The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree Joel 2 is referenced. And I am not saying this is not a promise to all. But I am saying Paul is speaking generally and not detailingly, using the basic concept that Deut 30 presented, since all Jews knew Deut 30 and held it dear to their hearts, having it come from Moses. But we are not going to find details of salvation from either Deut 30 or Joel 2. Otherwise Paul did not need to say anything. The details are in instances like Acts 2:38.

That's interesting because Peter's sermon text comes directly from Joel 2 ... you have confused the effects with the causes .... and Joel 2 and Peter's message both have everything to do with God's plan of salvation and deliverance.

Salvation in the entire biblical context has always been through calling on His name ...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by DAII

That's interesting because Peter's sermon text comes directly from Joel 2 ... you have confused the effects with the causes .... and Joel 2 and Peter's message both have everything to do with God's plan of salvation and deliverance.

Salvation in the entire biblical context has always been though calling on His name ...

Peter quoted Joel 2 but did not leave it with Joel 2. Joel was only used in verses 14-21. But from vv. 22-36 he spoke of David's words about that Lord. He told them what they specifically must do WELL AFTER explaining to them Joel's association with that day's events. He detailingly taught them about Christ, using also David. And the major point of citing Joel was to show them what was happening since the tongues was their initial question. Had Peter left them with citing Joel 2, that would be one thing. Stopping at Acts 2:21 did not occur. It was not enough to know one must call on the Lord. Peter explained that this Lord was Jesus and explained to them the crucifixion and the resurrection. He used David to show what further truth they had to know aside from Joel 2 regarding the Lord that Joel 2 mentioned. In fact, he spoke more of David's words than Joel's. David's words had more involved in salvation than Joel described. As if to answer the question of just who this Lord is that Joel told us to call upon, Acts 2L36 speaks of the resurrection info gained from David to explain Jesus.

Had Peter left them with Joel 2 and the need to call upon the Lord, the Jews would know nothing about the cross and its relevance. The reals message started coming through after Peter used David to show who the Lord is. And THAT pricked their hearts.

Had Joel's message been "it", then they would already know they must call on the Lord. Peter quoted Joel saying it! There was no need to ask what to do if that was the message as folks claim Romans 10 is the message. Peter went on to explain the work of the cross using David, and then the people knowing there was more to it than calling on the name of the Lord, asked Peter what to do!

Salvation is indeed through calling on the name of the Lord. Amen.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

NOW and Jeff,

I've debated the Hell issue thoroughly and it appears to me, somewhere within the realm of translating, copying, and the Religious getting their dirty little fingers upon Scripture, we now have this unfathomable place of torment for all who choose another "Way" or plan of Salvation. Of course, this depends on what Church you go to.

Think about it; if you remove Hell from the Plan of Salvation, what happens?

1. A person no longer follows the idea or plan of redemption because of the consequence. This is HUGE! So many are afraid to question or change because Hell awaits those who do. So, Faith actually becomes bondage. A prison of fear.

2. The heart of man/woman would approach God from an entirely different perspective. The preacher could no longer use this "Heavy" to keep the sheep under submission, and, we would no longer tell others that "Unless you repent, you will BURN". I see this as an antidote to our concept and Faith in God. People would begin to develop a loving relationship with God based upon the Family structure that we can see. For instance, how can we relate to a Father that torches His very own Creation, not for one day, but forever? We can't, so the distance between us and the Lord grows because that's the only way we accept Hell and its ferocity.

3. Life, love, and compassion for people would change. No longer would backsliders be considered doomed. Hope becomes more real and honest because deep down we know, all fail, some at the point of death. WE don't use the unseen dimensions to inflict fear, releasing us from manipulating people which is absolute freedom. We stop the torturous mind games, and begin to base our love for God on REAL LIFE. What we can see.

When Hell is in the equation, we are WAY more judgmental. Those "SINNERS" are heading for what they deserve. Notice, the extreme Religions and power hungry cults will pound the pulpit with Hell Fire. Obey or burn. Fear is the permeating result of this place, and the perfect ploy to program our minds to NEVER question.

IMO, Hell puts God in not only a bad light, but an abusive one. As a father, I would never send my children to a place where they would burn for eternity, no matter what they did. This life is tough, and many things can come our way that might lead us astray. Human beings are weak, and the Church is not exempt from weak people. Man gets into trouble on every level of life, and His only Hope is mercy from a Creator who see's clearly that we all fail, cry, and wish for a body that can't be tempted.

I see on this Forum debate after debate on subjects you would think would be concluded by now. But man will argue till he dies, from politics to Religion, where our culture molds us into individuals that are unique and different. It really makes me laugh when we say, "God is not the Author of confusion", yet we are all confused about our Faith. To me the reason for the confusion is simple; we can't let go of the "Unseen". As long as the unseen is documented as a fact, the arguing will never cease because how can we prove what we can't see, feel or touch.

As far as Scripture is concerned, many things MUST be considered when talking about Hell. Like I’ve said, Eternal Damnation is NOT in the Old Testament, PERIOD. If God wanted the World to know that they are going to Hell, the Book of Genesis would have clearly pointed this out. Also, none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament exist. They are ALL copies, written in Greek, the official language of Rome during all this “Translating” and the development of the Catholic Church.

I’m so deeply bothered by the fact that we are expected to believe in extreme and diabololical things that we can’t see. If God wanted this to be so, it would seem apparent that proof of such places could be validated somehow. We are fallible enough with what we can see, let alone with Worlds we can’t.

