Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

This needs to be answered. There is a proliferation on the forum of a crossless salvation lately.

Is the work of the cross (i.e., the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for our justification and righteousness and remission of sins) not necessary, so long as we do to others what we would have them do to us? In other words, does salvation come by works? That is what the question is asking.

We must do to others what we would have done to us. But that does not save us. It is just what must be done AFTER salvation. It can never save. It truly is NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD.

It has been proposed on this apostolic forum that if a person never believed in Jesus dying on the cross, the same salvation the cross provides is provided so long as people do unto others what they would have done unto them. Is this true? That is essentially what the poll is asking.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

The reality of the cross' glory is seen in true grace. Unmerited favour. God saw us with absolutely no redeeming qualities about us. Nothing we had within us and nothing we had the capability of doing could save ourselves. We were utterly worthless in and of ourselves, except for the fact that we were the focus of God's greatest love. Not because of what we could do or how good we were. We were vile sinners. And the absolutely wonderful reality about the cross was that it showed God loving us so much that His Son was given to die. Jesus died for us while we were sinners.

Paul the apostle stated this was unprecedented love.

Rom 5:6-8....For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ..(7)....For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. ..(8)....But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The world cannot comprehend this kind of love. The world will not love unless they receive back in return. Sinners cannot understand how Jesus could ask the Father forgiveness for the murderers who crucified Him. In Luke 23, all around the crucifixion we read about everyone deriding Him and mocking Him. And when the women wept for Him, He was more concerned over them than He was Himself when he told them to weep for themselves and their children. That generation was going to be slaughtered in 40 years when judgment would come to Jerusalem because of the cross.

But He asked forgiveness for those wicked, sinful murderers.

Talk about grace! Unmerited favour!

What does the world say about it? It's a MYTH! Cannot be true! You cannot love someone if you think they are a sinner.

And this has raised the hate of the world in believers, especially lately due to the fact that gay rights are being promoted and forced in situations where they ought not be forced. Schools forced to cater to homosexuality with transgendered washroom laws. They cannot stand the thought that Christians and the Bible consider homosexaulity an abomination to God. To them, if you think someone is a sinner you can only hate the person. they cannot comprehend the love of God that loves people while they're in sin. The only way they can imagine love is if there are no sinners. So they call Christians hateful people who believe homosexuality is sin.

But this is actually a prime atmosphere to witness to them about the love of God. Jesus DID die for us all when all of us were sinners. That is the core of our religion! Love for sinners. In fact, until we confess the fact we are sinners and cannot earn our way to glory because any good that comes from sinners like us can never save ourselves, we believe we cannot be saved.

Not only is the basis of our religion the love of God for sinners who cannot save themselves, but we are taught to love those who despitefully use us and do good to them who despise and hate us. We are taught to turn the other cheek and not render evil for evil.

And beyond all of that, aside from Jesus, Stephen preached in Acts 7 to Israel and told them they were vile and wicked people and they killed the Just One, Jesus Christ, and God's wrath would come. He held nothing back from accusing them of being sinners. And when the world would cry, "HATE SPEECH!", they started to stone him to death. But while he was dying, he not only commended his spirit to Jesus as Jesus commended His own to the Father on the cross, Stephen also asked for the forgiveness of his murderers, and that murder to not be laid to their charge.

Hate speech? lol

And THIS kind of love cannot be accepted by the world. So the world calls Christians haters and the bible hate speech.

If they cling to the Bible, but maintain homosexuality is still no sin, like some deceived churches propose, they still manifest the same worldly concept of love: You cannot love someone if you think someone is a sinner. So, these churches are dark, deceived and as blind as the world, and have no right to be so much as called "churches."

At any rate, the recent proliferation of accusations of hate and wickedness leveled against people on this forum like myself for saying people are sinners and are lost, is the same spirit and deception of unbelief as the world holds because they believe we cannot love people if we accuse them of being lost.

Basically, this is a manifestation of unbelief in the reality of the love of God that loves people while they are yet sinners. This worldly love cannot love to that degree. It has to convince itself these sinful lifestyles are not sinful, because they can get themselves to love those people involved in them. Not Christians. Christians are taught to love everyone regardless of their sin. And the only kind of so-called "Christianity" that these unbelievers actually have is the kind that holds signs up saying God hates gay people, when in reality anyone who reads their bible knows that God loves gay people and every other sinner who exists on earth, like he loved us BEFORE He washed us from those sins.

The world cannot grasp this verse. Notice the terms used to describe how God WASHED, NOT OVERLOOKED, sins from people, showing us we are not that way forever, but can CHANGE from any sinful lifestyle by the power of God.

1Co 6:9-11....You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, ..(10)....thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. ..(11)....That is what [b]some of you were! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah and by the Spirit of our God.

