The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your speculation about "if God knew" is just that: purely speculative. What a STREEEEEEETCH.

I see no speculation at all. James explained all this!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "One Step" position has always been that "the blood is applied at repentance." That is the historical reality.

The teaching of how baptism is integral to salvation is also historically a position always maintained by others, but not in a manner of salvation by works.

You appear to be adding some form of hyper-Calvinism whereby predestination completely overwhelms the choices that we make. That is NOT "One Stepper" theology.

No. I am simply saying that if repentance is required, as one steppers say, then it is contradictory to say that baptism is not since it is a work. So one has to sidestep even repentance to avoid that one step contradiction.

Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Peter said, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21

Paul said, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

Jesus said again, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

The list is almost endless. The "One Stepper" theology has always called for repentance. And, your reasoning is flawed if you say, "Well, if you have to repent then you have to... [fill in the blank]..."

I see no flaw in it at all. Principly, baptism and Spirit infilling is as much a work as repentance, so you cannot say repentance is required but the other two are not.

All the sinner is ever called to do is to repent. All of the stuff that has been added on to that call has either been to support the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or more recently, a result of John Wesley's problems in grappling with the notion of sinless perfection.

I disagree. People preached required baptism long before the RCC existed! Peter said it saves!

[mfblume]

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.

You missed my point. The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

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

Inapplicable and moot. Again, read my emphasis about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationist argument which is error.

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

It matters not, bro. The issue is whether or not they are self efforts that are done through self-s abilities to make self righteous without God's grace making us righteous. Why does this keep getting away from THAT issue? That is the issue Paul dealt with in speaking of salvation by works, which is the implication folks give when they accuse people of saying we must speak in tongues to be saved?

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.

Sure. But neither are actions of self making self righteous.

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

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance, though.

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.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.

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.

Which is why baptism and tongues should not be referred to in speaking of what someone does to be saved, as though they were works of the law. So folks have to stop using that language, since that basis of works of law are what they are implying when they use it.

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.

Good. So no one here can criticize people who believe we need Spirit Baptism as part of new birth by saying we require tongues to be saved.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

So there are TWO STEPS? Faith and then repentance?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance, though.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.

I see that more clearly now, Bro. Blume. I agree that it's reference is in Exodus. I'll be more careful with that wording in the future. Mainly because, as you said, the NT doesn't use language of applying the blood.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Pel,
For heaven's sake - NO. He is not asking saved people to become saved once again. lol The point being made in II Thess 1:8 is that someone is going to end up in fiery flames if they do not obey the Gospel. He is speaking of someone giving them trouble who is not being receptive to the Gospel message.

For you to say there are no tasks involved is erroneous. I would prefer to say "action" on our part. II Thess 1:8 is saying that someone was not listening, cooperating, nor responding to the action required of them and their end is not going to be pleasant.

It is not as simple as saying - It's free. Free is being liberated. You are putting it in the context of having no cost - a monetary element.

Whatever "tasks" can be associated with "believing the Gospel" are the only "tasks" required. If someone has to scratch their chin while they ponder the mysteries of salvation before they then act in faith and believe - then "scratching their chin" is a part of their salvation, in a sense. But it would obviously be silly to say that such a thing is a "work" that they must do in order to be saved.

Of course, they had to consume carbohydrates and proteins to get the food energy for their brain cells to function in the first place, and before that their parents had to be introduced at Bible College... the list of such "works" is really an endless chain going back to the very foundation of the world when Jesus Christ chose us to be complete in Him in the first place!

Given that chain of events, well, I guess we have to wrestle with those pesky Calvinistic notions again.

We are to respond to the call of Jesus Christ when He bids us, "Come!" Whatever it takes for a person to metaphorically "get out of their chair" and to follow our Lord - then that's what it takes.

The attempt to cloud the issue by adding the whole confused jargon of "repentance is a work, believing is a work" is a red herring, IMHO. The fact that they will then add, "baptism is a work," men wearing short hair and women uncut hair is a work, wearing hosiery with seams is a work... etc." to what is "required" for salvation shows their true intentions.

