The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain.

The new covenant has a part for us to play and we certainly can keep it. That is why we read in Heb 8 that the new covenant solved any problem in man not being able to continue.

But you totally missed my point. The point was that any given covenant has two parties. Us and God, in this case. And we have a part to play. Acts 2:38. And God promised to save BY HIS CROSS those who take part in that covenant.

That was obvious since Abraham on... that's the beauty of the Gospel. The covenantal part of that is God original covenant continued, he'd save those who believe in him by faith. He's made that possible through Jesus. To employ new ways of entering into covenant is simply in error.

Where are you getting this "new ways" thing from? Peter, not me, said Acts 2:38. Jesus, not me, said Luke 24:47-49, the elements of Acts 2:38.

Repentance is what one does BECAUSE OF faith, not to prove their faith.

Strawman argument.

Faith has already happened. We stand justified at that moment.

Only if it is faith that WILL WORK.

The cross makes all the difference in the world. What has not changed is God's everlasting and eternal covenant with His people, which was redeveloped in the New Testament to finally include Gentiles, part of God's plan all along (not just a Plan B repudiation against the Jews).

Nothing was redeveloped. God planned the gentiles to come into this thing since before Adam. Where are you getting these ideas? Redeveloped? The fact is that the new covenant has a part for us to play, and your accusation that baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues being salvation by works is simply and blatantly wrong, since those things are no more salvation by works than faith is. This keeps getting brushed aside, but it is the real issue.

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

What is all this? The simple issue is baptism saves and only because it is reliant upon the cross. Period.

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

Which is where baptism comes in. It is a necessary response by faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation.

You refuse to listen. Tongues can IN NO WAY be a means of salvation by works. God gives the utterance. How many times mus we say this?

If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Removing things FROM our lives does not save us. God alone saves. Salvation is THINGS ADDED to our lives, and we can add nothing. All we can do is remove to clear the way for God to add.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.

Wrong. Faith alone is NOT the covenant. Why did Peter not say "What must you do? Simply have faith!" in Acts 2:38?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The new covenant has a part for us t6o play and we certainly can keep it. That is why we read in Heb 8 that the new covenant solved any problem in man not being able to continue.

But you totally missed my point. The point was that any given covenant has two parties. Us and God, in this case. And we have a part to play. Acts 2:38. And God promised to save BY HIS CROSS those who take part in that covenant.



Where are you getting this "new ways" thing from? Peter, not me, siad Acts 2:38. Jesus, not me, said Luke 24:47-49, the elements of Acts 2:38.



Strawman argument.



Only if it is faith that WILL WORK.



Nothing was redeveloped. God planned the gentiles to come into this thing since before Adam. Where are you getting these ideas? Redeveloped? The fact is that the new covenant has a part for us to play, and your accusation that baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues being salvation by works is simply and blatantly wrong, since those things are no more salvation by works than faith is. This keeps getting brushed aside, but it is the real issue.

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.


It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!

You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.

Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.

It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.

Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Words must mean nothing.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.

I only know faith. Faith that is alive, and faith that dies. Faith that dies slowly resorts back to sin and death, and the underlying issue is disbelief.

Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.
I've not rejected Peter. I think Peter and I would get along fine. I think you'd make Luke's account of Peter's sermon something it was not: namely a systematic theology of how we are saved.

Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

Let me clarify. When I say "redeveloped" I'm speaking in Pauline terms. For him, as a Jew, it certainly was. They never saw themselves sharing the election of God with Gentiles. Yes, it was God's original plan, and yes, they missed the boat.


We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Refuse to deal with it? Huh?
Repentance and forgiveness of sins comes by way of Jesus and the authority he has because of the resurrection. I'll give it to you since Acts 2 and Luke 24 are the same writers, that one could certainly entertain your logic. But that's precisely where I go with it to. I read Acts 2:38 through Luke 24, and don't come out of it with baptismal regeneration. I come out of it salvation by way of and authority of Jesus.

Words must mean nothing.

Right, they don't.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I only know faith. Faith that is alive, and faith that dies. Faith that dies slowly resorts back to sin and death, and the underlying issue is disbelief.

There is dead faith and living faith, not faith that dies.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

I've not rejected Peter. I think Peter and I would get along fine. I think you'd make Luke's account of Peter's sermon something it was not: namely a systematic theology of how we are saved.

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.

Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Let me clarify. When I say "redeveloped" I'm speaking in Pauline terms. For him, as a Jew, it certainly was. They never saw themselves sharing the election of God with Gentiles. Yes, it was God's original plan, and yes, they missed the boat.

Incorrect. Let's see what Paul actually said. Paul taught that Abraham was told that his seed would be blessed and the inheritance would go to his seed. Paul said Christ is that seed. That is redeveloping nothing.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The same thing is found in Romans:

Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

God told Abraham exactly what the New Covenant involved, and did not redevelop anything He said to Abraham.

Refuse to deal with it? Huh?

I have laid out the correlation and showed this was Christ's will for the apostles to BEGIN TO PREACH in Jerusalem. Nary a remark.

Repentance and forgiveness of sins comes by way of Jesus and the authority he has because of the resurrection.

Right. And that includes baptism. Repentance and baptism together accomplish this. If you refuse to agree, and say baptism comes AFTER remission, then why are the Greek words ("for the remission of sins") in the same sequence in Acts 2:38 as they are in reference to the blood which causes remission of sins?

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I'll give it to you since Acts 2 and Luke 24 are the same writers, that one could certainly entertain your logic. But that's precisely where I go with it to. I read Acts 2:38 through Luke 24, and don't come out of it with baptismal regeneration. I come out of it salvation by way of and authority of Jesus.

And you evidently do not know what baptismal regeneration is, as I already explained.

[Jeffrey]

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Do you actually believe that Peter was merely telling them how to get out of their rotten culture? How many salvations did you think were going on in Acts 2?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Adam Clarke:

Act 2:40
Save yourselves from this untoward generation - Separate yourselves from them: be ye saved, σωθητε: the power is present with you; make a proper use of it, and ye shall be delivered from their obstinate unbelief, and the punishment that awaits it in the destruction of them and their city by the Romans.

The idea is that they had steps to take to rescue themselves from the wrath to come on Jerusalem. And that would be due to God rescuing them from sin. See the difference? Would you think salvation from sin was theirs without baptism and Spirit, but salvation from the wrath to come was not unless they got baptized? lol

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Wrong. Faith alone is NOT the covenant. Why did Peter not say "What must you do? Simply have faith!" in Acts 2:38?

Wow... that's all I can say.