Love One Another and the Cross

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, salvation by works is not possible. that is doing something to get something, it doesn't work like that. But that does not mean that you will not be known by your fruit

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I know we have been round the block on this subject a few times, but there are still some questions in my mind that just don't line up.

But first Acts 2:38 is a set of works, no matter how I wrangle it, it still comes down to works. Not only that according to apostolic's it is not just one work but three. Repentance, baptism and speaking in tongues. In essence you are doing something to get something!

Yes it has been said that faith can be considered a work as it is doing something. But right here in Ephesians Paul uses faith as the counterpart to works so that argument does not work.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

understanding it will not save you; and your speech in other areas belies your understanding, wadr. You believe that Acts 2:38 is the doctrine, and argue against Scripture that plainly tells you "Love one another" is. Not that this won't change someday, as surely it will.

I never argued against scripture. I said love one another does not save. That is salvation be my works. Without the cross any way to heaven is salvation by works.

Saying something is doctrine does not mean it is how to be saved. I never said anything about acts 2:38 is "the doctrine" either. It is doctrine, sure. But it is more correctly the plan of salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I know we have been round the block on this subject a few times, but there are still some questions in my mind that just don't line up.

But first Acts 2:38 is a set of works, no matter how I wrangle it, it still comes down to works. Not only that according to apostolic's it is not just one work but three. Repentance, baptism and speaking in tongues. In essence you are doing something to get something!

Yes it has been said that faith can be considered a work as it is doing something. But right here in Ephesians Paul uses faith as the counterpart to works so that argument does not work.

I still insist you misunderstand what works are on the context the bible speaks of them when it says they don't save.

Works for salvation that are wrong are efforts to earning salvation totally apart from the cross paying for it. Acts 2:38 is useless if there is no cross. That is the litmus test. If something is required of us, and it's useless without the cross, then it can never be categorized as salvation by works.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I still insist you misunderstand what works are on the context the bible speaks of them when it says they don't save.

Works for salvation that are wrong are efforts to earning salvation totally apart from the cross paying for it. Acts 2:38 is useless if there is no cross. That is the litmus test. If something is required of us, and it's useless without the cross, then it can never be categorized as salvation by works.

Yes we have been down this road before, and still disagree, and for the record I am even becoming more of the opinion that Acts 2:38 are works.

James the passage many used to attempt to prove salvation must include works, does not say works saves us. Rather "I will show you my faith by my works" and "faith without works is dead". Just as Paul tells us that Abraham was not saved by works but faith. His righteousness was imputed to him before circumcision. One that is saved will go on to be baptized, and love one another. But one that professes faith that does not have a life change cannot be said to be saved.

That being said everything is useless without the cross. The question is did not the cross fulfill the prophecies or not. Did not the cross bring in everlasting righteousness? That which is accepted by faith?

I have said this before, and it has been pushed off, in a manner of speaking.
In the OT under the law the general populace did not do one thing in order to secure their salvation. It was all done by the priest. The people brought a sacrifice by faith that everything would be taken care of by the priest. They went home believing that their sin was taken care of. Today we bring our selves to our high priest Jesus Christ. And by faith we go home believing our sin is taken care of.

But by apostolic's faith is not good enough, we must complete a set of steps, before one says their salvation is secure.
I am sorry but I do not believe that Acts 2:38 is the plan. there was no plan in the whole of the OT there is no plan today.

[shazeep]

very nice

1Therefore, leaving the elementary message about the Messiah, let us go on to maturity

Scripture says that we will do this if God permits. How strange is that? I am struck by how our churches are reflected in this verse (Heb6:1), and our Christians; whether OP or not, we have Christian leaders of 20+ years espousing Acts 2:38, or whatever their sect's "elementary message" is. I am reminded of 12 step meetings, for some weird reason, where you can never hear more than the first 3 steps. Not that any of these things is "bad," this may be their entire purpose--but the early Church was different. But then we are not in the early Church, and i'm not sure that we should be trying to be.

11And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.

Now i would argue that "Love one another" is the plan, but i might be just agreeing with you, essentially; there is no special ritual to accepting Christ, iow.

13For the One these things are spoken about belonged to a different tribe. No one from it has served at the altar. (Jesus did not come from Levi)

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If something is required of us, and it's useless without the cross, then it can never be categorized as salvation by works.

However, what if nothing is required of you? (except faith)

you have to admit that OPs require works for salvation, even while you say that works cannot save. If one does not "speak in tongues," they are not saved, according to the OP doctrine (and completely disregarding "as the spirit gives utterance," imo, but never mind). And that is just an example; surely, i must go further, and at least verbally agree with an OP trying to "save" me--i must do works, iow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Yes we have been down this road before, and still disagree, and for the record I am even becoming more of the opinion that Acts 2:38 are works.

Then you are saying Peter preached salvation by works.

James the passage many used to attempt to prove salvation must include works, does not say works saves us.

But Peter spoke to lost souls who asked him what to do, and he responded with Acts 2:38.

