The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sam, I agree with Adam Clarke:

Rom 6:3
Know ye not, etc. - Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts.

Baptism is a planting into death. Spirit Baptism is not about that. No other baptism is. Water baptism alone is about that.

Romans 6 is about water baptism, but the water is not what we are planted into that does anything, but rather Christ's death.

Water Baptism as part of baptismal regeneration teaches that the planting is actually into the water. lol. But it is a planting into Christ's death. And since those who understand water baptism correctly realize that we are not physically lowered into Christ's physical death, but merely water, and yet burial into His death is the point of water baptism, realize that FAITH is required for this to effect anything. This denies baptismal regeneration.

The scholars of older days had it more correct than most today. Most today claim water baptism is not the theme of Romans 6. However, it is.

John Gill wisely noted:

were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ

Modern scholarship makes no sense of Acts 22:16.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.

Haven't read it all, but I'm surprised you'd agree with Adam Clarke, a trinitarian who trashes the validity of a large parts of the King James Version. I assume you're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones"?

I'll read more.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of hte sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.

Mike the point is Abraham entered every covenant because of a "previous and continued" response. Gen 12 and Gen 15:8-10 We do not enter Covenant at mental belief of something that is true. Because God judges a response just doesn't mean covenant is made. Nowhere is there any covenant given in Gen 15:6. God is simply considering the response of "it", just. God can present something or speak of what he wants to come to past. It doesn't mean we have obtained it nor are in covenant. Just as Abraham in Gen 15:8. "how do I possess/obtain it" God offers and is the source to those who obey that ask the question. Just like the person asked Jesus "what must I do to obtain eternal life" God's coming into covenant is always a result of response.

If we say anything else James is a liar that "faith alone" does not bring about God's judgment/consideration of our response to the context of his Word. Faith must be ajudged "right" "complete" "just" God judged cornelius and his household well before Peter came. God considered there hearts right toward him. Peter simply became the mouth piece to allow the "hearing" of which God showed there heart was already acceptable for entering covenant by manifesting his Spirit. Thus he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized saying
""Can anyone withhold water..." They had not entered covenant yet an obtained unification with Christ. THough God had already judged there heart.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Are you kidding? I can hardly get things out in an hour! lol

••Whew!! What's the average length of your sermons?! I try to max out at 30 min, but it doesn't always work.

I am only going by the terms that folks on this forum have used. But that repentance you believe in is no more a work for salvation than baptism is.

••Oh, yes it is! And, it's recorded in the New Testament over FIFTY times!

Why? Righteousness is a gift, and also a requirement!

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

••Tongues is righteousness?? What does speaking in tongues have to do with righteousness??

One CANNOT improve oneself. That is my point. Improving oneself is making oneself righteous. All we can do is empty ourselves of what is wrong. But we cannot give ourselves anything that is good.

The problem is that, I think, you are trying to find fault in what I am saying rather than actually hearing me out. personally, I think you do not want to agree with me, which makes you find SOMETHING wrong in my words, so you remain confused in my words when you cannot find something.

••Well Mike, you said that you "Let go of sin" and then you received "The Holy Ghost." You said it didn't happen until you did something. I'm not sure what else to call it. Did "Letting go of sin" improve you or not? If you don't want to say you "Improved yourself", at the very least we'd have to say you "Did something" and received "The Holy Ghost."

See? this is what I mean. I never said anything about earning anything. But5 you are putting words in my mouth at every turn. First you say it is improving oneself to be baptized, and now you say we are earning righteousness.

Anyway, you are right about earning gifts! But if they had something in their hands that hindered you from handing them a gift, they cannot hold your gift.

No, you didn't directly say it. No one does and no one will. But you still said that you let go of sin and only then, received the Holy Ghost. Am I wrong about that? That is what you said, right?

Of course, it is, but I do not believe what you claimed I do.

••Well, we're at an impasse there because it sure sounds like you do.

NO I am not saying that. Had you read my words with more intention o n actually getting my point, than pushing your patience to the limit, you would have seen that good bro.

What does repentance do?

••Saves us.

You still have not acknowledged that no one can speak in tongues unless God gives the utterance.

