

A game changer they did not want.

Can you elaborate on 4)?


Yes, but I'll make it quick.

To summarize it all, teaching that salvation comes from the Cross of Christ alone has, personally, cost me everything. Twice. But no honor to me for that. That's just the way it is.

Trusting in the cross of Christ alone takes all the power out of human hands and humans don't like that, especially religious humans. When humans lose their control over other people, they fight and they fight hard.

Funny thing....those that have removed the "walls" are the "Greasy grace" folks that are "making everything easy." But be forewarned...if one desires to really teach grace, it could cost you everything. I was told that. I thought I would be the exception to the rule. I was wrong. I didn't realize just how ugly controlling religious people could be when they're losing their grip on people. And I'm NOT just speaking of UPC or pentecostal people.

[Neck]

Neck,
I love you, man, but I don't have any bitter stories to relate. LOL!

Love is good I think we all are concerned and love each other! I have been in and around all of this now that I am 45 for 45 years, I am not bitter either just tired...

[Pressing-On]

Love is good I think we all are concerned and love each other! I have been in and around all of this now that I am 45 for 45 years, I am not bitter either just tired...

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word bitter. I apologize to you.

It's just when I hear that scenario played out in a post, my mind goes to all of the glorious times I've seen God bless and touch a person. It's so personal and beautiful, I don't see or remember the bad things - try not to remember.

I will share a funny story though. I was in Lufkin, Texas at Youth Camp. First time around a bunch of Pentecostals in such large number. I was at the front praying and I had a girl on my left and one on my right. The one on the left was saying, "Talk to Him. He needs to hear your voice." The other girl was saying, "Let Him talk for you." LOL! Well, by then I was furious and I jerked both of my arms out of their hands. I looked at one girl and said, "First you are telling me to talk!", then I looked at the other, "And you are telling me not to! What am I supposed to be doing?!" Their eyes got really big and I don't even think they answered me. Then I had a really fat girl get in my face and say, "REPENT SISTER!!!!!" I heard someone behind me say, very quietly, "She has already repented." Hilarious!!!!

I received the Holy Ghost the last night of Camp Meeting. God was more real and personal to me than any of the other stuff. He is altogether lovely!!! :heart

[Pressing-On]

Yes, but I'll make it quick.

To summarize it all, teaching that salvation comes from the Cross of Christ alone has, personally, cost me everything. Twice. But no honor to me for that. That's just the way it is.

Trusting in the cross of Christ alone takes all the power out of human hands and humans don't like that, especially religious humans. When humans lose their control over other people, they fight and they fight hard.

Funny thing....those that have removed the "walls" are the "Greasy grace" folks that are "making everything easy." But be forewarned...if one desires to really teach grace, it could cost you everything. I was told that. I thought I would be the exception to the rule. I was wrong. I didn't realize just how ugly controlling religious people could be when they're losing their grip on people. And I'm NOT just speaking of UPC or pentecostal people.

Thanks for your response. I am thinking of this scripture in Jude 1:3
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Looks like something a little deeper is going on than only "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save".

[mizpeh]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word bitter. I apologize to you.

It's just when I hear that scenario played out in a post, my mind goes to all of the glorious times I've seen God bless and touch a person. It's so personal and beautiful, I don't see or remember the bad things - try not to remember.

I will share a funny story though. I was in Lufkin, Texas at Youth Camp. First time around a bunch of Pentecostals in such large number. I was at the front praying and I had a girl on my left and one on my right. The one on the left was saying, "Talk to Him. He needs to hear your voice." The other girl was saying, "Let Him talk for you." LOL! Well, by then I was furious and I jerked both of my arms out of their hands. I looked at one girl and said, "First you are telling me to talk!", then I looked at the other, "And you are telling me not to! What am I supposed to be doing?!" Their eyes got really big and I don't even think they answered me. Then I had a really fat girl get in my face and say, "REPENT SISTER!!!!!" I heard someone behind me say, very quietly, "She has already repented." Hilarious!!!!

I received the Holy Ghost the last night of Camp Meeting. God was more real and personal to me than any of the other stuff. He is altogether lovely!!! :heartHow do you know you received the Holy Ghost?

[Pressing-On]

How do you know you received the Holy Ghost?

Well, previously in the Baptist Church, I was taken to the back and talked to and told that I was saved after a Sinner's Prayer. I knew that I was not saved.

This time I felt the presence of God and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance. :thumbsup

[mizpeh]

Well, previously in the Baptist Church, I was taken to the back and talked to and told that I was saved after a Sinner's Prayer. I knew that I was not saved.

This time I felt the presence of God and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance. :thumbsupI knew I received the Spirit when I spoke with tongues also. It happened with me and a friend praying in my apartment.

[notofworks]

I knew I received the Spirit when I spoke with tongues also. It happened with me and a friend praying in my apartment.

My experience was quite different.:)

[mizpeh]

My experience was quite different.:)Was your experience scriptural? I can find examples of believers in the Bible who had the same experience of speaking with tongues when they received the Holy Spirit.

[Pressing-On]

I knew I received the Spirit when I spoke with tongues also. It happened with me and a friend praying in my apartment.
Awesome and amen.

Apparently, the Apostles recognized that Cornelius and the other Gentiles of Caesarea had also received the Holy Ghost for they heard them speak in tongues. Acts 10:44-46.

Same thing happening in Ephesus. Acts 19:6. Some have said that because they prophesied that was "another" sign that they had received the Holy Ghost. Not buying that one.

[notofworks]

Was your experience scriptural?


Absolutely!

When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory. (John 7:39)

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13)

All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God. (I John 4:15)

[mizpeh]

Absolutely!

When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory. (John 7:39)

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13)

All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God. (I John 4:15)The disciples believed on the risen Christ yet they didn't receive the Spirit until the day of Pentecost.

The Samaritans believed in Acts 8, yet they didn't receive the Spirit when they believed.

Same with the disciples in Ephesus in Acts 19. They believed when Paul told them about Christ and then were baptized. Why did Paul have to lay hands on them and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit?

Just somethings for you to consider. I've got to go. God bless you!!!

[Pressing-On]

Absolutely!

When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory. (John 7:39)

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13)

All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God. (I John 4:15)

Except that the Word identifies the "promise of the spirit" as something you would see and hear. That is a visible evidence that it would occur.

Acts 1:4 "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." - referring back to verse 4.

[notofworks]

Except that the Word identifies the "promise of the spirit" as something you would see and hear. That is a visible evidence that it would occur.

Acts 1:4 "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." - referring back to verse 4.


Both you and Mizpeh answer my scriptural basis with scriptures that seem to prove your view. But neither of you address the three verses I cited. I'd like to hear how you think those verses reconcile with your views.

[Pressing-On]

Both you and Mizpeh answer my scriptural basis with scriptures that seem to prove your view. But neither of you address the three verses I cited. I'd like to hear how you think those verses reconcile with your views.

It is simply that I identify the Holy Ghost as evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. Any scriptural reference to the Spirit would identify that as the same - I John 4:15; John 7:39.

If you study the word "promise" you will find this is true. You will run across his promise of salvation, promise to include the Gentiles and the promise of the Holy Ghost/His Spirit.

And now I have to run - Good night!

[pelathais]

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

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.
You were drinking some strong tea tonight Mizzie. I said that I was just wondering out loud about how the arrangement of the books would affect the church through history. Your particular soteriology really didn't emerge until the 20th century.

And since you're so adamant about the chasm betwixt us, I will just assume that your soteriology doesn't include faith in Jesus Christ nor do you believe that His death, burial and resurrection brought about any salvation for you or anyone else.

So then, why do you post to an Apostolic Christian board? Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?

[notofworks]

It is simply that I identify the Holy Ghost as evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. Any scriptural reference to the Spirit would identify that as the same - I John 4:15; John 7:39.

If you study the word "promise" you will find this is true. You will run across his promise of salvation, promise to include the Gentiles and the promise of the Holy Ghost/His Spirit.

And now I have to run - Good night!


And I think the bolded is the key. How can anything be added to the simplicity of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It seems that one could only assume the statement, "Would be given", is only "predictive". But this couldn't be true, could it? If it is predictive, the prediction doesn't come true in everyone, does it?

And this doesn't explain the absolute and correlating statements found in Ephesians and I John.

I believe the simplicity of these strong and absolute statements are part of the foolish things that confound the wise. Can it really be THAT easy? Surely not, the works-oriented religious person would say.

One of the saddest imageries I have in mind is the memory of someone "seeking" for the Holy Ghost and for months, even years, coming up empty. It's impossible for me to connect the dots of that imagery and the fierceness of Paul's "I'm writing this in BIG letters" statement, when he said it's by the cross of Christ alone that we are saved.

[Pressing-On]

And I think the bolded is the key. How can anything be added to the simplicity of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It seems that one could only assume the statement, "Would be given", is only "predictive". But this couldn't be true, could it? If it is predictive, the prediction doesn't come true in everyone, does it?

And this doesn't explain the absolute and correlating statements found in Ephesians and I John.

I believe the simplicity of these strong and absolute statements are part of the foolish things that confound the wise. Can it really be THAT easy? Surely not, the works-oriented religious person would say.

One of the saddest imageries I have in mind is the memory of someone "seeking" for the Holy Ghost and for months, even years, coming up empty. It's impossible for me to connect the dots of that imagery and the fierceness of Paul's "I'm writing this in BIG letters" statement, when he said it's by the cross of Christ alone that we are saved.
NOW, after all that you typed here, my only question would be - "But, what does the Word of God say?"

[notofworks]

You were drinking some strong tea tonight Mizzie. I said that I was just wondering out loud about how the arrangement of the books would affect the church through history. Your particular soteriology really didn't emerge until the 20th century.

And since you're so adamant about the chasm betwixt us, I will just assume that your soteriology doesn't include faith in Jesus Christ nor do you believe that His death, burial and resurrection brought about any salvation for you or anyone else.

So then, why do you post to an Apostolic Christian board? Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?


A great theologian I often read once said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't enough?" (That was you, of course, Pel)

[pelathais]

Oh... a belated Happy Passover everyone!

John 1:29 and Revelation 7:17

Psalm 113, Psalm 114, Psalm 115, Psalm 116, Psalm 117, Psalm 118

[notofworks]

NOW, after all that you typed here, my only question would be - "But, what does the Word of God say?"

Exactly!! You nailed it, PO!

So can you reconcile the absoluteness of the Ephesians, John, and I John statements with your "That's just what I believe" foundation?

[Pressing-On]

Exactly!! You nailed it, PO!

So can you reconcile the absoluteness of the Ephesians, John, and I John statements with your "That's just what I believe" foundation?

NOW,
"That's what I believe foundation"? LOL! If I studied something out, I'm pretty sure I would find out what I believe, don't you think? I mean, you are saying you did that, studied it out, right?

Anyway, if I want to know about the Spirit of God, I would study that. I would then find that in studying the Spirit, the Holy Ghost is turning up to be the same. Studying that, I run across Jesus instructing the Disciples to wait for the "promise" of the Father. I study that out to find what that Promise is. I find out that it is the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. I then find out that the evidence of the Holy Ghost (according to Acts) is speaking in tongues., etc., etc.

Now that you are getting a little testy, I'll end the conversation. :D

[Pressing-On]

Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?
Pel,
I do believe that Jesus died to save the lost. But, the Word does say that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". Jesus did shed that blood and his blood is applied at death, which is the burial. If we do not identify with that blood and become baptized/burial, how can He then save us? There is action demanded on our part. Not only to repent, but to be baptized. We must obey the Gospel. (II Thess 1:8; I Peter 4:7) Repent and be baptized are the things that we can do. Faith without words is dead. (James 2:18;20;26) He then freely gives of His Spirit.

I am reminded of the scripture in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

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

[Pressing-On]

Oh... a belated Happy Passover everyone!