What can was away my sins? NOTHING but the blood of Jesus. Not the golden rule, not works of law... nothing saves but the blood of Jesus.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

unfortunately, rather than simply ask the question, you have imposed your bias upon it in post #1, which does not accurately reflect the principal. if you will try again, and ask from my pov as i did for you, i will vote. i submit that you will not be able to even do this, with all due respect, as phrasing the Q correctly is not in the interests of your agenda.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Answer the poll according to the actual question.

Who cares about post #1? Just answer the poll itself. If you do not think salvation by the golden rule without the cross is salvation by works, then disagree it is. And everyone here will know that is how you answered.

But please explain how it is not salvation by works.

Also, let's all chime in and ask whether or not salvation through the golden rule without the cross is not salvation by works.

In fact I will ask ADMIN to delete the first post. so you can answer yes or no.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Personally I cant remember meeting one person in 42 years of Jesus that seemed like a Christian who ever believed such a thing.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

I did not either until I met...

He actually believes you can be saved by the golden rule without believing Jesus was actually crucified. But he can speak for himself.

MTD, would you say that idea is salvation by works?

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

the actual question is misrepresentative and therefore pointless, sorry. It is not 'without the cross,' it is the Word of Christ, man :lol

as i say, you will not be able to pose a neutral question that would elicit a meaningful response.

How is the question itself misrepresentative? Explain what it should be.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

you have intentionally introduced a question within a question to reinforce your pov. "Does practicing the GR save one" would be a neutral question, and "does practicing the GR save one, like Christ said" would be my pov. And the fact that i have to make this clear is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Like Christ said?

That is not neutral by any means!

The question could be, "Did Christ say practicing the golden rule saves us?"


It's not ridiculous because you make statements that leave one with these questions.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

So, Shazeep, first you said the question on its own should have been left on its own without the first post.

Then when I ask you to answer just the question, and clarify to all that you did, you say the question is biased and slanted. You never said that at first. You said the question was fine, but the first post was your issue.

So, if the question is biased, howso? From what you have stated, people do not need to believe in the cross of Jesus, but simply do to others as they would have people do to them. That's what I mean when I say "without the cross."

So what's the problem?

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Gandhi died lost.

Mother Teresa died lost.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson died lost.

Father Guido Sarducci died lost.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

1 Peter 2:24-25

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. or ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

No Cross, no regeneration to newness of life.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

And he died lost. :(

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Believing that without the cross we can be saved? I'm stunned. No matter how you phrase or rephrase such a question... without the cross, the blood of Christ applied in our lives, there can be no regeneration of our flesh.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Right. Our friend is saying the act of doing good to others as we would have done to us, does for us the same thing as the cross does. So, without the cross having occurred, this golden rule supposedly saves us in the same way the cross does, according to "some".

Since Jesus said it fulfills the law, this opinion claims that means it saves. Somehow, fulfilling the law is salvation to our friend.

Thoughts from others?

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Amen, that is true no matter how much we do to others as we would have the, do to us.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Wasn't aware that Rob Bell posts here.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Mr B, i did not say that it was. You need to go read the post again, perhaps.
that would also be fine, yes.
one who reads what they want to read, yes. But as soon as you read the post without a preconceived agenda, we are going to be back to 'ridiculous,' Mr B.

And this is why it is so difficult to pretend to have a convo with you, with all due respect. I continue here only because i am encouraged by 67 million people who seek God, most of whom can read.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

:lol so we're doing a comedy routine now, ok.
The problem is possibly that you have already made up your mind, and cannot even hear what i actually stated, since you cannot quote me ever saying what you represent that i said.

so we have a situation here where i directly quote you, and you deny the quote, and you misquote me or truncate my quotes to force your pov, and then you ask me what the problem is.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

the problem is that you do not know these, and you are just comforting yourself and others with some words that you cannot prove, and disregarding much Scripture that condemns you.

Because you did not come to your belief like Paul did; someone led you there, and you now defend a groupthink because you are personally invested in it, like they are. This is a house built on sand, and the sand is shifting, right now.

No Cross, no regeneration to newness of life.i can't disagree there; but i can sure point out Scripturally that there are many who believe they have "said it correctly" and so they are good to go, yet they obviously have not changed their minds. Your religion teaches that they are saved, but Christ tells us directly that many people in the established churches are going to be aghast and amazed that Christ does not know them after all the religious stuff they did for Him. Of course that passage was meant for someone else, surely, so i wouldn't worry about it too much. :)

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

yes, this is a danger, and therefore a valid argument imo. But agape is not human good, or being nice when it suits you, and you have to consider when tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom ahead of you. Of course that is likely meant for someone else, so i wouldn't worry about it too much :lol

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Nothing funny intended.

