The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No it does not. lol. I already said I can only speak from experience, and that was my experience, so I cannot speak for other reasons.



No, it means repentance is required to get saved. I had not truly repented.



When misconstrued like you did with it, sure.



You shock me. After all the statements I made that state baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance, and you still say this! Wow. Brother, I thought you were more honest about this than that.



You really shock me with your words today. I was hestitant to agree. but now agree with Leg. that you simply do not want to see another perspective. I am disappointed.

Again, baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance is because repentance is reliance upon the work of the cross alone for forgiveness, and baptism likewise is useless without faith that the cross saves, and Spirit infilling shows God giving utterance for tongues taking away anything in our minds that might think we do not need the cross and God's power to effect anything. but I already said that, and to twist my words like you have here shows me you were not interested in what I actually believe after clearly stating it.

What's shocking is that while I can repent because of faith, I can't fill myself with the Spirit and make myself speak in tongues (well, I probably could, but not the "legit" experience). Therefore, this Grace freely given is much more complicated. I have to wait to be saved. I have to go through a period of heart searching. I have to demonstrate that I really really really believe in Jesus. Then I have to prove that to others by speaking in tongues out loud in front of them. Mike, does that ever make you scratch your head??? It's so central to 3-stepper/UPC teaching, and does not seem even remotely central to Pauline theology on salvation. Paul missed a pretty important topic. You'd think this tongues-required-for-salvation thing would be a hot topic in the NT where everything else was. But no... no controversy with the Jews, Gentiles or any of the churches Paul writes too. The only remote controversy is the gifts of the Spirit at the public assembly. But nothing about this crown jewel of salvation that we dance around????? Salvation by faith, just as Abraham, but now you aren't saved until God fills you with the Spirit AND you speak with tongues?

Surely you can understand why some of us aren't following the logic here.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have no concern in agreeing with your stance but simply agreeing with scripture.


Because the covenant simply said so.



I think not. baptism doth also now even save us. How you can avoid that one is stretching things, bro.



All we do is speak as God givers the utterance. Anyone who speaks in tongues knows this. How can "all this tongues stuff" be a work like you say if YOU speak in tongues and KNOW that it is no effort? Wow, bro. You shock me again.

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that. We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What's shocking is that while I can repent because of faith, I can't fill myself with the Spirit and make myself speak in tongues (well, I probably could, but not the "legit" experience). Therefore, this Grace freely given is much more complicated. I have to wait to be saved. I have to go through a period of heart searching. I have to demonstrate that I really really really believe in Jesus. Then I have to prove that to others by speaking in tongues out loud in front of them. Mike, does that ever make you scratch your head??? It's so central to 3-stepper/UPC teaching, and does not seem even remotely central to Pauline theology on salvation. Paul missed a pretty important topic. You'd think this tongues-required-for-salvation thing would be a hot topic in the NT where everything else was. But no... no controversy with the Jews, Gentiles or any of the churches Paul writes too. The only remote controversy is the gifts of the Spirit at the public assembly. But nothing about this crown jewel of salvation that we dance around????? Salvation by faith, just as Abraham, but now you aren't saved until God fills you with the Spirit AND you speak with tongues?

Surely you can understand why some of us aren't following the logic here.

yeah.... knowing they had not received the HS in Acts 8... no big issue. They only called down the Apostles... Paul asking have you received "since" or "when" you believed.... no big question or issue. As you view and most I know never ask such a question.... WHY? Because the blind faith view does not even think to ask such a question as it is thought autumatic upon belief.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Lest the actual beliefs we propose get buried with strawmen arguments:

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.

The correct emphasis is about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationalist argument which is error.

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?

Neither baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are actions of self making self righteous.

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance.

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.



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.


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 save

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation. If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that. We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

baptism is the realization of the cross... seriously how difficult is this?

Faith is defined by the word/context known to the hearer and believed unto what is said. The cross is faith... Baptism is faith.... Baptism is seen as the pointof the working of God in which we realize Christ and his cross being applied to us and thus we then "abide" in him. THAT IS FAITH!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation. If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.

context... "faith" must be defined. The covenant is not just about hearing and thinking yeah I agree but it is a obligation due to contract. The blood being applied is about authority realized at which Christ can judge. His blood was spilled ONCE and by such he has authority over death, hell and the grave. We DO not realize his blood until we are united with him in his death/blood in baptism.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

What a beautiful chapter if I may add as well.

The writer's argument about how Jesus has become our High Priest. Jesus relates with us vv1-3, he is our Eternal highpriest vv. 4-6, and then the writer gets more to the point, using Jesus' relationship to the Father as an example of our relationship to him. "Though he was God's son, he learned trusting obedience by what he suffered, just as we do. Then having arrived at the full stature of maturity and having been announced by God as high priest he became the source of salvation for all who (believingly) obey him."

The point of this passage is not "how to be saved" but rather "Jesus understands weakness, temptation, testing and sin. So grow up! Be mature! This is a conversation from the end of Chapter 4 which continues through Chapter 6. His audience are those who have believed and are living like unbelievers. Paul says they have "re-crucified Jesus" in a sense.

Chapter 6 softens the rebuke from Paul in a reassurance of their salvation in Christ. God keeps his word and his promise.

All that to say, TL, I don't think proof-texts like this are the best way to "prove" baptismal regeneration.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

And such reasoning from scripture is simply avoided. Anyone with any sense of understanding covenantal works realizes that every covenant has a part for each party to accomplish, otherwise the covenant is not in effect. To say all one needs is faith and repentance are TWO STEPS whether the "one step" folks agree or not. And baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more works for salvation than those two are.

God's part is to save and our part is to obey. If we claim God saves, then it is ridiculously moot for anyone to claim we believe in salvation by works.

The only way we could ever espouse salvation by works is to DENY that the cross is required in any form for us to be saved by baptism and Spirit infilling. Ironically, though. KWSS and others claim there is no real difference between the times before and after the cross. This implies that the cross is not necessary to save! And yet you and I are accused of salvation by works without the cross! Go figure.

This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain. That was obvious since Abraham on... that's the beauty of the Gospel. The covenantal part of that is God original covenant continued, he'd save those who believe in him by faith. He's made that possible through Jesus. To employ new ways of entering into covenant is simply in error. Repentance is what one does BECAUSE OF faith, not to prove their faith. Faith has already happened. We stand justified at that moment.

The cross makes all the difference in the world. What has not changed is God's everlasting and eternal covenant with His people, which was redeveloped in the New Testament to finally include Gentiles, part of God's plan all along (not just a Plan B repudiation against the Jews).

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We'll see days more sorry than this, sister. Unfortunately, watch.

I think apostolic stances should be protected here. After all, we disallow attacks against Oneness.

Unfortunately, what you define as "Apostolic" is not so easily definable, nor is "Pentecostal." This has been a problem since the turn of the last century. Fact is, most "Pentecostals" and "Apostolics" aren't 3-steppers. So if it goes by majority for definition, the position to maintain would be the Protestant call of salvation by faith. None of our brothers and sisters at Azusa traveled there to be saved. Ignorant preachers who felt they had to formulate a doctrine of their experience put together many of the doctrines taught in Pentecostal circles. The Spirit baptism renewal was not to redefine the theology of the church, as much as to reinstall the charismata back to the church.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Me, too. All that can be done is that our thoughts on how works are useless without dependence on the cross to save is to shove them further beneath a strawman argument.

I admit some build straw men, because I know your intention is not to deny the cross. Though, the language of all is not a straw man... it's an articulation of what many feel your position implies, even though you wouldn't accept the statement.