An answer to this crisis? Not sure I have one. One thing that has helped me with understanding is to simply validate by experience. Be more fact oriented. If I’m going to call God my Father, how do I see and feel about this role in life? If we are His Children, how do I love and care for my own children? To be honest, developing a relationship with Someone I can’t see, touch, or talk to is more than difficult. But when I hold my wife tightly when she is hurting, or we spend an evening under candlelight, I try with everything that is inside of me to think of God.

Hell makes absolutely no sense, and if God is all knowing, to allow man to populate this World so he can simply die within a few years and then spend eternity screaming in torment is beyond crazy. Hell just doesn’t fit, and I think we need to admit that.

VERY informative. You are a great resource for reason and study. Hell is a great struggle for me and I despise the years of childhood that I would end every single day with the bedtime prayer, "...and God, please don't let me die and go to hell". Being liberated from that emotional dagger radically changed my life. "Scribal additions" MUST be considered when we're being honest about our bible. They're mostly likely there. Now, did God want them added? We could debate that, I suppose.

I know this....I DO NOT want a church full of people who are there only because they don't want to go to hell. They'll never reproduce and evangelize and will never fulfill their purpose which was described greatly when Jesus said, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

Thanks for risking the stating of your beliefs. They're certainly not status-quo beliefs.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter quoted Joel 2 but did not leave it with Joel 2. Joel was only used in verses 14-21. But from vv. 22-36 he spoke of David's words about that Lord. He told them what they specifically must do WELL AFTER explaining to them Joel's association with that day's events. He detailingly taught them about Christ, using also David. And the major point of citing Joel was to show them what was happening since the tongues was their initial question. Had Peter left them with citing Joel 2, that would be one thing. Stopping at Acts 2:21 did not occur. It was not enough to know one must call on the Lord. Peter explained that this Lord was Jesus and explained to them the crucifixion and the resurrection. He used David to show what further truth they had to know aside from Joel 2 regarding the Lord that Joel 2 mentioned. In fact, he spoke more of David's words than Joel's. David's words had more involved in salvation than Joel described. As if to answer the question of just who this Lord is that Joel told us to call upon, Acts 2L36 speaks of the resurrection info gained from David to explain Jesus.

Had Peter left them with Joel 2 and the need to call upon the Lord, the Jews would know nothing about the cross and its relevance. The reals message started coming through after Peter used David to show who the Lord is. And THAT pricked their hearts.

Had Joel's message been "it", then they would already know they must call on the Lord. Peter quoted Joel saying it! There was no need to ask what to do if that was the message as folks claim Romans 10 is the message. Peter went on to explain the work of the cross using David, and then the people knowing there was more to it than calling on the name of the Lord, asked Peter what to do!

Salvation is indeed through calling on the name of the Lord. Amen.

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith IN THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST ... together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement. Once again, confusing the fruit for the root.

Eternal life is granted to those who believe on His name.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by DAII

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement.

Eternal life granted to those who believe on His name.


For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

I once heard Pastor Cymbala speak about "Calling on the name of the Lord" and it rocked my world. I'll never look at that statement the same again.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Notofworks, I guess I will not get a reply about the need to realize righteousness is not a simple issue from you.

Mike, with respect, that sentence is not a simple issue.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I guess my post was too long for your attention span, as per your words, no insult intended.

Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway.

If the "old lady" needs to "heave" it's best she do it in the street and not on the side walk.

Baptism becomes a "work" when dogmatic literalists professing to have some sort of "revealed" insight demand that all Christians baptize according to their rite or find themselves abandoned and "heaving" in the flaming streets of hell.

Alternately, baptism is not a "work" when a sincere believer, leaving a life of sin behind, is buried with Christ and rises to a new life, walking in the Spirit.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I once heard Pastor Cymbala speak about "Calling on the name of the Lord" and it rocked my world. I'll never look at that statement the same again.

The idiomatic express has profound biblical significance throughout Scripture ... and it has nothing to do with a doctrine of invocation in baptism ... and it meant something of import to the Jewish believer, especially.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Notofworks, I guess I will not get a reply about the need to realize righteousness is not a simple issue from you.

I guess my post was too long for your attention span, as per your words, no insult intended.

Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway.

Oh, I didn't take it as an insult. You're correct...my attention span gets pretty short at times, especially when the content is incorrect, misapplied, or boring.

I've kinda stopped reading your stuff, but happened to notice my "name" so I read this one. I stopped reading because, mostly, it's just the same stuff over and over and over again. And you take a different subject and attempt to throw it into the discussion of salvation. You're wanting to talk about "righteousness" and if you do, start a thread and see what happens. If you want to throw in the process or "righteousness" into the discussion of salvation, then go ahead. I'm sure someone will argue with you. I won't. I'm trying to get Derek to sign up, though, so if I'm ever successful, I'll let you two go at it!

And your last sentence....."Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway.", doesn't make any sense to me. Is there a typo or something?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by DAII

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith IN THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST ... together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement. Once again, confusing the fruit for the root.

Eternal life is granted to those who believe on His name.


For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

and as usual you don't understand covenant entry and you make baptism spiritually meaningless. Sure your point of faith/repentance etc.. are good but you ignore the differences in what baptism is for. Instead of seeing it is part of salvation and coming to abide in Christ you make it worthless.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by DAII

The idiomatic express has profound biblical significance throughout Scripture ... and it has nothing to do with a doctrine of invocation in baptism ... and it meant something of import to the Jewish believer, especially.

Exactly!! He started it with Genesis 4..."Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." Whew, I get chills remembering it. Incredible. I had always heard the "calling upon the name of the Lord" as some doctrinal argument. Never again.