John 1:29 and Revelation 7:17

Psalm 113, Psalm 114, Psalm 115, Psalm 116, Psalm 117, Psalm 118
Happy Passover!

There are conditions to this salvation! :D

John 8:31 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;"

1 John 2:24 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father."

Romans 11:22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

Acts 14:22 "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God."

Acts 13:43 "Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."

[Jeffrey]

Baptism in the Spirit, the unique event that is accompanies by some type of supernatural phenom (tongues, prophecy, etc) is distinctly different from the indwelled Spirit and otherwise the Spirit's role in justifying the believer. Nowhere even in Luke do we get anything remotely close to regenerative tongues.

[Jeffrey]

NOW,
"That's what I believe foundation"? LOL! If I studied something out, I'm pretty sure I would find out what I believe, don't you think? I mean, you are saying you did that, studied it out, right?

Anyway, if I want to know about the Spirit of God, I would study that. I would then find that in studying the Spirit, the Holy Ghost is turning up to be the same. Studying that, I run across Jesus instructing the Disciples to wait for the "promise" of the Father. I study that out to find what that Promise is. I find out that it is the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. I then find out that the evidence of the Holy Ghost (according to Acts) is speaking in tongues., etc., etc.

Now that you are getting a little testy, I'll end the conversation. :D

If I could find you biblical examples for Spirit is not necessarily referring to the crisis experience (with tongues) that we saw a few times in Acts, but was represented independent, would you be convinced? :)

[Pressing-On]

If I could find you biblical examples for Spirit is not necessarily referring to the crisis experience (with tongues) that we saw a few times in Acts, but was represented independent, would you be convinced? :)

"crisis experience (with tongues)"? Pretty sure after reading your display of "cutting, mocking and negative" terminology, I wouldn't be open to what you have to present. You are already set at defense. That, of course, makes me not interested. You know how it is..... :D

[*AQuietPlace*]

"crisis experience (with tongues)"? Pretty sure after reading your display of "cutting, mocking and negative" terminology, I wouldn't be open to what you have to present. You are already set at defense. That, of course, makes me not interested. You know how it is..... :D
I think you are mis-reading his tone.

[notofworks]

"crisis experience (with tongues)"? Pretty sure after reading your display of "cutting, mocking and negative" terminology, I wouldn't be open to what you have to present. You are already set at defense. That, of course, makes me not interested. You know how it is..... :D


.....or not able, whichever.:razz

[mfblume]

Baptism in the Spirit, the unique event that is accompanies by some type of supernatural phenom (tongues, prophecy, etc) is distinctly different from the indwelled Spirit and otherwise the Spirit's role in justifying the believer. Nowhere even in Luke do we get anything remotely close to regenerative tongues.

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

[Pressing-On]

.....or not able, whichever.:razz

:toofunny

[Pressing-On]

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

Thank you, Bro. Blume - as usual! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

I have not read all the posts here in this thread, so I will try to catch up here in the next little while.

[mfblume]

I will say that the idea of the cross alone saving us is not contradicted by the teaching that we must experience Acts 2:38. If we take words about the cross being all that is necessary, implying water baptism and Spirit baptism is not necessary, then that makes it sound like repentance is not necessary either. If it does not imply repentance is not necessary, then why not? Jesus even said unless we repent we shall all perish.

[rgcraig]

I think you are mis-reading his tone.
I agree.

[Pressing-On]

I will say that the idea of the cross alone saving us is not contradicted by the teaching that we must experience Acts 2:38. If we take words about the cross being all that is necessary, implying water baptism and Spirit baptism is not necessary, then that makes it sound like repentance is not necessary either. If it does not imply repentance is not necessary, then why not? Jesus even said unless we repent we shall all perish.

Agreed. I hope you have time to read the thread and comment further.

[mfblume]

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!

[Pressing-On]

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!
Excellent, Bro. Blume!!!! :thumbsup

[notofworks]

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!


I'm gonna sign-off on this and re-enter my AFF rehab (my boy wanted to play Mario-kart last week and I was on AFF and realized that Mario-kart is WAY more important) but you're basically saying that Jesus died on the cross so that we would have to do a bunch of stuff. But the system of humanity needing to do several things in order to be justified by God, was already in place! In reality, if we would have still needed to accomplish a number of steps, nothing would have changed! Jesus would have suffered the worst of executions, in order to change a formula!

Here are several things to consider and then I'll let Blume and PO pound me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See ya'll next Tuesday! Love you!

[NotforSale]

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

[iceniez]

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

I am not in total agreement, I believe tounges is the sign ,However all the shenanigans that goes on is not needed . Plain and simple we go about it the wrong way. Peter preached the word and the Holy Ghost fell on them and people recieved the Spirit. Spirit and NOT US ,I once witnessed a Pastor lay hands on someone and he said say da da da da I was disgusted ,He looked at me and I shook my head no, I never went back to that church.

[TheLegalist]

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

yes it is but the cross by itself does not save. Salvation is synergistic with a monergistic source cross/Christ. Heb 5:9

[mfblume]

but you're basically saying that Jesus died on the cross so that we would have to do a bunch of stuff. But the system of humanity needing to do several things in order to be justified by God, was already in place! In reality, if we would have still needed to accomplish a number of steps, nothing would have changed! Jesus would have suffered the worst of executions, in order to change a formula!

Unless you are proposing the error of universal reconciliation, the fact remains that although Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for us it does not mean we do not have to repent. Do you believe we have to repent? Let's establish that first, and then we con proceed.

[TheLegalist]

Unless you are proposing the error of universal reconciliation, the fact remains that although Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for us it does not mean we do not have to repent. Do you believe we have to repent? Let's establish that first, and then we con proceed.

well guess what your about to have fun with him on that... LOL! ooops I think that might be NotForSale... not sure... LOL

[rgcraig]

I guess I'll throw my shoes in the circle.......

I believe the Cross of Christ alone can save because that is why he died on the cross - - for our sins.

That act CAN save us.......or allows us to be saved, but doesn't save us.

We have to accept what HE did for our sins before we are saved.

Repent - ask for forgiveness of OUR sins that he died for.
Be baptized - for remission of those sins.
Receive the gift he promised us.

[Jeffrey]

I think you are mis-reading his tone.

She is. "Crisis experience" is actually common terminology when referring to a particular mode of Spirit baptism.

[Jeffrey]

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

Please direct me.

And how can you so confidently say ALL those point you to, and are synonymous with tongues? A little stretch maybe?

[Jeffrey]

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!

Please show me where scripture baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation?

Blume, how was Abraham saved? Moses? Noah? Hint: Paul talks about this in Romans.

[Jeffrey]

Unless you are proposing the error of universal reconciliation, the fact remains that although Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for us it does not mean we do not have to repent. Do you believe we have to repent? Let's establish that first, and then we con proceed.

Then argue with Paul :)

Fortunately, this attitude about salvation represents only about 20% of Pentecostalism globally.

All the concern about "greasy gracers" not being baptized, none experiencing the Spirit and living godly lives can be put to rest. Their personal witness is almost as potent as the biblical theology. It has caused many a 3-stepper to wonder.

Repentance is not the prerequisite. Let's let Paul speak for himself here. The Spirit draws, Christ is revealed, faith (at the heart level) is expressed -- regeneration has happened, justification has happened... in response, and ONLY as a sign (same as it was with circumcision - again read Paul's words in Rom 4-5) we are baptized signifying the death and new life in following our Rabbi Jesus. The Spirit baptism (Promise of the Father) is promised, and is therefore available and accessible to all believers. But make no mistake, all believers, upon faith have the indwelled presence of God.

We seek to compartmentalize it all, but the plan of salvation has never changed since the beginning, it is BY FAITH. That's what God accounts/reckons as righteousness. He loved us while we were still sinners. The response to be baptized is because one already trusts God. If not, they are just getting wet anyway. And to the Jew, they are just getting trimmed! That's not your salvation! Paul was emphatic about this. This is the fault of the Jews as well! Always looking for a sign so they could control it all. Wanting to take the credit. "I got baptized, I repented" as if that merited salvation.

[TheLegalist]

Please show me where scripture baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation?

Blume, how was Abraham saved? Moses? Noah? Hint: Paul talks about this in Romans.

uhhhh technically Abraham was not "saved" in Gen 15:6.... God is simply judging his faith/repsonse as just which as James says was fulfilled (thus judged) at the sacrifice of Isaac. He received a covenant to what God wanted to do by obedience.

[Jeffrey]

well guess what your about to have fun with him on that... LOL! ooops I think that might be NotForSale... not sure... LOL

It's not so perplexing come on. Universalism has nothing to say about having faith in Jesus.

[Jeffrey]

uhhhh technically Abraham was not "saved" in Gen 15:6.... God is simply judging his faith/repsonse as just which as James says was fulfilled (thus judged) at the sacrifice of Isaac. He received a covenant to what God wanted to do by obedience.

Rom 4:16 Because of this, it is of faith, in order that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be confirmed to all the seed, not to those who are of the law only, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all.... "i have made you father of many nations" before the God in whom he believed....

I think Romans 4:9-12 couldn't make this any plainer!!

Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness -- how was it reckoned? When he was circumcised or when he was yet uncircumcised? And he received circumcision as a sign...

I'll go ahead and yield here to the faith of Father Abraham and the authority of Paul.

[pelathais]

Pel,
I do believe that Jesus died to save the lost. But, the Word does say that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". Jesus did shed that blood and his blood is applied at death, which is the burial.
If, as you say, "his blood is applied at death" - then the blood is "applied" at the cross, for that is where He died. Using the "Three Steeper" motif - you appear to now be saying that the "blood is applied" at repentance (death).


If we do not identify with that blood and become baptized/burial, how can He then save us?
In Romans 3:24-26, we have Paul explaining to the Romans the manner in which they were saved, their sins were forgiven and they were "justified" in the sight of God.

It was all done through the blood of Jesus Christ. That blood was shed at Calvary, not in the Garden Tomb.


There is action demanded on our part. Not only to repent, but to be baptized. We must obey the Gospel. (II Thess 1:8; I Peter 4:7) Repent and be baptized are the things that we can do. Faith without words is dead. (James 2:18;20;26) He then freely gives of His Spirit.

I am reminded of the scripture in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I must believe and have faith, but there are things that I must obey and do. Are you suggesting that you are saved by belief alone?
Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.

The point that I think that you are reaching for here is that Christ is no longer dead!

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It was His death that reconciled us back to God (saved us- justified us - and paid the penalty for our sins).

It is His life that will save us "from the wrath that is to come..." By extension, that is our lives as well (Galatians 2:20).

This thread is about how we are saved and become Christians. It's not really about "the Christian life or the Christian walk." That is an important theme as well, but it's not what NOW was stating when he started this thread. Of course, if we don't understand how we were saved from sin, then we can have a pretty messed up walk...

... that is why Paul went on to say, (Galatians 2:21).

Yes, there are things we must do as Christians - we are His workmanship, created unto good works in Christ (Ephesians 2:10); but if we don't get the foundation right (Ephesians 2:8-9) then we'll have some problems.

[Pressing-On]

She is. "Crisis experience" is actually common terminology when referring to a particular mode of Spirit baptism.
I have never heard that terminology used. It sounds caustic in a discussion, IMO.

You did say this to me last night. So, I think you did have a tone involved.

What a tragedy that we view this book as the Ultimate Creed of all Faith. That's insecurity and dishonesty at the core.

Basically you accused me of being insecure and dishonest. Lump in calling "speaking in tongues" a "crises experience", well, you figure out if I'm interested in the conversation. ;)

[TheLegalist]

Rom 4:16 Because of this, it is of faith, in order that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be confirmed to all the seed, not to those who are of the law only, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all.... "i have made you father of many nations" before the God in whom he believed....

I think Romans 4:9-12 couldn't make this any plainer!!

Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness -- how was it reckoned? When he was circumcised or when he was yet uncircumcised? And he received circumcision as a sign...


His response of circumcision was righteous as well. BECAUSE HE DID WHAT GOD SAID! You still don't understand what Paul is talking about...ROFL! I guess ABRAHAM act was NOT judged RIGHTEOUS in offering ISAAC?


ROFL you still don't get the verse and you are not READING it! By the way Paul does not disagree with me. sheesh

His FAITH was reckoned/considered/calculated/thought as righteous. FAITH IS A DEED JUDGED!

Gen 15:6 Abram believed20 the LORD, and the LORD21 considered his response of faith22 as proof of genuine loyalty.23 NET


Abrahams moving according to God's will in Gen 12 was righteous as well.

just like Phinehas... God judges it "right/just" or not! God was judging his action just like every other action just or unjust in response.

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


I'll go ahead and yield here to the faith of Father Abraham and the authority of Paul.

ROLF you can't even understand Gen 15:6 right let alone understand Paul.

[Jeffrey]

If, as you say, "his blood is applied at death" - then the blood is "applied" at the cross, for that is where He died. Using the "Three Steeper" motif - you appear to now be saying that the "blood is applied" at repentance (death).


In Romans 3:24-26, we have Paul explaining to the Romans the manner in which they were saved, their sins were forgiven and they were "justified" in the sight of God.

It was all done through the blood of Jesus Christ. That blood was shed at Calvary, not in the Garden Tomb.


Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.

The point that I think that you are reaching for here is that Christ is no longer dead!

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It was His death that reconciled us back to God (saved us- justified us - and paid the penalty for our sins).

It is His life that will save us "from the wrath that is to come..." By extension, that is our lives as well (Galatians 2:20).

This thread is about how we are saved and become Christians. It's not really about "the Christian life or the Christian walk." That is an important theme as well, but it's not what NOW was stating when he started this thread. Of course, if we don't understand how we were saved from sin, then we can have a pretty messed up walk...

... that is why Paul went on to say, (Galatians 2:21).

Yes, there are things we must do as Christians - we are His workmanship, created unto good works in Christ (Ephesians 2:10); but if we don't get the foundation right (Ephesians 2:8-9) then we'll have some problems.

:thumbsup

Even at repentance, where allegedly the blood applies, these on here do not see that person as a child of God. They still have to appease others and experience tongue babbling to be His child.

[Pressing-On]

If, as you say, "his blood is applied at death" - then the blood is "applied" at the cross, for that is where He died. Using the "Three Steeper" motif - you appear to now be saying that the "blood is applied" at repentance (death).


In Romans 3:24-26, we have Paul explaining to the Romans the manner in which they were saved, their sins were forgiven and they were "justified" in the sight of God.

It was all done through the blood of Jesus Christ. That blood was shed at Calvary, not in the Garden Tomb.


Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.

The point that I think that you are reaching for here is that Christ is no longer dead!

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It was His death that reconciled us back to God (saved us- justified us - and paid the penalty for our sins).

It is His life that will save us "from the wrath that is to come..." By extension, that is our lives as well (Galatians 2:20).

This thread is about how we are saved and become Christians. It's not really about "the Christian life or the Christian walk." That is an important theme as well, but it's not what NOW was stating when he started this thread. Of course, if we don't understand how we were saved from sin, then we can have a pretty messed up walk...

... that is why Paul went on to say, (Galatians 2:21).

Yes, there are things we must do as Christians - we are His workmanship, created unto good works in Christ (Ephesians 2:10); but if we don't get the foundation right (Ephesians 2:8-9) then we'll have some problems.
Pel,
I'll have to respond later. I'm really busy. Just sat down to eat a quick lunch. I like to read the news while I'm eating. :D

[Timmy]

Pel,
I'll have to respond later. I'm really busy. Just sat down to eat a quick lunch. I like to read the news while I'm eating. :D

That's bad for the digestion. :lol

[Jeffrey]

I have never heard that terminology used. It sounds caustic in a discussion, IMO.

You did say this to me last night. So, I think you did have a tone involved.



Basically you accused me of being insecure and dishonest. Lump in calling "speaking in tongues" a "crises experience", well, you figure out if I'm interested in the conversation. ;)

Fair enough. You've never heard it.

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

Before you blow a hole through your head, look up "crisis experience." It's very common in theological circles, and is NOT a pejorative term.

[pelathais]

We are not saved by being baptized better than anybody else. We are not saved because our dress code is better than anybody else. We are not saved because we worked harder at it or because our preacher uncovered some "hidden truth" that had escaped the attention of the church for 1,700+ years.

We are saved because Jesus Christ loved us and gave Himself as a ransom for our sins.

Job 9:20; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Luke 16:15.

[pelathais]

Pel,
I'll have to respond later. I'm really busy. Just sat down to eat a quick lunch. I like to read the news while I'm eating. :D
K. np. Have a great lunch... despite the "news." LOL <groan!>

[Jeffrey]

His response of circumcision was righteous as well. BECAUSE HE DID WHAT GOD SAID! You still don't understand what Paul is talking about...ROFL! I guess ABRAHAM act was NOT judged RIGHTEOUS in offering ISAAC?


ROFL you still don't get the verse and you are not READING it! By the way Paul does not disagree with me. sheesh

His FAITH was reckoned/considered/calculated/thought as righteous. FAITH IS A DEED JUDGED!

Gen 15:6 Abram believed20 the LORD, and the LORD21 considered his response of faith22 as proof of genuine loyalty.23 NET


Abrahams moving according to God's will in Gen 12 was righteous as well.

just like Phinehas... God judges it "right/just" or not! God was judging his action just like every other action just or unjust in response.

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




ROLF you can't even understand Gen 15:6 right let alone understand Paul.

When you're done rolling on the floor, sit back up and let's talk.

There's no need to guess on this one. Paul was quite clear. If we are judged by our actions we are all damned. Before you add your commentary to the verses I cited, please read them and then get back to me. He was reckoned with righteousness BEFORE circumcision, in other words BEFORE he DID IT.

Faith is a DEED?????????? Sister, that's called FALSE DOCTRINE and HERESY. If you live by that "sword" you will die by it as well. Go ahead and be a control freak with your salvation. I trust God's hands and his gift over my wages. I know mine are death already.

And while you're at it, please correct me of my error with Gen 15:6, which by the way, is Paul's primary text! :) Thanks PO.

[TheLegalist]

We are not saved by being baptized better than anybody else. We are not saved because our dress code is better than anybody else. We are not saved because we worked harder at it or because our preacher uncovered some "hidden truth" that had escaped the attention of the church for 1,700+ years.

We are saved because Jesus Christ loved us and gave Himself as a ransom for our sins.

Job 9:20; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Luke 16:15.

BAPTISM is essential to salvation whether you like it or not as it is when we are united with him and HIS WORK in a covenant death and arise to fulness of life. You are correct that is the "SOURCE" of our salvation which was his work. We still must respond to CONTINUE TO ABIDE IN HIM! Thus salvation is synergistic with a monergistic source!

[Jeffrey]

We are not saved by being baptized better than anybody else. We are not saved because our dress code is better than anybody else. We are not saved because we worked harder at it or because our preacher uncovered some "hidden truth" that had escaped the attention of the church for 1,700+ years.

We are saved because Jesus Christ loved us and gave Himself as a ransom for our sins.

Job 9:20; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Luke 16:15.

It doesn't frustrate me that others can't see it, because it took me so long. I always wanted the credit, and as a consequence dealt with that burden far too long. What a moment when I realized that He's taken care of it. I'm off the hook. Now just daily trust Him, live for Him, grow in Him -- this is a faith that will persevere.

[Jeffrey]

BAPTISM is essential to salvation whether you like it or not as it is when we are united with him and HIS WORK in a covenant death and arise to fulness of life. You are correct that is the "SOURCE" of our salvation which was his work. We still must respond to CONTINUE TO ABIDE IN HIM! Thus salvation is synergistic with a monergistic source!

Have you ever taught that baptism is a type of circumcision?

Do you see similarities?

Can you please respond to Paul's treatment to circumcisions relationship to faith in the scope of being reckoned?

[pelathais]

... You are correct ...
:woohoo:woohoo:woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo

[TheLegalist]

When you're done rolling on the floor, sit back up and let's talk.

There's no need to guess on this one. Paul was quite clear. If we are judged by our actions we are all damned. Before you add your commentary to the verses I cited, please read them and then get back to me. He was reckoned with righteousness BEFORE circumcision, in other words BEFORE he DID IT.

oh really... WOW I guess John Jesus, Peter, Paul might as well go home then I guess. So we are not judged faithful or not? WOW! I guess we are not judged like Abraham to receive the promise.... hmmm wow. Talk about false doctrine.

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.

just like Abraham

Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.




Faith is a DEED?????????? Sister, that's called FALSE DOCTRINE and HERESY. If you live by that "sword" you will die by it as well. Go ahead and be a control freak with your salvation. I trust God's hands and his gift over my wages. I know mine are death already.

hmmm you error in not knowing the scriptures....

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. CAN YOU SAY A DEED DONE OR UNDONE?

Oh and God cannot judge something that is not done on your part thus it is a deed done.

And while you're at it, please correct me of my error with Gen 15:6, which by the way, is Paul's primary text! :) Thanks PO.

see above

[TheLegalist]

Have you ever taught that baptism is a type of circumcision?

Do you see similarities?

Can you please respond to Paul's treatment to circumcisions relationship to faith in the scope of being reckoned?

is circumcision of any value?

[TheLegalist]

:woohoo:woohoo:woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo :woohoo

hahahaha

[mfblume]

Please show me where scripture baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation?

Blume, how was Abraham saved? Moses? Noah? Hint: Paul talks about this in Romans.

It's not a matter of whether tongues are necessary for salvation, but whether or not tongues accompanies Spirit baptism and if Spirit Baptism is necessary for salvation or not. If I want a pizza, it is not the smell I want but the smell indicates I have the pizza!

[pelathais]

is circumcision of any value?
That actually goes right to the whole "one stepper" point.

Abraham was "justified" and "accounted righteous" before he was circumcised. Romans 4:1-5; Genesis 15:6 and then later... Genesis 17.

Circumcision, the seal of the covenant and without which no man could have a place in the congregation of the faithful, was given as a sign after Abraham was "saved" in the eyes of God.

He of course went ahead and was circumcised; but he was "righteous" and "justified" long before he did that "work."

It might even be argued that Abraham was commanded to be circumcised, not because there was some sort of heavenly requirement for it - but because of the events that happened between Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 17: the matter involving Hagar the Egyptian handmaid.

Abraham's faith in God's promises for a child wavered, so he took up Sarah's offer of her handmaid. (Here we can almost see a parallel between these events and the events in the garden when Eve offered "the fruit" to Adam).

In the Garden, a flaming sword was set up to guard the way to the "forbidden fruit" and the Tree of Life. In Abraham's tent, a knife was used to "guard the way" to the fruit of Abraham's loins and "forbidden flesh."

But back to the theme of this thread; Abraham was justified in the eyes of God by his faith alone - even though that faith would waver, God still honored it and kept Abraham on the path toward the promise.

[KWSS1976]

Well mf it's not totally clear tongues acompanies spirit baptism we have a few cases that it did happen but then again we have cases were it happened and not tongues were present...so pick your poison I guess...

[mfblume]

Then argue with Paul :) That implies you propose a circular argument. Paul preached what you believe so you believe what Paul preached. Prove it.

Do you believe we have to repent or not?

Fortunately, this attitude about salvation represents only about 20% of Pentecostalism globally.

I could care less about attitudes. I want to preach what the bible preaches. Let's talk bible.


All the concern about "greasy gracers" not being baptized, none experiencing the Spirit and living godly lives can be put to rest. Their personal witness is almost as potent as the biblical theology. It has caused many a 3-stepper to wonder.