••There's not much about "tongues" that I do acknowledge. I'm not, at all, convinced that the "tongues" we see in modern pentecostalism is what the bible was talking about when it described "tongues." But that's another discussion, I suppose.

I do not have prooftexts. Do you know hat a prooftext is? I said that was MY experience. And I may not even know all the reasons why others do not receive the Spirit. The fact is, God gives the Spirit, and we cannot contrive it.

••God gave me the Spirit when I believed. And, the bible is incredibly clear about that. As for your experience, it's very important that we develop belief systems based on sound theology, not our experiences.

Until you actually look for good in my words, you will not get my words, for it seems clear you are looking for fault and not actually hearing me.

I can only go by what you're saying, Mike. Do I have to really "figure out" what you're saying? I'm just taking your words for what they are. I use the same methodology when I read the bible. I don't try to insert anything into it, I just accept it for what it is and I eliminate my past, my background, my training, my old notes, my classes, my heritage, my traditions, and my opinions, and just take it for what it says. The bible changed a LOT when I started using that approach.

[mfblume]

••Oh, yes it is! And, it's recorded in the New Testament over FIFTY times!

You are not even reading my words. lol. Your words are actually saying repentance is MORE "salvation by works" than baptism is. If you actually were reading what I am saying, you would not say "YES". I said repentance is not a part of "salvation by works." I said it is no more a part of salvation by works than baptism is.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words enough, but anyway the term "Baptized" is mentioned 48 verses and 56 instances, if you want to talk about occurrences as you just did. Go figure.

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again. Please read it this time and get it. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Read it again, please. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Baptism does not fit make us righteous in and of itself any more than repentance does that. And when you say repentance saves, do you mean it is part of "salvation by works? Of course not. The place you put repentance in with salvation is exactly how I put baptism in with salvation. NEITHER ARE SALVATION BY WORKS, because netiher make us righteous in and of themselves.

Did you get it this time?

••Tongues is righteousness?? What does speaking in tongues have to do with righteousness??

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Tongues are not righteousness. lol. My point is that righteousness is a gift and it is a required gift. Tongues is also a gift and is required. Your point was that you said you could not understand how something could be a gift and yet still be required. I proved it makes perfect sense when we realize that righteousness is a gift and still something required. I did not say tongues is righteousness. I said tongues is similar to righteousness because BOTH ARE GIFTS AND BOTH ARE REQUIREMENTS.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

••Well Mike, you said that you "Let go of sin" and then you received "The Holy Ghost." You said it didn't happen until you did something.

But I tried saying to more than once now that that is only true in the sense that you have to get rid of some junk in your hands so that God can give you a gift you require. Baptism is ridding ourselves of junk, but the ridding of junk is only done so GOD CAN GIVE US THE GIFT he wants to give us.

Brother , if you cannot understand the difference in that...

To you, salvation by works means we do something and we are saved. Well, for the love of Pete, you claimed we have to repent to be saved! IF that is not doing something to be saved, then what is it?

The problem you fail to see is that salvation by works is more than just doing something to get saved. It is doing something IN ORDER TO MAKE ONESELF RIGHTEOUS WITHOUT GOD GIVING US RIGHTEOUSNESS. If you do not know that, then you do not know the first thing about New Testament salvation at all.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the demand we repent. For repentance is all that I am saying when I said I did not get the Holy Ghost until I actually admitted sin was sin and got rid of that sin by repentance. What I was trying to say was that I had not really repented. And do you think one can get the Holy Ghost without repenting? If so, then you must have totally missed what I said, for I said nothing different.

You already said repentance saves. If baptism for salvation is "salvation by works," whether or not one has faith, then you preach salvation by works if you preach repentance saves.

No, you didn't directly say it. No one does and no one will. But you still said that you let go of sin and only then, received the Holy Ghost. Am I wrong about that? That is what you said, right?

LETTING GO OF SIN IS REPENTING, brother! Can you get it this time? lol.

••Saves us.

Then you must believe in salvation by works, because repentance is SOMETHING WE DO. That is your own argument against baptism! Your proof of salvation by works is as follows:

You said it didn't happen until you did something.

So if you think my view of baptism is part of "salvation by works" ON THAT BASIS, and that my idea that Spirit baptism could not come until I got rid of sin is "salvation by works", then you preach salvation by works when you say repentance saves.

