The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

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 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.

Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd state your case without the final bolded statements. That seems uncalled for and it's strictly your opinion. Your vast amount of knowledge doesn't give you the right to make such final judgements and proclamations. Of course, you have the right to believe that you're correct!

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:



1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis. So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience? He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink? Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't. They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever?? Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.




The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd state your case without the final bolded statements. That seems uncalled for and it's strictly your opinion. Your vast amount of knowledge doesn't give you the right to make such final judgements and proclamations. Of course, you have the right to believe that you're correct!

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.

What's the difference? You are telling him he's wrong with a whole lot more words.


Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

That was his opinion, so just because you added the words makes it okay for you?

LOL - - you are funny!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

That was his opinion, so just because you added the words makes it okay for you?

LOL - - you are funny!

Did you like that? Hopefully, the irony of it all was detected!

[mfblume]

Man, you folks write so much in a couple of days that posts are hard to find in order ot catch up.

Originally Posted by notofworks

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.

As shocked as you are by my use of that thought, I am shocked you deny it. Sorry, I stand wholeheartedly by it. Acts is accounts of actual sermons, and Romans is written to saved people not sinners.

I am no know-it-all, but I have studied Romans more than most other books of the bible. My ministry focuses on the work of the cross and Romans does the job better than any other book, I think.

Romans 6, for example, says that we must know that we who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. That is speaking of saved people. Romans is speaking to the church no matter how anyone slices it, according to that. It is an epistle. Epistles were written to churches.

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:

1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

That is a moot point. Again, let me repeat my thoughts:

Those who accuse us of proposing one must speak in tongues to be saved, are implying that tongues are something we do to inherit eternal life from fleshly effort, and that is simply not the case.

And the same principle applies ot bpatism, as I have stated.

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis.

Oh please. Internal evidence abounds to that end.

So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience?

Why preach to the choir, is the point.

He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink?

Let us reason here. If I preached in your church and all of you were saved, and I had to deal with the situation of how salvation brought us to a place where we have to assess our relationship with Israel and God's plan, (which was the case with Romans 10), I would not go into redundant details about it.

The context is emphasizing Israel's need to come to God like the rest of us in the here and now. And Paul cited Deut 30's reference to the mouth and the heart. Now, everyone SHOULD know that Deut 30 did not detail the plan of salvation as it would be revealed once the cross occurred. But Deut 30 mentioned the heart and the mouth. Paul played on that passage and showed how it applied to the church salvation he preached. No one could read Deut 30 to sinners and claim it shows salvation in complete form, for more reasons than that Jesus' name is not mentioned!

Think of Paul citing Deut 30, and I feel it proves my point.

Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't.

Moot. You are neglecting the overall context of Romans 10 and how Paul was dealing with the issue of ISRAEL. He was contrasting works from salvation by faith. You know the issue about Israel and their handle on Law and how they missed the boat. That changes everything. Let's not take a couple of verses in Romans 10 and propose an entire dogma here.

They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

I have in fact said that! I did so in contrast to the idea that people can work to be saved.

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever??

Paul was not dealing with that issue, whether you agree or not. I am being honest here. You are missing the context.

Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

They heard the steps through preaching that occurred before there even was a church in Rome, and before the congregation formed to later receive this epistle.

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

Then repentance is not required for salvation.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

You did it again! You make it sound like baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are human efforts we employ to save ourselves using fleshly effort alone. And they're not.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.

Speaking of steps in that context is totally different than what I am proposing. In fact, I have never called my belief "three step salvation."

The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

No, look at the common denominator in all accounts of major ethnic groups beings saved for the first time.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

You want me to refrain from phrases such as what you just made? lol

Brother, you are not concerning yourself over the context of Romans 10 's reference to Deut 30, and his overall point.