Repentance is not the prerequisite. Let's let Paul speak for himself here. The Spirit draws, Christ is revealed, faith (at the heart level) is expressed -- regeneration has happened, justification has happened... in response, and ONLY as a sign (same as it was with circumcision - again read Paul's words in Rom 4-5) we are baptized signifying the death and new life in following our Rabbi Jesus. The Spirit baptism (Promise of the Father) is promised, and is therefore available and accessible to all believers. But make no mistake, all believers, upon faith have the indwelled presence of God.

We seek to compartmentalize it all, but the plan of salvation has never changed since the beginning, it is BY FAITH. That's what God accounts/reckons as righteousness. He loved us while we were still sinners. The response to be baptized is because one already trusts God. If not, they are just getting wet anyway. And to the Jew, they are just getting trimmed! That's not your salvation! Paul was emphatic about this. This is the fault of the Jews as well! Always looking for a sign so they could control it all. Wanting to take the credit. "I got baptized, I repented" as if that merited salvation.

So do you believe repentance is necessary? A simple yes or no will do. Then we can go from there.

[TheLegalist]

That actually goes right to the whole "one stepper" point.

Abraham was "justified" and "accounted righteous" before he was circumcised. Romans 4:1-5; Genesis 15:6 and then later... Genesis 17.

Circumcision, the seal of the covenant and without which no man could have a place in the congregation of the faithful, was given as a sign after Abraham was "saved" in the eyes of God.

He of course went ahead and was circumcised; but he was "righteous" and "justified" long before he did that "work."

It might even be argued that Abraham was commanded to be circumcised, not because there was some sort of heavenly requirement for it - but because of the events that happened between Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 17: the matter involving Hagar the Egyptian handmaid.

Abraham's faith in God's promises for a child wavered, so he took up Sarah's offer of her handmaid. (Here we can almost see a parallel between these events and the events in the garden when Eve offered "the fruit" to Adam).

In the Garden, a flaming sword was set up to guard the way to the "forbidden fruit" and the Tree of Life. In Abraham's tent, a knife was used to "guard the way" to the fruit of Abraham's loins and "forbidden flesh."

But back to the theme of this thread, Abraham was justified in the eyes of God by his faith alone - even though that faith would waver, God still honored it and kept Abraham on the path toward the promise.

simple answer yes or no..... thanks! I was not making a statement but wanting a response TO respond.

[mfblume]

Well mf it's not totally clear tongues acompanies spirit baptism we have a few cases that it did happen but then again we have cases were it happened and not tongues were present...so pick your poison I guess...

The ONLY passage that ever deals with the question either way, in any way shape or form, is Acts 10 where Spirit Baptism was recognized by speaking in tongues. Nothing else touches the issue. So... go figure.

[KWSS1976]

Well we do have people that were filled with the holyghost in the bible and did not speak in tongues so I was just saying...

[pelathais]

That implies you propose a circular argument. Paul preached what you believe so you believe what Paul preached. Prove it.

Do you believe we have to repent or not?

...
What do you mean by "repent" here? I haven't seen Jeffery telling people, "Don't repent! You're already saved without it!"

[mfblume]

Luk 13:1-5 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. (2) And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? (3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? (5) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

[mfblume]

What do you mean by "repent" here? I haven't seen Jeffery telling people, "Don't repent! You're already saved without it!"

I am wanting a direct yes or no, and have not gotten one, except that I disagree with Paul. So I continue to ask a yes or no. Is repentance necessary, however way he believes it?

[Neck]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word bitter. I apologize to you.

It's just when I hear that scenario played out in a post, my mind goes to all of the glorious times I've seen God bless and touch a person. It's so personal and beautiful, I don't see or remember the bad things - try not to remember.

I will share a funny story though. I was in Lufkin, Texas at Youth Camp. First time around a bunch of Pentecostals in such large number. I was at the front praying and I had a girl on my left and one on my right. The one on the left was saying, "Talk to Him. He needs to hear your voice." The other girl was saying, "Let Him talk for you." LOL! Well, by then I was furious and I jerked both of my arms out of their hands. I looked at one girl and said, "First you are telling me to talk!", then I looked at the other, "And you are telling me not to! What am I supposed to be doing?!" Their eyes got really big and I don't even think they answered me. Then I had a really fat girl get in my face and say, "REPENT SISTER!!!!!" I heard someone behind me say, very quietly, "She has already repented." Hilarious!!!!

I received the Holy Ghost the last night of Camp Meeting. God was more real and personal to me than any of the other stuff. He is altogether lovely!!! :heart

I was not offended by the use of the word bitter, I just wanted to clarify my position.

[mfblume]

Well we do have people that were filled with the holyghost in the bible and did not speak in tongues so I was just saying...

We are not given all details such as whether they spoke in tongues or not. But notice the major times that globally-affecting infillings occurred,,,, as in gentiles and Jews and disciples of John.

Anyone with the Holy ghost before the cross are in a different category altogether and never had the indwelling of the body of Christ like we do since Pentecost.

[mfblume]

Abraham HAD TO BE CIRCUMCIZED if he had the faith that he would be. Faith THAT WORKS is what saves. So we cannot separate the work that follows faith from it. I am not saying the act of baptism in itself is soteriological as if it were the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But would God have made Abraham righteous had he seen that Abraham did not have the faith that WOULD ACT in obedience? People cannot see the heart that God sees. The one stepper acceptance of Christ to be saved IS AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE, TOO, YOU KNOW.

[TheLegalist]

We are not given all details such as whether they spoke in tongues or not. But notice the major times that globally-affecting infillings occurred,,,, as in gentiles and Jews and disciples of John.

Anyone with the Holy ghost before the cross are in a different category altogether and never had the indwelling of the body of Christ like we do since Pentecost.

this is correct... there is a difference between interaction with the HS in the OT vs the interaction of the dwelling of both the FATHER AND SON! Major difference.

[KWSS1976]

Nice way to explain it away...Anyone with the Holy ghost before the cross are in a different category altogether and how are we sure this is a diffrent catogory that would make 2 versions of the holyghost....holyghost without tongues and holyghost with tongues....

[TheLegalist]

Abraham HAD TO BE CIRCUMCIZED if he had the faith that he would be. Faith THAT WORKS is what saves. So we cannot separate the work that follows faith from it. I am not saying the act of baptism in itself is soteriological as if it were the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But would God have made Abraham righteous had he seen that Abraham did not have the faith that WOULD ACT in obedience? People cannot see the heart that God sees. The one stepper acceptance of Christ to be saved IS AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE, TOO, YOU KNOW.

YEP! He had to be or he would not have been "just" before God! Was Abraham's response judged just by his obedience unto circumcision? Yes he was!

[mfblume]

Nice way to explain it away...Anyone with the Holy ghost before the cross are in a different category altogether and how are we sure this is a diffrent catogory that would make 2 versions of the holyghost....holyghost without tongues and holyghost with tongues....

Oh come on. Surely you see a difference -vast difference - between people atoned for by the cross and those not! It is not a NICE way. It is THE WAY it is. Period.

Or maybe the cross is useless?

[pelathais]

I am wanting a direct yes or no, and have not gotten one, except that I disagree with Paul. So I continue to ask a yes or no. Is repentance necessary, however way he believes it?
Jeffery just sent me a text message saying that "yes, of course" repentance is a part of admitting that one is in the condition of the soul described in Job 9:20 and they (we!) must repent lest we end up in the condition of the souls described in Luke 16:15.

In any case, we are completely dependent upon Jesus Christ to actually save us.

* There's a "One Stepper" list that we all secretly subscribe to. We run all of our posts past Steve Epley. If he squawks we go ahead and post them on AFF.

[mfblume]

YEP! He had to be or he would not have been "just" before God! Was Abraham judged just by his circumcision? Yes he was!

Amen. Cannot separate the work from the faith. It is works for salvation without prerequisite of faith that does not save.

[KWSS1976]

legalist were can you find this diffrence? If it is so clear there is one?

[mfblume]

Jeffery just sent me a text message saying that "yes, of course" repentance is a part of admitting that one is in the condition of the soul described in Job 9:20 and they (we!) must repent lest we end up in the condition of the souls described in Luke 16:15.

In any case, we are completely dependent upon Jesus Christ to actually save us.

* There's a "One Stepper" list that we all secretly subscribe to. We run all of our posts past Steve Epley. If he squawks we go ahead and post them on AFF.

Why did he not say that to me, then? Anyway, Spirit baptism is as involved as repentance. If we say we need to repent then that opens the concept up that the cross PROVIDES for us to obey and be saved. Salvation is not possible without obedience. But that obedience is made in faith that HIS ACT directly saves, and not our act of obedience. We act BECAUSE His action saves. not because our action saves. I think y'all are missing that distinction.

[pelathais]

Abraham HAD TO BE CIRCUMCIZED if he had the faith that he would be. Faith THAT WORKS is what saves. So we cannot separate the work that follows faith from it. I am not saying the act of baptism in itself is soteriological as if it were the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But would God have made Abraham righteous had he seen that Abraham did not have the faith that WOULD ACT in obedience? People cannot see the heart that God sees. The one stepper acceptance of Christ to be saved IS AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE, TOO, YOU KNOW.
Abraham HAD TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE ISAAC... He had to love his wife, for that matter.

But... Abraham was "JUSTIFIED" long before he was ever circumcised. This thread is about the "One Stepper" understanding of justification/salvation.

Abraham was justified and accounted righteous long before he did any of the "works" that we associate with his life. That is the simple and plain teaching of the Bible. Romans 4.

[pelathais]

Abraham HAD TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE ISAAC... He had to love his wife, for that matter.

But... Abraham was "JUSTIFIED" long before he was ever circumcised. This thread is about the "One Stepper" understanding of justification/salvation.

Abraham was justified and accounted righteous long before he did any of the "works" that we associate with his life. That is the simple and plain teaching of the Bible. Romans 4.
Why are some of you guys so dodgy about this? What are you trying to hide or possibly avoid?

It's so easy to say, "Abraham was justified by faith." Try saying that to yourself a few times.

[TheLegalist]

Abraham HAD TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE ISAAC... He had to love his wife, for that matter.

But... Abraham was "JUSTIFIED" long before he was ever circumcised. This thread is about the "One Stepper" understanding of justification/salvation.

Abraham was justified and accounted righteous long before he did any of the "works" that we associate with his life. That is the simple and plain teaching of the Bible. Romans 4.

depends on what is meant by JUSTIFIED.... in the since of justice done as in judge... YES! Was righteous FORCED on Abraham? No! God cimply judged his response "just" thus God executed judgment of his actions. Pretty simple! Thus

Gen 15:6 Abram believed20 the LORD, and the LORD21 considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty NET (TL:or as righteous according to other version)

[Jeffrey]

That implies you propose a circular argument. Paul preached what you believe so you believe what Paul preached. Prove it.

Do you believe we have to repent or not?

Of course I believe we must repent. That's Bible. We repent BECAUSE OF faith, not FOR FAITH. Faith in God is what saves us.

I could care less about attitudes. I want to preach what the bible preaches. Let's talk bible.

AMEN

So do you believe repentance is necessary? A simple yes or no will do. Then we can go from there.

Let's go from there. And while you're at it, try answering the q's I offered as well. You skipped them on the previous response.

[TheLegalist]

Why are some of you guys so dodgy about this? What are you trying to hide or possibly avoid?

It's so easy to say, "Abraham was justified by faith." Try saying that to yourself a few times.

HIS "FAITH" WAS CONSIDERED JUST!! Just as God judges ALL ACTIONS JUST OR UNJUST!

[Jeffrey]

simple answer yes or no..... thanks! I was not making a statement but wanting a response TO respond.

Oh but his response was grand. Will you interact with it?