Mark my words, lol, you're going to stand before God and give an account for why you failed to learn that works for salvation only referred to earning it by means of actions that DO NOT REQUIRE THE CROSS to be effective. Mark my words. The more I studied the cross, and the more revelation I received of it, the more I realized what salvation by works meant, and what legalism actually is.

Rather "I will show you my faith by my works" and "faith without works is dead". Just as Paul tells us that Abraham was not saved by works but faith. His righteousness was imputed to him before circumcision. One that is saved will go on to be baptized, and love one another. But one that professes faith that does not have a life change cannot be said to be saved.

But what you fail to realize is that God knew if Abraham WOULD GET CIRCUMCISED OR NOT when God saw Abram's heart when it believed. Do you think God would have seen a heart and a faith that he would deem righteous if it was in that heart to not be circumcised when God commanded it later?

That being said everything is useless without the cross. The question is did not the cross fulfill the prophecies or not. Did not the cross bring in everlasting righteousness? That which is accepted by faith?

That is not the question. Again, the question is, "Is something able to earn us heaven apart from the cross?"

Salvation by works is about EARNING. It's about PAYMENT. Entrance into heaven has to be PAID FOR. That is why 1 cor 6 says we were BOUGHT with a price.

Acts 2:38 is only the WALK toward the table that has the banquet on it. The walk does not EARN the banquet. Someone else EARNED AND PAID for it. But we merely WALK to the banquet to get it, and those who do not make those STEPS do not enjoy the banquet. You're making it out as though Acts 2:38 PAYS FOR THE MEAL and PURCHASES IT, when that is not the case at all. In fact, I think you are simply not seeing that WORKS in the context of salvation by works ARE PURCHASING entrance into heaven, when they really are! Nothing more.

I have said this before, and it has been pushed off, in a manner of speaking.
In the OT under the law the general populace did not do one thing in order to secure their salvation. It was all done by the priest. The people brought a sacrifice by faith that everything would be taken care of by the priest. They went home believing that their sin was taken care of. Today we bring our selves to our high priest Jesus Christ. And by faith we go home believing our sin is taken care of.

But they had to go to the priest and identify themselves as being part of those for whom he would work. That is all that Acts 2:38 is. Acts 2:38 is not the individual asking God to observe how GOOD he is getting baptized so God need not have Christ die on the cross because this person did the baptism better than another person, or than another who never got baptized at all. Acts 2:38 is only walking to the banquet that has already been paid for by Christ, only we don't get to enjoy the paid banquet without walking up to the table.

But by apostolic's faith is not good enough, we must complete a set of steps, before one says their salvation is secure.

We only have to MAKE STEPS to the table, or else we're simply not at the PAID FOR banquet.

I am sorry but I do not believe that Acts 2:38 is the plan. there was no plan in the whole of the OT there is no plan today.

Sorry, there is. Most plainly there is.

The Old Testament saints had to be circumcised OR THEY WERE OUT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL. Baptism is NT circumcision. You are OUT of the kingdom without it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

very nice

1Therefore, leaving the elementary message about the Messiah, let us go on to maturity

Scripture says that we will do this if God permits. How strange is that? I am struck by how our churches are reflected in this verse (Heb6:1), and our Christians; whether OP or not, we have Christian leaders of 20+ years espousing Acts 2:38, or whatever their sect's "elementary message" is. I am reminded of 12 step meetings, for some weird reason, where you can never hear more than the first 3 steps. Not that any of these things is "bad," this may be their entire purpose--but the early Church was different. But then we are not in the early Church, and i'm not sure that we should be trying to be.

11And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.

Now i would argue that "Love one another" is the plan, but i might be just agreeing with you, essentially; there is no special ritual to accepting Christ, iow.

13For the One these things are spoken about belonged to a different tribe. No one from it has served at the altar. (Jesus did not come from Levi)

Acts 2:38 is not a ritual. It is useless without FAITH in Christ's death as being that into which we must be baptized. THE DEATH paid for the salvation. baptism is only the WALK INTO THE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BANQUET.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

However, what if nothing is required of you? (except faith)

There is no "what if". It is required. Peter commanded it and said it is part of salvation.

you have to admit that OPs require works for salvation, even while you say that works cannot save.

They are not works for salvation if they do not save.

If one does not "speak in tongues," they are not saved,

You again totally misrepresent the position of tongues. That is not to say that some people in apostolic circles do not mistaken tongues for what you say, I think many do. That is ignorance, and lot of it is actually fleshly and uneducated ignorance.

Tongues is INITIAL EVIDENCE of what saves, not what saves in and of itself. Whenever I see someone make the same misrepresentation you just did, I always respond by saying the pizza-delivery dude brings in the pizza we wanted, and the AROMA is only the evidence it's there. But I never paid for a smell! I paid for a pizza!

according to the OP doctrine (and completely disregarding "as the spirit gives utterance," imo, but never mind). And that is just an example; surely, i must go further, and at least verbally agree with an OP trying to "save" me--i must do works, iow.

You misrepresent the actual position, whether people in the movement mistake it as you do, or not.

[shazeep]

hmm i'd argue that circumcision of the heart is NT circumcision, not baptism; but i'm out of time, i'll come back later. Have a good day