The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much as work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

Repentance is where we actively do something. And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something, but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Repentance is where we actively do something.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And neither baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law? If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

I think you got our idea of what happens in baptism incorrectly.

I already stated forgiveness happens at repentance. Before baptism. But it is the faith that works that God sees in our repentance.

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law?

If it is, then it is wrong.

If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

It is not, so it is part of salvation. Baptism is not something that involves the action of lowering into water to move God to remit sins. God could have said anything, but there is a heart that has faith which must be so obedient for it to be the heart God requires of us.

IMHO.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Repentance is where we actively do something. And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something, but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?

Seems to really break down in the face of Pauline description of salvation doesn't it. It's left to performance (albeit, "performance by inspiration") but performance, nonetheless.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Seems to really break down in the face of Pauline description of salvation doesn't it. It's left to performance (albeit, "performance by inspiration") but performance, nonetheless.

Amen. People will "Blab" out something just to get the monkey off of their back, or, those praying with the person will claim they "Heard" tongues so they can add to the tally (numbers) for bragging purposes. The whole system of receiving the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of tongues is in utter failure.

The Spirit filled experience talked about in Acts doesn't even compare to our current practice of forcing and begging, working ourselves into an emotional frenzy under the spell of screaming and music so loud you can't hear yourself think.

What ultimately happens, is a person can feel Hell awaits them if they don't speak in tongues, leading to whatever it takes to say foreign words that others will hear, creating a bunch of shouting and praise which feeds our "feeling based" Religion.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Amen. People will "Blab" out something just to get the monkey off of their back, or, those praying with the person will claim they "Heard" tongues so they can add to the tally (numbers) for bragging purposes. The whole system of receiving the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of tongues is in utter failure.

Has this been your experience? I have never been in a service where someone claimed they heard another speak in tongues. It has never been about numbers.

Originally Posted by NFS

The Spirit filled experience talked about in Acts doesn't even compare to our current practice of forcing and begging, working ourselves into an emotional frenzy under the spell of screaming and music so loud you can't hear yourself think.

I have witnessed an emotional frenzy or two. I have known very few who have begged for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And those that have, there was always an underlying issue as to why they did not recieve anything. I have been in services where first time visitors would receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and speak in tongues as the congregation worshipped the Lord in song. Nobody shook them or yelled in their ears. Nobody even approached them. They surrendered themselves to Jesus and He did something for them.

Originally Posted by NFS

What ultimately happens, is a person can feel Hell awaits them if they don't speak in tongues, leading to whatever it takes to say foreign words that others will hear, creating a bunch of shouting and praise which feeds our "feeling based" Religion.

Was this your experience? Did you say whatever so people would get off your back? I have had a time or two where I was close to plummeting into a devil's Hell. I could not speak in tongues. I had enough reverence for God not to say "whatever" to get people off of my back or send them into a frenzy. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is just too precious to me.

Anyway, everything is subjective.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

How do we know someone is speaking in Tongues? Who is to judge that what is said is truly of the Spirit?

The demand that "speaking in tongues" is a requirement of salvation flows directly from Charles Fox Parham's attempts to ingrain his theology into the minds of his students. It never seemed to catch on with any of his students at first. Ironically, it was "some black guy" who was forced to sit on a chair in the hallway during a teaching session in the Houston area that was responsible for Parham even being remembered.

When Agnes Ozman "spoke in tongues" famously (famously now) at the New Year's Watch Night Service in 1900, another student reported to Parham (who was away at the time) that Agnes had "spoken in the Chinese language for two hours." Other students claimed that it was "just gibberish" and clearly not the Chinese language.

After much discussion and counter claims the whole affair was dropped and the school in Topeka was disbanded just 4 months after the Watch Night Service. Agnes herself renounced the experience until about 1914, when she read about Azusa Street. This was the mission started by the "some black guy" (William Seymour) and the news of the events at Azusa Street went literally around the world.

Upon reading about this, Ms. Ozman came forward and began to publize her experiences and joined the fledgling AoG. In time, she was recognized as "the first" to receive this experience.

It wasn't until G.T. Haywood had joined and really, resurrected the PAW that a theology of "evidence" was promoted widely at all. Parham had in the meantime fallen into the politics of the Utopian community Zion City in Illinois and probably also due to allegations of misbehavior, he fell out of favor and was forgotten for decades while dying in obscurity.

Given the following facts, I have a hard time demanding "speaking in tongues" as a requirement for salvation:

1. It was never a tenet of the original Apostolic Faith movement.
2. There is no standard to evaluate the authenticity of the "sign."
3. Even those who have had this experience have had difficulty ascribing it to "God."

And most importantly...

4. We have no way of authenticating that the experience witnessed today is the same as that which was reported in the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts accounts involve speaking in known languages - albeit unknown to the one who is speaking. But the languages are recognized as such by the hearers.

But the subject of the thread involves Calvary - an historic event that is widely attributed and known to have actually happened.