[Jeffrey]

Abraham HAD TO BE CIRCUMCIZED if he had the faith that he would be. Faith THAT WORKS is what saves. So we cannot separate the work that follows faith from it. I am not saying the act of baptism in itself is soteriological as if it were the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But would God have made Abraham righteous had he seen that Abraham did not have the faith that WOULD ACT in obedience? People cannot see the heart that God sees. The one stepper acceptance of Christ to be saved IS AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE, TOO, YOU KNOW.

No, but it is critical (according to you as well) where we establish salvation. When does it happen? It happens at faith. The others are a response to faith, including repentance. You wouldn't repent to Jesus if you didn't believe who he is, or believe he could help you.

Of course we believe in obedience. Let's not play games on that. But I feel it's quite critical where we believe Christ saves us. Not by our doing, but by our believing. Our doing is always connected to our believe, and our lack of doing (sinning) always connected to an issue of disbelief.

[Jeffrey]

HIS "FAITH" WAS CONSIDERED JUST!! Just as God judges ALL ACTIONS JUST OR UNJUST!

If your measuring stick is actions, then we are all doomed. :nah

[TheLegalist]

Oh but his response was grand. Will you interact with it?

why should I see no resposne to anything I ever say as it is always ignored scriptural wise and people don't argue from the text but spit jargon and misused terms. FAITH IS A RIGHTEOUS DEED seems you got hosed on that and just decided to ignore.

[pelathais]

Why did he not say that to me, then? Anyway, Spirit baptism is as involved as repentance. If we say we need to repent then that opens the concept up that the cross PROVIDES for us to obey and be saved. Salvation is not possible without obedience. But that obedience is made in faith that HIS ACT directly saves, and not our act of obedience. We act BECAUSE His action saves. not because our action saves. I think y'all are missing that distinction.
Before you can really go beyond the cross, you must first understand the cross. Everything that you do as a Christian will be reflected by your understanding (or misunderstanding) of the cross and the work that Jesus Christ did for us there. This work that was done by Jesus is something that no human being could have ever done for themselves.

See Galatians 2:20-21.

Even after Calvary, we find that Jesus Christ lives! And... we find that we ourselves are also alive. Therefore we must live our lives in a manner that does not "frustrate the grace of God."

Yes, we do "good works" and we are obedient to God's commands; but those "works" and that obedience isn't what gave us this life. It was the the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that saved us. That is the source of our life. I don't obey God to "get saved." I obey God because I am saved.

[Jeffrey]

depends on what is meant by JUSTIFIED.... in the since of justice done as in judge... YES! Was righteous FORCED on Abraham? No! God cimply judged his response "just" thus God executed judgment of his actions. Pretty simple! Thus

Gen 15:6 Abram believed20 the LORD, and the LORD21 considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty NET (TL:or as righteous according to other version)

Who is saying righteousness is "forced?" Justification and reconciliation are simultaneous events to Paul. He uses them often together. Justification is how we are seen legally, reconciliation is how we are restored relationally. BOTH happen at the same time.

God didn't "judge his response." He saved Him. (Where do you get that?) His judgement isn't associated with this discussion. He reckoned to him righteousness, accounted to him righteousness. So in your view, God waits to execute judgement of our actions. Does this work with our disobedience (sin) as well? Am I only judged "just" when I'm sinless?

May sound simple to you, but your commentary here does not fit with the Pauline language at all.

[Jeffrey]

Before you can really go beyond the cross, you must first understand the cross. Everything that you do as a Christian will be reflected by your understanding (or misunderstanding) of the cross and the work that Jesus Christ did for us there. This work that was done by Jesus is something that no human being could have ever done for themselves.

See Galatians 2:20-21.

Even after Calvary, we find that Jesus Christ lives! And... we find that we ourselves are also alive. Therefore we must live our lives in a manner that does not "frustrate the grace of God."

Yes, we do "good works" and we are obedient to God's commands; but those "works" and that obedience isn't what gave us this life. It was the the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that saved us. That is the source of our life. I don't obey God to "get saved." I obey God because I am saved.

SHONDO. Now THAT will make me want to experience glossolalia.

[Jeffrey]

why should I see no resposne to anything I ever say as it is always ignored scriptural wise and people don't argue from the text but spit jargon and misused terms. FAITH IS A RIGHTEOUS DEED seems you got hosed on that and just decided to ignore.

By deed you mean work. Faith is not a work. Faith produces work. Faith is not a work. Faith is trusting in who Jesus says He is. Believing he is in control, powerful, glorious, etc...

Hosed? Ignored? What are you talking about?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Please show me where scripture baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation?

Blume, how was Abraham saved? Moses? Noah? Hint: Paul talks about this in Romans.
Rom: 4 Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. 10 But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!

11 Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. 12 And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.



I've always found this passage fascinating and food for thought.

[Jeffrey]

YEP! He had to be or he would not have been "just" before God! Was Abraham's response judged just by his obedience unto circumcision? Yes he was!

This is in direct contradiction of scripture which you herald as the standard here.

Rom 4

[pelathais]

depends on what is meant by JUSTIFIED.... in the since of justice done as in judge... YES!
What I mean by "justified" is exactly what Paul says in Romans 4:1-4.

Was righteous FORCED on Abraham? No!
You quoted my post and then added something like this? Clean your glasses Bro!

You're arguing with the voices in your head instead of discussing Romans 4 with me.

God cimply judged his response "just" thus God executed judgment of his actions. Pretty simple! Thus

Gen 15:6 Abram believed20 the LORD, and the LORD21 considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty NET (TL:or as righteous according to other version)
In this particular case Abraham's "action" was that he "believed God." That is exactly what we've all been saying all along.

Now, you are correct! :woohoo

[Jeffrey]

Jeffery just sent me a text message saying that "yes, of course" repentance is a part of admitting that one is in the condition of the soul described in Job 9:20 and they (we!) must repent lest we end up in the condition of the souls described in Luke 16:15.

In any case, we are completely dependent upon Jesus Christ to actually save us.

* There's a "One Stepper" list that we all secretly subscribe to. We run all of our posts past Steve Epley. If he squawks we go ahead and post them on AFF.

*scratching head*

[Jeffrey]

Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. 10 But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!

11 Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. 12 And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.



I've always found this passage fascinating and food for thought.

:thumbsup So have I AQP. Rocked my world. What a relief to know God has my back. It's not about me. I just have to trust Him. And by trusting Him, I avoid sinning, which is a spiral toward unbelief (the focus of John).

[pelathais]

YEP! He had to be or he would not have been "just" before God! Was Abraham's response judged just by his obedience unto circumcision? Yes he was!
NO HE WASN"T... read it... Romans 4:1-4.

Read Genesis 15, Genesis 16 and Genesis 17.

Chapter 15 is when Abraham is justified (See again Romans 4:1-4).
Chapter 16 is when Abraham's faith wavers.
Chapter 17 is when circumcision is given as a "sign" of the covenant that God made way back in Haran in Genesis 12.

It was not "UNJUST" for Abraham to be circumcised - it was obedient! But Abraham was "accounted righteous" and he was "justified" by his faith alone already.

[TheLegalist]

What I mean by "justified" is exactly what Paul says in Romans 4:1-4.

You quoted my post and then added something like this? Clean your glasses Bro!



You're arguing with the voices in your head instead of discussing Romans 4 with me.

wow you do lack knowledge of different views of Justification and how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith. FAITH IS NOT OF YOURSELVES and GOD IMPUTES SALVATION TO YOU! Which is forced acquittal. LOL! Which was my point!

In this particular case Abraham's "action" was that he "believed God." That is exactly what we've all been saying all along.

Yes, he did but Abraham was not "saved" but his action judged just! Thus his heart was judged in action to not be at enmity. James point is clear on gen 15:6 this is not about a ONE TIME BUT THE WHOLE of Abraham's life to the JUDGING his action just, at Isaac.

Now, you are correct! :woohoo

Have been the whole time.

[Jeffrey]

NO HE WASN"T... read it... Romans 4:1-4.

Read Genesis 15, Genesis 16 and Genesis 17.

Chapter 15 is when Abraham is justified (See again Romans 4:1-4).
Chapter 16 is when Abraham's faith wavers.
Chapter 17 is when circumcision is given as a "sign" of the covenant that God made way back in Haran in Genesis 12.

It was not "UNJUST" for Abraham to be circumcised - it was obedient! But Abraham was "accounted righteous" and he was "justified" by his faith alone already.

Clear. Plain as day. Takes major creativity to explain that way.

Our way of salvation is the same as Abraham's. And this is why I have problem with Scofield. He loses the sense of the Story, and instead it becomes epochs, compartmentalized dealings with man. God has been after us since Adam sinned. He found Him. He didn't kill Adam. He gave Him clothes. He has been chasing after us since. God wants us, like Adam, to believe He is really the All in All.

[Jeffrey]

wow you do lack knowledge of different views of Justification and how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith. FAITH IS NOT OF YOURSELVES and GOD IMPUTES SALVATION TO YOU! Which is forced acquittal. LOL! Which was my point!



Yes, he did but Abraham was not "saved" but his action judged just! Thus his heart was judged in action to not be at enmity. James point is clear on gen 15:6 this is not about a ONE TIME BUT THE WHOLE of Abraham's life to the JUDGING his action just at Isaac.



Have been the whole time.

So I can be justified and reconciled but still not a child of God?

You draw (I should say infer) and interesting addition, adding the word "saved" into the context of righteousness, justification, reconciliation. Should we pull Abraham back from the dead and ask him to talk a little tongues language?

[TheLegalist]

NO HE WASN"T... read it... Romans 4:1-4.

Read Genesis 15, Genesis 16 and Genesis 17.

Chapter 15 is when Abraham is justified (See again Romans 4:1-4).

Read the text his "faith" was considered "just"

Chapter 16 is when Abraham's faith wavers.

soo and your point?

Chapter 17 is when circumcision is given as a "sign" of the covenant that God made way back in Haran in Genesis 12.

Which has nothing to do with Gen 15:6 and the Covenant in Gen 22 concerning his seed. Which was brought about by OBEDIENCE!

chapter 17 is a land covenant not about spiritual offspring covenant. BOTH covenant are brought about by obedience.


It was not "UNJUST" for Abraham to be circumcised - it was obedient! But Abraham was "accounted righteous" and he was "justified" by his faith alone already.

I never said that! I said it would have BEEN UNJUST HAD HE NOT! He was considered just again by his action as well in Gen 17 was he not. Lack of faith in action becomes what? UNCIRCUMCISION and SIN!

Eze 18:22 None of the sins he has committed will be held30 against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live.
Eze 18:23 Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked, declares the sovereign LORD? Do I not prefer that he turn from his wicked conduct and live?
Eze 18:24 "But if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and practices wrongdoing according to all the abominable practices the wicked carry out, will he live? All his righteous acts will not be remembered; because of the unfaithful acts he has done and the sin he has committed, he will die.

[mfblume]

Before you can really go beyond the cross, you must first understand the cross. Everything that you do as a Christian will be reflected by your understanding (or misunderstanding) of the cross and the work that Jesus Christ did for us there. This work that was done by Jesus is something that no human being could have ever done for themselves.

See Galatians 2:20-21.

Even after Calvary, we find that Jesus Christ lives! And... we find that we ourselves are also alive. Therefore we must live our lives in a manner that does not "frustrate the grace of God."

Yes, we do "good works" and we are obedient to God's commands; but those "works" and that obedience isn't what gave us this life. It was the the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that saved us. That is the source of our life. I don't obey God to "get saved." I obey God because I am saved.

I agree with all you said except the last phrase, but only in part since the last phrase is true for most actions. Repenting is as much as a deed as baptism in water, for example. But Baptism saves, as Peter said. When people say baptism is not a part of salvation then they must also say repentance is not. It is walking up to the table, so to speak, to devour the food that nourishes and gives life. Walking is part of getting the food, but the food actually nourishes, not the walk.

