The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

YEP! Basically you get a salvation sucker put in your mouth without cost or commitment of change.

Oh and God forbid it would be a salvation by works...... Baptism... oh my... why would you say such and make the cross meaningless. (sarcasm)

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway.

People know repentance is not something we do as though we make ourselves righteous. Making ourselves righteous is what is so vile about works that the bible claims do not save us. So repentance is therefore not considered as salvation by works, so one steppers accept repentance as required for salvation. But baptism and Spirit infilling are the same sort of works that repentance is. They do not make us righteous, so one steppers need to stop saying demand for baptism and Spirit infilling are salvation by works. Again, REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen.

REPENTANCE IS AS MUCH A WORK AS BAPTISM! So when we see that, and insist we must repent to be saved, then it makes sense that baptism is part of salvation as well, as Peter said in his epistle, anyway.

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) belief that works by some form of special righeousing act, by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) works by some form of special righeousing act by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

Amen!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, spirit infilling with tongues nor repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

bingo!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. And that is precisely why statements are severely wrong in saying that demands for baptism propose a salvation by works doctrine. Neither water baptism, Spirit infilling with tongues NOR repentance are efforts we perform that sidestep the cross. They are integrally linked to the cross, and without the cross are unavailable.

They aren't wrong, they are right.

Circumcision was just as much a "work" as "baptism" is. And then those of you that claim one must speak in tongues to be a child of God baffle me all the more "We know you love God, and you were SOOOOO close. Sister, can you get back on the organ, Suzy here was SOOOOOOO close. I think we heard a tongue." Yeah... that's not the gospel.

Repentance is not an initiation of salvation, it's a response to faith. God loved us while we were sinners, not after we repented. Faith in God comes first. One cannot even repent until he believes in the God he is repenting to. And repentance is not a "I'm going to have good works and be a better person" it's "I believe you are Lord and God, and therefore I don't have to be."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Pauls whole point anyway is about works is...

1) works that are outside of CHrist that are good that you can claim you deserve eternal life by will not succeed in doing so.
2) he was against one must have precovenant works of goodness stored up to be considered for entrance into covenant and considered judged right to enter before God.
3) works by some form of special righeousing act by or like circumcision when Pauls' point is that nothing in circumcision itself has a righteousing aspect.

and others...

Agreed!

[mfblume]

One steppers do not stop to think that they are watching a PHYSICAL ACTION of baptism, and that is the reason they skip a cell in their minds (TIC) and think it is salvation by works to believe it is vital to be baptised for salvation. And since repentance is not a physical act, but a mental act, they excuse repentance. However, mental, or physical, an act is an act. And since neither propose such an act makes us righteous without the efficacy of the cross, baptism is no more "salvation by works" than repentance.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One steppers do not stop to think that they are watching a PHYSICAL ACTION of baptism, and that is the reason they skip a cell in their minds (TIC) and think it is salvation by works to believe it is vital to be baptised for salvation. And since repentance is not a physical act, but a mental act, they excuse repentance. However, mental, or physical, an act is an act. And since neither propose such an act makes us righteous without the efficacy of the cross, baptism is no more "salvation by works" than repentance.

totaly agree as "all" is a work of the mind.

[mfblume]

We perform repentance in our minds, and we receive forgiveness.

Is that performance a work that makes us righteous? Of course not. Everyone agrees. But we have to repent on our own volition and receive from God, without having earned anything in the process. Same with baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. We receive TONGUES and Spirit baptism, and are not performing a tongue speaking in order to make ourselves righteous. GOD GIVES THE UTTERANCE, not ourselves!

All these details are being overlooked by the one-stepper, I honestly believe. What is the difference between receiving forgiveness from repentance and receiving the GIFT of the Spirit and God giving utterance for us to speak in tongues? How does THAT speaking in tongues become salvation by works that sidesteps the cross??

If Spirit baptism was a work of salvation that Paul preached against, then it would not be us receiving the GIFT of the Spirit, but rather us making self speak in tongues in human ability in order to receive the WAGES of eternal life. This is the all-important point one-step fails to see.

So please stop saying that we preach we must speak in tongues to be saved, as though it is like making ourselves talk in tongues and thereby makes us righteous outside of God's grace. We must speak in tongues as much as we must receive forgiveness, if we want to talk about musts.