The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

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

LOL - - you are funny!

Did you like that? Hopefully, the irony of it all was detected!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

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

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

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

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

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

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

Your response was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

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

"Law" and "works" are the same thing in Pauline theology.

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

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

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

I hope that I have persuaded you to drop the "anti-Evangelical" crusade when it comes to having a discussion with "One Steppers."

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

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

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

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

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

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

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

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

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And most importantly...

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

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