[pelathais]

wow you do lack knowledge of different views of Justification and how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith. FAITH IS NOT OF YOURSELVES and GOD IMPUTES SALVATION TO YOU! Which is forced acquittal. LOL! Which was my point!
LOL. I really don't care "how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith" if they contradict with what Paul is clearly stating in Romans 4.

I don't know if I'm following your next statements correctly. Taken one way, I agree. Taken another way... well, you should have meant the first way.

The "forced acquittal" (if you want to put it that way) occurs because while you and I were standing condemned in the docket and awaiting execution another man stepped forward and took our place in the gallows.

Because I believe that this man's death was efficacious for the crimes that I was condemned for, I am saved from the penalty for those crimes. Nobody "forces" me to believe this - but, boy-howdy! - am I glad for what that man did for me!

Yes, he did but Abraham was not "saved" but his action judged just! Thus his heart was judged in action to not be at enmity. James point is clear on gen 15:6 this is not about a ONE TIME BUT THE WHOLE of Abraham's life to the JUDGING his action just at Isaac.

Have been the whole time.
James takes a different tack than Paul to this issue, but arrives at the same point. James looks "down the time line" all the way past the events we've discussed concerning justification and circumcision (Genesis 15 - 17) to Genesis 22.

Here, James points out that God's faith in Abraham was "justified." When the whole story came to a head and the chips were down, Abraham showed that he didn't have the wavering faith of Genesis 16 - but the solid faith of Genesis 22.

BUT... as Paul points out, God accounted Abraham righteous already, long before Isaac was even born. That's what God did.

Now, my hope and prayer for you is that you will understand that you were justified at Calvary. Long before your faith was ever tested or you ever faced a single trial, you were already accounted righteous.

We need to have this understanding (Genesis 15:6) because our own Genesis 22 experience will be facing us as soon as we stand up and walk away from these keyboards.

If we don't get Genesis 15:6, right; we may end up failing the test of Genesis 22 when it comes along. If we don't get Galatians 2:20 right, we may fail the test that comes along and be guilty of a Galatians 2:21.

[TheLegalist]

So I can be justified and reconciled but still not a child of God?

Depends on what you mean by "justified".... eschatological acquittal? Which it is not. Does one mean something judged right? What does this have to do with the New Covenant? Pauls simple point was God can consider a action other than circumcision "righteous" and thus Abraham not at enmity. Circumcision in itself is nothing and has no unique "righteousing power" other than GOD judging "it" a right response just like Abraham and his response he considered "just". God judges our actions whether we are "right" before him. God judges all action just or unjust.

If God says move out of your home and move wherever. Is it the moving objects around that is the "righteousing power and judges me right IN THEMSELVES!" NO, it is my response to his Word to completion that "he" judges right. THe moving in itself is not what is "holy" but the source and reason why I move is considered holy or right and set apart. Thus God judges the actions "just" though the objects themselves have no actual holiness unto themselves. Thus circumcision is simply cutting of flesh. It though under the law(divine order) with faith attached to it from the heart was righteous to do. The cutting in itself is nothing without our divine order and your heart turned to God in doing so.



You draw (I should say infer) and interesting addition, adding the word "saved" into the context of righteousness, justification, reconciliation. Should we pull Abraham back from the dead and ask him to talk a little tongues language?

I am done with you!

[pelathais]

Depends on what you mean by "justified".... eschatological acquittal? Which it is not. Does one mean something judged right? What does this have to do with the New Covenant? Pauls simple point was God can consider a action other than circumcision "righteous" and thus Abraham not at enmity. Circumcision in itself is nothing and has no unique "righteousing power" other than GOD judging "it" a right response just like Abraham and his response he considered "just". God judges our actions whether we are "right" before him. God judges all action just or unjust.

If God says move out of your home and move wherever. Is it the moving objects around that is the "righteousing power and judges me right IN THEMSELVES!" NO, it is my response to his Word to completion that "he" judges right. THe moving in itself is not what is "holy" but the source and reason why I move is considered holy or right and set apart. Thus God judges the actions "just" though the objects themselves have no actual holiness unto themselves. Thus circumcision is simply cutting of flesh. It though under the law(divine order) with faith attached to it from the heart was righteous to do. The cutting in itself is nothing without our divine order and your heart turned to God in doing so. ...
I confess that I didn't keep up with the "tongues" discussion just now as it seemed a bit of a side track from the main point of what NOW had offered in the opening. I'm also "multi-tasking" with three teenagers and find myself needing to run to the hardware store really quick...

That being said, T.L. - I think I see a bit more off what you're saying from this post. I am in complete agreement with your take on what is "holy" in a command (the "objects" or "your heart turned to God"). That is the basis for the whole "One Stepper" approach.

[TheLegalist]

LOL. I really don't care "how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith" if they contradict with what Paul is clearly stating in Romans 4.

I don't know if I'm following your next statements correctly. Taken one way, I agree. Taken another way... well, you should have meant the first way.

The "forced acquittal" (if you want to put it that way) occurs because while you and I were standing condemned in the docket and awaiting execution another man stepped forward and took our place in the gallows.

Because I believe that this man's death was efficacious for the crimes that I was condemned for, I am saved from the penalty for those crimes. Nobody "forces" me to believe this - but, boy-howdy! - am I glad for what that man did for me!

That would be salvation by "grace" alone which is not correct. Salvation is by Grace THROUGH faith. God judges your reponse right to obtain salvation. Faith is lifestyle not a condition of simple knowledge. A person obtains covenant by casting off all to obtain not simply believing he died for sins. He believes and does what needs to be done. To obtain salvation. Salvation is a purchase not simply a forced handout as it costs you something. Not just some bumb on the street corner getting a free salvation sucker stuck in his mouth.

James takes a different tack than Paul to this issue, but arrives at the same point. James looks "down the time line" all the way past the events we've discussed concerning justification and circumcision (Genesis 15 - 17) to Genesis 22.

Here, James points out that God's faith in Abraham was "justified." When the whole story came to a head and the chips were down, Abraham showed that he didn't have the wavering faith of Genesis 16 - but the solid faith of Genesis 22.

scripture of "God's faith in Abraham was justified" in James 2


BUT... as Paul points out, God accounted Abraham righteous already, long before Isaac was even born. That's what God did.

So your point? God considered him right because he responsed, which is how God judges all actions in that we are either at enmity or not with him. God considered Abraham righteous by doing which is James point of your you have not addressed AND NOT BY FAITH aLONE (mental assent alone)

Now, my hope and prayer for you is that you will understand that you were justified at Calvary. Long before your faith was ever tested or you ever faced a single trial, you were already accounted righteous.

We need to have this understanding (Genesis 15:6) because our own Genesis 22 experience will be facing us as soon as we stand up and walk away from these keyboards.

If we don't get Genesis 15:6, right; we may end up failing the test of Genesis 22 when it comes along. If we don't get Galatians 2:20 right, we may fail the test that comes along and be guilty of a Galatians 2:21.

God judges responses just or unjust. It's that simple! God did not go into covenant with Abraham until he judged his faith. Gen 12 promise was not realized unto covenant(Gen 15) until he moved. Abraham's covenant was not realized until(Gen 22) he was tested again and seen faithful and obedient.
When we call upon his name in baptism(Acts 22:16) he answers our call upon which we are united in covenant unto his death and raised unto newness of life.

[Jeffrey]

Depends on what you mean by "justified".... eschatological acquittal? Which it is not. Does one mean something judged right? What does this have to do with the New Covenant? Pauls simple point was God can consider a action other than circumcision "righteous" and thus Abraham not at enmity. Circumcision in itself is nothing and has no unique "righteousing power" other than GOD judging "it" a right response just like Abraham and his response he considered "just". God judges our actions whether we are "right" before him. God judges all action just or unjust.

If God says move out of your home and move wherever. Is it the moving objects around that is the "righteousing power and judges me right IN THEMSELVES!" NO, it is my response to his Word to completion that "he" judges right. THe moving in itself is not what is "holy" but the source and reason why I move is considered holy or right and set apart. Thus God judges the actions "just" though the objects themselves have no actual holiness unto themselves. Thus circumcision is simply cutting of flesh. It though under the law(divine order) with faith attached to it from the heart was righteous to do. The cutting in itself is nothing without our divine order and your heart turned to God in doing so.

Interesting. So the acquittal has no eschatological implication? It's just for the moment. Do something wrong and SQUASH your gone, Mister?

Where do you keep getting the language "God judging" from? Not that it matters, but it's interesting you keep using that language.

The Law, Circumcision, neither Paul says, were for righteousness (goes against the grain of Jewish thought in Paul's day btw).

You qualify the circumcision, saying it worked because of a right heart. I say a heart right worked. This is more than semantics, it's the difference between justification by faith, or by deeds.



I am done with you!
Well. That takes care of that. Sorry to provoke you to this point.
I'm concerned for you. Your views are not within the scope of the Gospel.

:nah

[TheLegalist]

I confess that I didn't keep up with the "tongues" discussion just now as it seemed a bit of a side track from the main point of what NOW had offered in the opening. I'm also "multi-tasking" with three teenagers and find myself needing to run to the hardware store really quick...

That being said, T.L. - I think I see a bit more off what you're saying from this post. I am in complete agreement with your take on what is "holy" in a command (the "objects" or "your heart turned to God"). That is the basis for the whole "One Stepper" approach.

has nothing to do with one-stepper approach. Faith Only is makes a mockery of what "judgment" of just acts is. You cannot be considered "just" until a witness(response) is made evident. Even then that ONLY has to do with God simply not considering you at enmity. Because God considers/reckons you "turned to him" does not mean you have experienced COVENANT which I have pointed out before. you cannot though come into covenant without "the turning" and God judging your response "aright". thus the WHOLE POINT and PRINCIPLE OF

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

You cannot come to God seeking covenant unless your heart has been set right. Atonement cannot take place will mean nothing unless your heart has been judged not at enmity. that is how we present ourselves to God at baptism. We have turned at heart to partake in his death. In which we are united IN SACRIFICE and I am united WITH HIM by faith in the working operation of God. In which we rise to newness of life having been separated from the old man.

[Jeffrey]

That would be salvation by "grace" alone which is not correct. Salvation is by Grace THROUGH faith. God judges your reponse right to obtain salvation. Faith is lifestyle not a condition of simple knowledge. A person obtains covenant by casting off all to obtain not simply believing he died for sins. He believes and does what needs to be done. To obtain salvation. Salvation is a purchase not simply a forced handout as it costs you something. Not just some bumb on the street corner getting a free salvation sucker stuck in his mouth.

And that "response" is at a heart level. Get rid of "judge" in this too. God is not judging, he is accepting our response. He's not on a judgement throne right now, he's on yours and my trail. What a differing perspective of God!

No one thinks faith is cognitive. Another straw man. Faith is a heart level response to who God is. BECAUSE we believe who he is, we cast off. And you know what, our New Year's Resolution, Self-savior casting off is really the wrong way to see it. God's help here is what is important. His view of us is what is important.

And yes, salvation is exactly for "some bumb on the street that gets a free salvation sucker to be stuck in his mouth." What a wonderful message! They need to realize that their living for themselves is nothing compared to living in Him!



scripture of "God's faith in Abraham was justified" in James 2


So your point? God considered him right because he responsed, which is how God judges all actions in that we are either at enmity or not with him. God considered Abraham righteous by doing which is James point of your you have not addressed AND NOT BY FAITH aLONE (mental assent alone)

God DIDN'T "JUDGE" Abraham's doing. He accounted to him righteousness by believing. Quit re-writing Scripture.