But the all-important distinction you APPLY in your assessment of the need for repentance, that you FAIL TO APPLY TO BAPTISM as I believe baptism, is that WORKS THAT DO NOT MAKE US RIGHTEOUS IN AND OF THEMSELVES are not categorized as "salvation by works."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Haven't read it all, but I'm surprised you'd agree with Adam Clarke, a trinitarian who trashes the validity of a large parts of the King James Version. I assume you're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones"?

I'll read more.

Even you say some good things amongst other errors.

That is beside the point, though.

The point is Romans 6 is talking about WATER BAPTISM.

Notofworks, until you acknowledge a particular point I am repeating a dozen times, you will not get what we are saying.




Please respond to this point, if none others: Salvation by works IS ONLY PROPOSED when someone claims ANY GIVEN WORK makes us righteous in and of itself. Do you agree?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are not even reading my words. lol. Your words are actually saying repentance is MORE "salvation by works" than baptism is. If you actually were reading what I am saying, you would not say "YES". I said repentance is not a part of "salvation by works." I said it is no more a part of salvation by works than baptism is.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words enough, but anyway the term "Baptized" is mentioned 48 verses and 56 instances, if you want to talk about occurrences as you just did. Go figure.

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again. Please read it this time and get it. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Read it again, please. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Baptism does not fit make us righteous in and of itself any more than repentance does that. And when you say repentance saves, do you mean it is part of "salvation by works? Of course not. The place you put repentance in with salvation is exactly how I put baptism in with salvation. NEITHER ARE SALVATION BY WORKS, because netiher make us righteous in and of themselves.

Did you get it this time?



Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Tongues are not righteousness. lol. My point is that righteousness is a gift and it is a required gift. Tongues is also a gift and is required. Your point was that you said you could not understand how something could be a gift and yet still be required. I proved it makes perfect sense when we realize that righteousness is a gift and still something required. I did not say tongues is righteousness. I said tongues is similar to righteousness because BOTH ARE GIFTS AND BOTH ARE REQUIREMENTS.

my friend... this has been the issue the whole time. They only see through a fogged lense of interpretation. They make you say what they want it to be, to able to deal with what you are saying. cognitive dissonance Just like points I have made multiple times with indepth points..... then they say.... "you have not dealt with XYZ..." only thing I can do is shake my head. In all my years of teaching, witnessing, debating it blows me away at the ingoring that goes on here. Basically let's reform the argument in the image they want so they can deal with it. Which in the end is relabeling everything to make it not what it is like belief, repentance, confession and whatever... ( Thus oh no I do nothing.... he did it for me. salvation is not based on anything I do. ) which is so far from the truth it makes a mockery of what "faith" is and Jesus Words to obtain eternal life.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

my friend... this has been the issue the whole time. They only see through a fogged lense of interpretation. They make you say what they want it to be, to able to deal with what you are saying. cognitive dissonance Just like points I have made multiple times with indepth points..... you have not dealt with XYZ... only thing I can do is shake my head. In all my years of teaching, witnessing, debating it blows me away at the ingoring that goes on here. Basically let's reform the argument in the image they want so they can deal with it. Which in the end is relabeling everything to make it not what it is like belief, repentance, confession and whatever... ( Thus oh no I do nothing.... he did it for me. salvation is not based on anything I do. ) which is so far from the truth it makes a mockery of what "faith" is and Jesus Words to obtain eternal life.

Amen, and yet they say they have to repent to be saved. Whatever... they are not able to see contradiction in their own words.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen, and yet they say they have to repent to be saved. Whatever... they are not able to see contradiction in their own words.

which flows to the whole view of salvation and it gets skewed so badly it basically is antinomian salvation. Which is salvation without regards to law. Which John 15 clearly teaches against along with

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[notofworks]

I just glanced through and copied and pasted these statements you made:




You are not even reading my words. lol.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again.

Did you get it this time?

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Can you get it this time? lol.


I think the problem is, I AM reading what you write and that's what bothers me so much!

But Mike, tearing me down doesn't really do much to build up your position. The first time we talked you accused me of having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality disorder, so I suppose I'll take your verbal shots for what they're worth.

And, when there's more time to parse all those separated quotes, I'll answer.