Hold on. You told me the golden rule is the same thing God did with the cross, and said that is why people who don't know about the cross but commit the golden rule can be saved. Do you believe that or not? Enough with your intentions analysis. You're not God, and you don't know my intentions.

Where? Lay it out.

If you think I did that, then stop saying I did and lay it out. I never denied I said anything you actually quoted. No,w you are known to take something I said, and ignore the explanation and context I said it with.

For example, recently you quoted me about what I said in extending the golden rule. I said those words, but you did not understand my meaning in that sentence. is that what you are referring to? It's not that I did not say it, it's that I did not mean what you thought I meant,. You always think the worse in violation of 1 Cor 13.

I am doing none of these things, and make these points for you to respond to and clarify if you can. But you have your mind made up about my intentions, like you're God who alone knows intentions, so don't talk about misquoting. I give you the chance to clarify. Just do it.

Just explain yourself and stop thinking the worst case scenario as to what a mistake was made. I never saw someone think the worst so much.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

And by saying that, do you believe one need not even know about the cross and be saved, since they practiced the golden rule?

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

amen! The last quote i got from your camp regarding applying the blood of the cross to our lives was-and i quote-
"Read some Paul, and voila."

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

you employ every manner of deceit in our conversation, yet call me "friend."

In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

of course you are gonna want to run to your conception of 'faith' here, and dither over that, but do try and read the point here, and we can discuss that somewhere else. You are going to be very hard-pressed to separate salvation and fulfilling the law imo. Christ = the fulfillment of the law.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Father Sarducci is not an argument. You have no sense of humour.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Have you forgotten your first love?

Remember when you pledged to yourself that if a better understanding of Scripture were to come along, you would consider it?

Considering requires an open mind; is it possible that your mind has somehow maybe become closed, without you even realizing it, and your heart has changed from that first day, when you had no preconceptions?

Did you come to these concepts on your own--like Paul--or did someone or some group lead you to them?

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

yes, it was funny Esaias, but Guido was making an argument also, and you are making a joke at my expense, so to speak, at likely at the expense of someone's salvation. tra-la.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

you make your intentions plain, Mr B.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

I first saw the Father on SNL back when I was kid. Along with Roseanne Rosannadanna and Jane Curtain and John Belushi and Jane Curtain and Dan Akroyd, etc. I confess, the SNL crew led me to an appreciation of Father Sarducci's unique theology.

I vowed never to change my opinion of him, and I will maintain it to the end no matter how much you scream and yell about how he is passe and we need to move on.

Sarducci For Life!

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Lighten up, Francis.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

I don't believe this is an "honest" thread.

Bro. Blume, it seems you are using this thread to keep up your banter
with shazeep, that false prophet, and giving him a place for his rantings.
In the meantime, it seems you want to want to gather opposition to
shazeep . . . for what purpose? It is only giving that false prophet just
another platform to use a little truth to introduce his lies.

It's time to go back to basics, Brother!

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

what does it matter, if you believe that the Golden Rule is impossible to practice? Knowledge of, and even belief in, the Cross for salvation will not save one. satan has knowledge of the cross, and not only believes but knows for a fact that faith in the Cross will save someone. So what.

So, you continue to posit practicing the Golden Rule as something that only need be done after one has said the correct words, that please men; meaning them "really" and not faking it, no fingers crossed or whatever :lol

read your quote again, and recognize how you might be searching the Scriptures for Christ, as He stands in front of you issuing guidance for translating spiritual principle into practice. Allow for the possibility that you might be fighting God here.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

i did not say that he was passe, E, and i love the guy, too :lol
but you were using him against me, c'mon, weren't you? You did not mean for the arg in his meme to be reinforcing, or at least it didn't seem that way.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Now you're lying. He never said what you are claiming. You are coming across, once again, as a petulant little twit of a forum troll. Try another method, you might get somewhere. As it is, your just blowing bandwidth on nonsense.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

Dude, not every post is about YOU. You need to get outside more. Life is passing you by. The intardnets are sucking the life force out of you, turning you into a Podling slave of the Skeksis. Ignore the Crystal Bats flying around your head.

Re: Does the golden rule save without the cross?
 

ya, ok, i guess i wasn't supposed to react to the intent or something, got you.
amen to that--i think i have already pretty well pointed out the dishonesty.
easy to say, harder to prove. all i am suggesting is that one follow what Christ Himself commands us, and get over parsing what others have said about Him, and the minute you detect otherwise then BAM point it out. But i submit that you cannot, while i in fact can do the opposite where your camp is concerned.

Don't forget to take that chapter Paul wrote about avoiding groupthink into account when you go back to your "basics," btw.