God judges responses just or unjust. God judges hearts. Our responses are an after-thought of our hearts. It's that simple! God did not go into covenant with Abraham until he judged his faith. Gen 12 promise was not realized unto covenant(Gen 15) until he moved. Abraham's covenant was not realized until(Gen 22) WRONG! Where do you come up with this stuff? God reassured Abraham of his covenant again with him at the altar with Isaac. But where do you get in the Text this is where the covenant was "really official" now? he was tested again and seen faithful and obedient. Yes, he was.
When we call upon his name in baptism(Acts 22:16) he answers our call upon which we are united in covenant unto his death and raised unto newness of life. More adding here. Scripture please.

:foottap

[Jeffrey]

has nothing to do with one-stepper approach. Faith Only is makes a mockery of what "judgment" of just acts is. You cannot be considered "just" until a witness(response) is made evident. Even then that ONLY has to do with God simply not considering you at enmity. Because God considers/reckons you "turned to him" does not mean you have experienced COVENANT which I have pointed out before. EXPLAIN. PAUL MUST'VE FORGOTTEN THAT IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR COVENANTAL THEOLOGY - OR THAT THE COVENANT WAS NOT A COVENANT OF FAITH HMMMM you cannot though come into covenant without "the turning" and God judging your response "aright". thus the WHOLE POINT and PRINCIPLE OF

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. You get your theological thesis from Mat 5??? That's what this means to you?? Really TL?

You cannot come to God unless your heart has been set right. WRONG. God comes to us even while we are sinners. We aren't initiating this thing. We take NO CREDIT. He comes knocking on our door. We don't "come to him" in any literal way. We "follow Him" as a response to our trust and faith Atonement cannot take place will mean nothing unless your heart has been judged not at enmity. ?? Not understanding your sentence that is how we present ourselves to God at baptism. We have turned at heart to partake in his death. In which we are united IN SACRIFICE and I am united WITH HIM by faith in the working operation of God. In which we rise to newness of life having been separated from the old man.

No, FAITH ONLY is a threat to control freaks. FAITH ONLY is not a mockery, it's the way it's always been! It's not fair! You're right! We are undeserving! You're right! DEED-focused, we are all damned. We all screw up!

[Jeffrey]

Me and TL are now friends whether he likes it or not *hugs*

[TheLegalist]

legalist were can you find this diffrence? If it is so clear there is one?

The difference is for example .... David said take not thy HS from me. Jesus said "we" will come and make our abode in him. The difference... the mediation of Christ on the heart which was the law made flesh.... Thus we have both "Father and Son" now.

Jermiah 31

and

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Thus the realization was deeper and more perfect because now we have "Christ in us" thus we can do and walk after his law.

[TheLegalist]

Me and TL are now friends whether he likes it or not *hugs*

LOL! :heart

[TheLegalist]

No, FAITH ONLY is a threat to control freaks. FAITH ONLY is not a mockery, it's the way it's always been! It's not fair! You're right! We are undeserving! You're right! DEED-focused, we are all damned. We all screw up!

depends on what is meant by "faith only" James said not by faith alone.

Faith is a deed just like justice and mercy per Jesus of which we ought to have done.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

[Jeffrey]

The difference is for example .... David said take not thy HS from me. Jesus said "we" will come and make our abode in him. The difference... the mediation of Christ on the heart which was the law made flesh.... Thus we have both "Father and Son" now. ????

Jermiah 31

and

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Thus the realization was deeper and more perfect because now we have "Christ in us" thus we can do and walk after his law.

His Law. Not the Mosaic Law. Paul makes that clear. So the goal here is to determine what is his Law? (All an aside of course to justification by faith)

[Jeffrey]

depends on what is meant by "faith only" James said not by faith alone.

Over-abused. Poor James. Wonder what sort of discussion he and Paul would have? What does James have in view here? What is he trying to say? To correct? That's always an important consideration. Who was his audience? Answering these questions helps us not use James to re-write 80% of the nT.

FAITH without works... is dead. In reality, there is no such thing as faith part from works. They are as separable as soul and spirit perhaps. But we can see faith as the brain, sending signals to the body called works. A body without faith is lifeless. A faith without a body is a vegetable.

Faith is a deed just like justice and mercy per Jesus of which we ought to have done.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

:)

[Pressing-On]

If, as you say, "his blood is applied at death" - then the blood is "applied" at the cross, for that is where He died. Using the "Three Steeper" motif - you appear to now be saying that the "blood is applied" at repentance (death).


In Romans 3:24-26, we have Paul explaining to the Romans the manner in which they were saved, their sins were forgiven and they were "justified" in the sight of God.

It was all done through the blood of Jesus Christ. That blood was shed at Calvary, not in the Garden Tomb.


Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.

The point that I think that you are reaching for here is that Christ is no longer dead!

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It was His death that reconciled us back to God (saved us- justified us - and paid the penalty for our sins).

It is His life that will save us "from the wrath that is to come..." By extension, that is our lives as well (Galatians 2:20).

This thread is about how we are saved and become Christians. It's not really about "the Christian life or the Christian walk." That is an important theme as well, but it's not what NOW was stating when he started this thread. Of course, if we don't understand how we were saved from sin, then we can have a pretty messed up walk...

... that is why Paul went on to say, (Galatians 2:21).

Yes, there are things we must do as Christians - we are His workmanship, created unto good works in Christ (Ephesians 2:10); but if we don't get the foundation right (Ephesians 2:8-9) then we'll have some problems.

I understand that the Bible speaks, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." I see that "remission" is "forgiveness". I see that all of the prophets give witness that through His name, if we believe, we will find remission for our sins. (Acts 10:43). I also find that because I believed all of this I will, therefore, obey the Gospel. I find that if I repent and am baptized, I will receive the remission/forgiveness of my sins. (Acts 2:38). I am not forgiven until I repent and am baptized.

I think that is when the blood takes effect in symbolism. His death is not only in the cross/crucifixion, but also simply because he has died. He was dead on the cross, dead when he was buried. Dead on the cross, dead in the tomb.

Buried with him by baptism into death....reconciled by his death, much more being reconciled by his death, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 6:4; Romans 5:10)

We are justified, freely, by faith in the redemption/ransom paid in full of Jesus Christ. It was paid in full when he resurrected - death, burial, resurrection. We ourselves, having the fruitfruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23) Not there yet, but I press toward the mark.....

Not as though I have already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which I am also apprehended of Christ Jesus. If I could get a hold of Him how He got a hold of me!

We are not fully saved until we walk through those pearly gates, but we have our belief/faith in Him and we have a Gospel to respond to. We are then made a "habitation" of God through His Spirit and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith. (Ephesians 2:22)

My faith had to get me here by some response on my part. My faith and belief that He simply died for me is not going to be enough. What does he say about Abraham? That he believed God and was counted as righteous. But, what else does it say?

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." (Galatians 3:8)

Abraham had some instructions given because He believed, just like we have instructions given to us because of our belief.

I won't be able to respond anymore this afternoon. Just stopped for a bit to post this.

[*AQuietPlace*]

No one thinks faith is cognitive. Another straw man. Faith is a heart level response to who God is. BECAUSE we believe who he is, we cast off.


I just read this quote:

Belief is not merely an agreement with facts in the head, it is also an appetite for God in the heart..Therefore eternal life is not given to people who merely think that Jesus is the Son of God. It is given to people who drink from Jesus as the Son of God...the essence of faith...is more than believing that there is ...such a thing as water and food.

-John Piper, Future Grace

[pelathais]

LOL. I really don't care "how some view how God IMPUTES upon a person righteousness/faith" if they contradict with what Paul is clearly stating in Romans 4.

I don't know if I'm following your next statements correctly. Taken one way, I agree. Taken another way... well, you should have meant the first way.

The "forced acquittal" (if you want to put it that way) occurs because while you and I were standing condemned in the docket and awaiting execution another man stepped forward and took our place in the gallows.

Because I believe that this man's death was efficacious for the crimes that I was condemned for, I am saved from the penalty for those crimes. Nobody "forces" me to believe this - but, boy-howdy! - am I glad for what that man did for me!

That would be salvation by "grace" alone which is not correct. Salvation is by Grace THROUGH faith. God judges your reponse right to obtain salvation. Faith is lifestyle not a condition of simple knowledge. A person obtains covenant by casting off all to obtain not simply believing he died for sins. He believes and does what needs to be done. To obtain salvation.


Salvation is a purchase not simply a forced handout as it costs you something. Not just some bumb on the street corner getting a free salvation sucker stuck in his mouth.

How in the world do you equate what I said to my being "some bumb (SIC) on the street corner getting a free salvation sucker stuck in his mouth?"

I really want to like you here, T.L. but your whole misanthrope approach to those who have believed in faith tells me you must spend a lot of time alone and in a very dark place.


scripture of "God's faith in Abraham was justified" in James 2


So your point? God considered him right because he responsed, which is how God judges all actions in that we are either at enmity or not with him. God considered Abraham righteous by doing which is James point of your you have not addressed AND NOT BY FAITH aLONE (mental assent alone)

God judges responses just or unjust. It's that simple! God did not go into covenant with Abraham until he judged his faith. Gen 12 promise was not realized unto covenant(Gen 15) until he moved. Abraham's covenant was not realized until(Gen 22) he was tested again and seen faithful and obedient.
When we call upon his name in baptism(Acts 22:16) he answers our call upon which we are united in covenant unto his death and raised unto newness of life.
Clean off your glasses again, I did "address" James 2. You've just mangled the context of Genesis 15 - 22 so badly that you appear to be one of Aquila's "time warp aliens."

God accounted Abraham righteous in Genesis 15. After the events described in Genesis 22 take place James comes along and says to a group of Christians who have also already been justified - "See, now is Abraham's faith made perfect!"

What you can't deal with is the fact that Abraham was justified by faith already way back in Genesis 15. Also, and this is the heart of the matter - you can't deal with the fact that James is writing to Christian believers who were also already justified by faith.

You've fallen into the trap that Paul told us to avoid in Galatians 2:21, all because you fail to grasp a hold of Galatians 2:20.

[Orthodoxy]

I just read this quote:

Belief is not merely an agreement with facts in the head, it is also an appetite for God in the heart..Therefore eternal life is not given to people who merely think that Jesus is the Son of God. It is given to people who drink from Jesus as the Son of God...the essence of faith...is more than believing that there is ...such a thing as water and food.

-John Piper, Future Grace

:thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

EXPLAIN. PAUL MUST'VE FORGOTTEN THAT IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR COVENANTAL THEOLOGY - OR THAT THE COVENANT WAS NOT A COVENANT OF FAITH HMMMM

not sure what you are taking about.


You get your theological thesis from Mat 5??? That's what this means to you?? Really TL?


It is a principled text of atonement only works if one is turned rightly to God. Basic priciples taught all throughout the bible.

WRONG. God comes to us even while we are sinners.

Never said we didn't but because he comes to us doesn't mean we have turned or trusted in him yet! He presents his offering to us! We response but it must be with out heart TOTALY TOWARD HIM. Thus I again state we cannot come to partake UNLESS we come with our heart right in baptis,

We aren't initiating this thing. We take NO CREDIT.

He may initiate the proposal or offering but we still responsd out of free will. you are correct we cannot take credit for the "offering" of salvation as it is HIS proposal to us.

He comes knocking on our door. We don't "come to him" in any literal way.
Incorrect we come to him by choice to accept his offering. As it is a contract to obtain eternal life. Thus it take the will of both parties to come to agreement and consumation fo the contract.

We "follow Him" as a response to our trust and faith

No trusting him is following him.


Not understanding your sentence that is how we present ourselves to God at baptism

We take upon Christ in baptism We come into covenant and partake of his death/blood/sacrifice then. A person cannot come to God at baptism without a turned heart. A person presents themselves just as the scripture talked about presenting your gift before the altar. Your gift(yourself in case of baptism) cannot be repsented with enmity or defiled of heart. When you ar baptized to be united in death and covenant your heart must be sold out to him with a complete turning. Baptism is seen as the altar or the place of sacrifice/death which can also be "to assimilate/buried" by which in which Christ is united with us. Thus we are in covenant with him.

gotta go for the day.