Seeking to achieve "balance" the Calvinist would then go all the way back over to God's plan and foreknowledge.

I prefer to just exist in the "here and now" with real people making real choices that will affect their lives (without completely ignoring all the rest).

Belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the standard of salvation. Jesus shed His blood at Calvary for the remission (Matthew 26:28) and as a propitiation (Romans 3:25) for our sins. Propitiation = "atoning sacrifice."

Faith in Jesus Christ (repentance, conversion, whatever you want to call it) is how "the blood is applied" to the door posts and lintels of our hearts.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. This accounting was done before Abraham had done anything else other than "Come" (leave Haran).

Over time, Abraham's works gave tremendous testimony to his faith (James 2:23), but Abraham was counted as "righteous" before those works were accomplished (Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3-6 and Galatians 3:6-14).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You didn't finish the rest of this passage - "Take my yoke upon you..."

Oh! I didn't know there was more to that verse...

Count how many times that I've quoted or cited that very passage in this thread. Half a dozen times already? Ten times? Something like that.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We have responsibilities on our part. How is His yoke easy and His burden light? "Casting all of your cares upon Him, for He careth for you." (I Peter 5:7)

And "casting our cares" is another "work" to be added to the long list of "works?"

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I like the reading in the CEV for Romans 5:15-21. Free simply means that it not something that we can do ourselves - shed our own blood. That was his doings. The typology of the lamb without spot or blemish, the kinsman Reedeemer, etc. We could never have measured up to being qualified.

This is exactly what I been saying, but you've been taking issue with. We simply couldn't do it on our own and there is no way that we can "pay it back." Thus, it is offered freely to all who believe.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe He gives us a measure of faith (Romans 12:3), but it is our responsibility to respond in obedience. Acts 5:32 says that the Holy Ghost was given to those that "obeyed". That means they had to do something on their part to receive that gift.

Yes, they had to "tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." But, the blood that cleansed them from sin had already been shed. The "remission" of sins was already in effect (Matthew 26:28).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't like using terms that we've come up with, but if you want to say three-stepper - okay - we seem to be forced into using it. I don't find any of those steps as laborious tasks or burdens. I view them, also, as privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

And they are in fact just the first steps of a life long walk. But the first "step" is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ as the payment for the penalty for our sins. When that faith is utilized, the blood itself is applied.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And as much as you want to say there are no instructions for anything we "have to do" on our part, except to believe, I beg to differ.

Are you quoting me accurately here?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17 beg to differ. Those two scriptures alone let you know that only believing is not going to save you.

If you don't obey the Gospel, you are going to have a fiery end. I guess that is not lovely enough or positive enough to include in a message, huh? lol [/quote]
Getting into the blood that was shed isn't the most pleasant of topics for many people either, but that's the Gospel.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Your last few paragraphs reveal where the angst of this issue actually lies, Pel.

Ohhh... you don't know the half of it, Sis! But I won't burden you at this time.

And, I think that it is an important point to have "angst" about. The whole Onesness movement is a mess, in large part due to our common inability to come to terms with the Gospel itself.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I did not say that "nothing is demanded on my part". My exact quote is: "This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief."

The dichotomy of that statement struck me, that's all. "Nothing... and yet something."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No. I am simply saying that if repentance is required, as one steppers say, then it is contradictory to say that baptism is not since it is a work. So one has to sidestep even repentance to avoid that one step contradiction.

It is a contrived "contradiction" however. Abraham did something and God accounted that as "righteousness." What did Abraham do? Was he baptized? Was he circumcised? Did he offer the blood of bulls and goats or even his own son?

No.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

It was the apostle Paul of Tarsus who made such a big deal out of this.

Romans 4:3-6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:20-25; Galatians 3:6-14; Hebrews 11:8.

Before you skip down to Genesis 22 and James 2, you must first complete your reading of Genesis 15 and the related NT passages. This, I think, is how we end up in our present differences.