The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I know you were. LOL! But, I did feel that I should clarify my words.

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

Pel,
Acts had already got a hold of them all before it was written. They were the beginning. What is the big deal of when Acts was written? How to continue, the letters from Paul, would have served them more.

The Epistles are addressed to established churches. Logically, we would figure that out.

And, if it were me, I would read Luke's letter - Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:" I would want to start at the point of when Jesus was taken up and check out this Holy Ghost, when it occurred, what was involved.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Pel,
Acts had already got a hold of them all before it was written. They were the beginning. What is the big deal of when Acts was written? How to continue, the letters from Paul, would have served them more.

The Epistles are addressed to established churches. Logically, we would figure that out.

And, if it were me, I would read Luke's letter - Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:" I would want to start at the point of when Jesus was taken up and check out this Holy Ghost, when it occurred, what was involved.

I love how a story becomes a systematic theology.

Of course it matters.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

?

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

Actually, we could fit it all into Abraham, if we want to go back further.

It's amazing to think that Paul's detailed explanations of how salvation works, that he missed MAJOR details from Luke (details which Luke never articulated were for "how to" be saved by the way).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

Excellent post, Mizpeh!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

You were drinking some strong tea tonight Mizzie. I said that I was just wondering out loud about how the arrangement of the books would affect the church through history. Your particular soteriology really didn't emerge until the 20th century.

And since you're so adamant about the chasm betwixt us, I will just assume that your soteriology doesn't include faith in Jesus Christ nor do you believe that His death, burial and resurrection brought about any salvation for you or anyone else.

So then, why do you post to an Apostolic Christian board? Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You were drinking some strong tea tonight Mizzie. I said that I was just wondering out loud about how the arrangement of the books would affect the church through history. Your particular soteriology really didn't emerge until the 20th century.

And since you're so adamant about the chasm betwixt us, I will just assume that your soteriology doesn't include faith in Jesus Christ nor do you believe that His death, burial and resurrection brought about any salvation for you or anyone else.

So then, why do you post to an Apostolic Christian board? Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?

A great theologian I often read once said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't enough?" (That was you, of course, Pel)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Just about everyone here believes that Jesus saved lost sinners and reconciled us back to God by His passion. Even Timmy says something like, "If He was raised from the dead" then He saved us from sin. Why don't you accept this basic element of the Christian faith?

Jesus saves. ... but you're not happy with that?

Pel,
I do believe that Jesus died to save the lost. But, the Word does say that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". Jesus did shed that blood and his blood is applied at death, which is the burial. If we do not identify with that blood and become baptized/burial, how can He then save us? There is action demanded on our part. Not only to repent, but to be baptized. We must obey the Gospel. (II Thess 1:8; I Peter 4:7) Repent and be baptized are the things that we can do. Faith without words is dead. (James 2:18;20;26) He then freely gives of His Spirit.

I am reminded of the scripture in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I must believe and have faith, but there are things that I must obey and do. Are you suggesting that you are saved by belief alone?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Pel,
I do believe that Jesus died to save the lost. But, the Word does say that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". Jesus did shed that blood and his blood is applied at death, which is the burial.

If, as you say, "his blood is applied at death" - then the blood is "applied" at the cross, for that is where He died. Using the "Three Steeper" motif - you appear to now be saying that the "blood is applied" at repentance (death).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If we do not identify with that blood and become baptized/burial, how can He then save us?

In Romans 3:24-26, we have Paul explaining to the Romans the manner in which they were saved, their sins were forgiven and they were "justified" in the sight of God.

It was all done through the blood of Jesus Christ. That blood was shed at Calvary, not in the Garden Tomb.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is action demanded on our part. Not only to repent, but to be baptized. We must obey the Gospel. (II Thess 1:8; I Peter 4:7) Repent and be baptized are the things that we can do. Faith without words is dead. (James 2:18;20;26) He then freely gives of His Spirit.

I am reminded of the scripture in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I must believe and have faith, but there are things that I must obey and do. Are you suggesting that you are saved by belief alone?

Suggesting? Sister, I'm shouting it.

The point that I think that you are reaching for here is that Christ is no longer dead!

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It was His death that reconciled us back to God (saved us- justified us - and paid the penalty for our sins).

It is His life that will save us "from the wrath that is to come..." By extension, that is our lives as well (Galatians 2:20).

This thread is about how we are saved and become Christians. It's not really about "the Christian life or the Christian walk." That is an important theme as well, but it's not what NOW was stating when he started this thread. Of course, if we don't understand how we were saved from sin, then we can have a pretty messed up walk...

... that is why Paul went on to say, (Galatians 2:21).

Yes, there are things we must do as Christians - we are His workmanship, created unto good works in Christ (Ephesians 2:10); but if we don't get the foundation right (Ephesians 2:8-9) then we'll have some problems.