[rgcraig]

I just read this quote:

Belief is not merely an agreement with facts in the head, it is also an appetite for God in the heart..Therefore eternal life is not given to people who merely think that Jesus is the Son of God. It is given to people who drink from Jesus as the Son of God...the essence of faith...is more than believing that there is ...such a thing as water and food.

-John Piper, Future Grace

I love that!

[pelathais]

has nothing to do with one-stepper approach. Faith Only is makes a mockery of what "judgment" of just acts is. You cannot be considered "just" until a witness(response) is made evident. Even then that ONLY has to do with God simply not considering you at enmity. Because God considers/reckons you "turned to him" does not mean you have experienced COVENANT which I have pointed out before. you cannot though come into covenant without "the turning" and God judging your response "aright". thus the WHOLE POINT and PRINCIPLE OF

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

You cannot come to God seeking covenant unless your heart has been set right. Atonement cannot take place will mean nothing unless your heart has been judged not at enmity. that is how we present ourselves to God at baptism. We have turned at heart to partake in his death. In which we are united IN SACRIFICE and I am united WITH HIM by faith in the working operation of God. In which we rise to newness of life having been separated from the old man.
Take your teeth out and set them on the desk for a moment - you're confusing yourself by muttering and trying to type at the same time. All of the clacking seems to knocked something loose in your head.

And then go back and re-read my post.

[TheLegalist]

How in the world do you equate what I said to my being "some bumb (SIC) on the street corner getting a free salvation sucker stuck in his mouth?"


wasn't talking about you but in general how so make faith a forced event. LOL!

I really want to like you here, T.L. but your whole misanthrope approach to those who have believed in faith tells me you must spend a lot of time alone and in a very dark place.

ROFL.... now that is funny.


Clean off your glasses again, I did "address" James 2. You've just mangled the context of Genesis 15 - 22 so badly that you appear to be one of Aquila's "time warp aliens."

you addressed it not like to the points I did.

God accounted Abraham righteous in Genesis 15. After the events described in Genesis 22 take place James comes along and says to a group of Christians who have also already been justified - "See, now is Abraham's faith made perfect!"

sorry but James is talking to people are misusing the meaning "faith alone'

most scholars see James rebuking here not some kind hearted oh see....

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?


What you can't deal with is the fact that Abraham was justified by faith already way back in Genesis 15. Also, and this is the heart of the matter - you can't deal with the fact that James is writing to Christian believers who were also already justified by faith.

ROFL... after all i said you still can't read the text. You can't see James said you are not justified by mental assent/faith alone. Mental assent alone is useless as the devils also believe and tremble. Faith is not about knowing facts as you make Abraham doing in Gen 15:6 when James clearly points that it was his works/response.

You've fallen into the trap that Paul told us to avoid in Galatians 2:21, all because you fail to grasp a hold of Galatians 2:20.

:blah

[TheLegalist]

:)

get your quotes right before I respond.

[TheLegalist]

Take your teeth out and set them on the desk for a moment - you're confusing yourself by muttering and trying to type at the same time. All of the clacking seems to knocked something loose in your head.

And then go back and re-read my post.

I knwo exactly what you said as you still don't get it.. have a nice day... I am out!

[Jeffrey]

I just read this quote:

Belief is not merely an agreement with facts in the head, it is also an appetite for God in the heart..Therefore eternal life is not given to people who merely think that Jesus is the Son of God. It is given to people who drink from Jesus as the Son of God...the essence of faith...is more than believing that there is ...such a thing as water and food.

-John Piper, Future Grace
:thumbsup

Not bad for a hard-nosed Calvinist is it!

[pelathais]

I understand that the Bible speaks, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." I see that "remission" is "forgiveness". I see that all of the prophets give witness that through His name, if we believe, we will find remission for our sins. (Acts 10:43). I also find that because I believed all of this I will, therefore, obey the Gospel. I find that if I repent and am baptized, I will receive the remission/forgiveness of my sins. (Acts 2:38). I am not forgiven until I repent and am baptized.
It would take too long right now - but do a search for the word "forgiven" (and "forgiveness" etc.) in the New Testament. At each passage ask yourself, how is a Christian to receive forgiveness for his/her sin? Baptism won't come up one time.

I think that is when the blood takes effect in symbolism. His death is not only in the cross/crucifixion, but also simply because he has died. He was dead on the cross, dead when he was buried. Dead on the cross, dead in the tomb.

Buried with him by baptism into death....reconciled by his death, much more being reconciled by his death, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 6:4; Romans 5:10)
"Reconciled by His death" - not His burial. Upon conversion and after having freely received the gracious justification that is in the blood of Jesus Christ ("the atonement" Romans 5:8-11), the believer then "follows" the Lord into the tomb (a watery grave) and rises up to newness of life.

We are justified, freely, by faith in the redemption/ransom paid in full of Jesus Christ. It was paid in full when he resurrected - death, burial, resurrection. We ourselves, having the fruitfruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23) Not there yet, but I press toward the mark.....
It was paid in full while His body yet hung on the cross (John 19:30 compared with John 4:34; Leviticus 15:16; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:1-9; Colossians 1:20-23; Hebrews 9:22-28; 1 Peter 1:18-20).

Not as though I have already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which I am also apprehended of Christ Jesus. If I could get a hold of Him how He got a hold of me!

We are not fully saved until we walk through those pearly gates, but we have our belief/faith in Him and we have a Gospel to respond to. We are then made a "habitation" of God through His Spirit and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith. (Ephesians 2:22)

My faith had to get me here by some response on my part. My faith and belief that He simply died for me is not going to be enough. What does he say about Abraham? That he believed God and was counted as righteous. But, what else does it say?

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." (Galatians 3:8)

Abraham had some instructions given because He believed, just like we have instructions given to us because of our belief.

I won't be able to respond anymore this afternoon. Just stopped for a bit to post this.
That's cool, P.O. And you are correct about the "just like we have instructions given to us because of our belief."

BUT... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ... that wasn't the point of NOW's opening post and this thread.

Galatians 2:20a, is what this thread is about:

"I was crucified with Christ..."

You're jumping ahead to Galatians 2:20b:

"nevertheless I live..."

We need to get the "crucified" part down and get it correctly or else we'll fall into the trap that Paul warns us about in Galatians 2:21.

[Jeffrey]

If we want to talk about "how to live" Paul covers that in Romans too. Quite exhaustive :) He covers every angle.
Paul affirms we have "died to sin"; we have been taken out from under its tyranny in s transfer so radical and decisive that the language of death and new life can be used of it.

So close is the association of Christ's death to us, that it can be said "we are buried with him."

*throwing out the bait*

[Jeffrey]

We need to get the "crucified" part down and get it correctly or else we'll fall into the trap that Paul warns us about in Galatians 2:21.

:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

It would take too long right now - but do a search for the word "forgiven" (and "forgiveness" etc.) in the New Testament. At each passage ask yourself, how is a Christian to receive forgiveness for his/her sin? Baptism won't come up one time.

"Reconciled by His death" - not His burial. Upon conversion and after having freely received the gracious justification that is in the blood of Jesus Christ ("the atonement" Romans 5:8-11), the believer then "follows" the Lord into the tomb (a watery grave) and rises up to newness of life.

It was paid in full while His body yet hung on the cross (John 19:30 compared with John 4:34; Leviticus 15:16; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:1-9; Colossians 1:20-23; Hebrews 9:22-28; 1 Peter 1:18-20).

That's cool, P.O. And you are correct about the "just like we have instructions given to us because of our belief."

BUT... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ... that wasn't the point of NOW's opening post and this thread.

Galatians 2:20a, is what this thread is about:

"I was crucified with Christ..."

You're jumping ahead to Galatians 2:20b:

"nevertheless I live..."

We need to get the "crucified" part down and get it correctly or else we'll fall into the trap that Paul warns us about in Galatians 2:21.

Sorry, that's the whole picture to me concerning the cross of Jesus Christ. It all rolls up together. I can't compartmentalize the areas. They have to all work together.

[pelathais]

...

We take upon Christ in baptism We come into covenant and partake of his death/blood/sacrifice then. A person cannot come to God at baptism without a turned heart. A person presents themselves just as the scripture talked about presenting your gift before the altar. Your gift(yourself in case of baptism) cannot be repsented with enmity or defiled of heart. When you ar baptized to be united in death and covenant your heart must be sold out to him with a complete turning. Baptism is seen as the altar or the place of sacrifice/death which can also be "to assimilate/buried" by which in which Christ is united with us. Thus we are in covenant with him.

gotta go for the day.
You know, I don't think T.L. is "far from the Kingdom" here. It just seems that he's got this mindset that his own pattern of articulation is the only oracle of God for us today.

It would help if his pattern of articulation was a bit more plain and a bit less ornery; but that can probably be said about any of us. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The metaphor of baptism "as the altar or the place of sacrifice/death" (above) is quite problematic however. The cross is the correct "altar or the place of sacrifice/death." (See Matthew 27:35-51 with Ephesians 2:13-18; also Colossians 1:20-23; Hebrews 9:11-28).

Such obvious misstatements seem to be motivated by an overwhelming desire to promote the "Three Stepper" agenda. I wonder how prevalent this already is among the G.O.B.'s.

Frankly, I am astounded. Is the desire to remove the cross from Christianity so strong that we now have folks who want to make an "altar of sacrifice" out of the Garden Tomb and count the cross of Christ an "unworthy thing?"

Hebrews 10:28-39

[pelathais]

Sorry, that's the whole picture to me concerning the cross of Jesus Christ. It all rolls up together. I can't compartmentalize the areas. They have to all work together.
But they won't work together when people say that they have ""purchased" their own salvation (as TheLegalist said earlier). It won't work. You will fall into the trap that Paul warns us about - you will "frustrate the grace of God..." unless you understand that salvation is a gracious gift.

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

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

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

:thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

You know, I don't think T.L. is "far from the Kingdom" here. It just seems that he's got this mindset that his own pattern of articulation is the only oracle of God for us today.

It would help if his pattern of articulation was a bit more plain and a bit less ornery; but that can probably be said about any of us. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The metaphor of baptism "as the altar or the place of sacrifice/death" (above) is quite problematic however. The cross is the correct "altar or the place of sacrifice/death." (See Matthew 27:35-51 with Ephesians 2:13-18; also Colossians 1:20-23; Hebrews 9:11-28).

Such obvious misstatements seem to be motivated by an overwhelming desire to promote the "Three Stepper" agenda. I wonder how prevalent this already is among the G.O.B.'s.

Frankly, I am astounded. Is the desire to remove the cross from Christianity so strong that we now have folks who want to make an "altar of sacrifice" out of the Garden Tomb and count the cross of Christ an "unworthy thing?"

Hebrews 10:28-39

Here's what Moo says about baptism (as it was used in Chpt 6):

Paul refers in vv.3-4 to water baptism; but baptism is not the theme of the paragraph nor is it Paul's purpose to exposit his theology of baptism. Baptism, rather, functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole. As such, it is the instrument (note the "through" in v. 4) by which we are put into relationship with the death and burial of Christ. It is not, then, that baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ; nor is it that baptism is the place at which we die and rise with Christ. Dying and rising with Christ refers to the participation of the believer in the redemptive events themselves; and the ultimate basis for Paul's appeal in this chapter is not what happened when we were baptized, but what happened when Christ died and rose again. The death of his to sin is also our death to sin; and that resurrection of his to new life, in which we will "participate" in the future, is even now working to enable us to "walk in newness of life."

[Jeffrey]

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

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

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

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

:thumbsup

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

[*AQuietPlace*]

Approaching the organ bench and warming up some good mood music :)
"Oh whyyyyyyyy not tonighttttttttt, oh, whyyyyyy not tonightttttttttt....."

:sing