The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "guy who died in the car" ... was he saved by baptism or by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Passive/ aggressive. You follow this pattern all the time. You launch into a bunch of name calling, you slip-slide back and forth halting between two opinions - and then you denigrate everyone on both sides of the issue.

You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?

Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

AGAIN!!! (sigh) Let me know when you are going to discuss something.

Anyway, so interesting why one steppers will not say baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, unless forced to quote scripture. Meanwhile alleged "three steppers" use these passages all the time, as well as those that seem to one steppers to promote only faith.

So many passages like this will only be repeated by onestep believers when someone points them out to them. The language of the scriptures in these cases is otherwise absent. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. No one stepper would use those words unless reading Acts 22:16. One steppers will not respond to questions of how to be saved with Acts 2:38. The question has not changed but somehow the answer did.

No question by one steppers would be given to someone as Paul asked about Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts 19.

This is my point. The emphasis upon no need for baptism in salvation simply leaves these folks void of speaking the same thing the early church ministers spoke about.

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.

The fact is that baptism is part of salvation if Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. It's right there in black and white! Had baptism never been intended as PART of salvation, the two words "baptism saves" would never be associated as they are in Peter's words.

People quote Peter saying "baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus" and then say baptism does not save. Bottom line: If baptism had no part at all in salvation, then Peter would not have said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

AGAIN!!! (sigh) Let me know when you are going to discuss something.

Anyway, so interesting why one steppers will not say baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, unless forced to quote scripture.

No one "forced" me to quote 1 Peter 3:21 - I brought it up to show how "getting wet" saves no one. It is clearly the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" that saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. You said as much yourself.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Meanwhile alleged "three steppers" use these passages all the time, as well as those that seem to one steppers to promote only faith.

So many passages like this will only be repeated by onestep believers when someone points them out to them. The language of the scriptures in these cases is otherwise absent. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. No one stepper would use those words unless reading Acts 22:16. One steppers will not respond to questions of how to be saved with Acts 2:38. The question has not changed but somehow the answer did.

Empty rhetoric. I brought up 1 Peter 3:21 in this thread, not you and not any of the other "3 Steppers."

Originally Posted by mfblume

No question by one steppers would be given to someone as Paul asked about Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts 19.

And yet your 3rd grade English teacher might have some questions about that sentence. What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is my point. The emphasis upon no need for baptism in salvation simply leaves these folks void of speaking the same thing the early church ministers spoke about.

uh... you okay? The "early church ministers" clearly emphasized the cross and the work of Jesus Christ as being the Gospel and the means of salvation. You have not even attempted to to engage the many, many citations I have made to Scripture. And, when I responded to your list of Scripture passages - rather thoroughly demolishing your arguments - you completely ignored me except to start in with the taunting and name calling.

Originally Posted by mfblume

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.

uh... what?

Maybe only "SOME" people get my point, however I don't think ANYONE would be capable of getting that last one by you.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The fact is that baptism is part of salvation if Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. It's right there in black and white! Had baptism never been intended as PART of salvation, the two words "baptism saves" would never be associated as they are in Peter's words.

People quote Peter saying "baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus" and then say baptism does not save. Bottom line: If baptism had no part at all in salvation, then Peter would not have said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus.

Well, I am glad that you at least are one of those who did somehow manage to get my point. Thanks!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No one "forced" me to quote 1 Peter 3:21 - I brought it up to show how "getting wet" saves no one. It is clearly the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" that saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. You said as much yourself.

Pel, Mike is saying Baptism saves us, so long as in view of the resurrection and done in faith. It's not a direct link, or an exclusive device. That's the way I'm understanding him.

Of course, I believe the Bible that we are saved by faith -- those things which follow are "because of" faith, and not "for faith" or "for salvation." Nor are they to "prove something to God."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Pel, Mike is saying Baptism saves us, so long as in view of the resurrection and done in faith. It's not a direct link, or an exclusive device. That's the way I'm understanding him.

Of course, I believe the Bible that we are saved by faith -- those things which follow are "because of" faith, and not "for faith" or "for salvation." Nor are they to "prove something to God."

Mike appears to inhabit a "middle ground" on this. Much of his rhetoric however appears to have been devoted to almost aligning himself with baptismal regenerationalism - but at least one of his examples and several caveats do appear to exclude him from that category.

What would happen if "our side" were to develop a hypothetical situation like Mike's "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized?" What would we have? A "Guy Who Sincerely Repents and Believes in Christ with Saving Faith But Refuses to be Baptized?" That stretches credulity.

Clearly, saving faith will involve the individual "Leaving the Land of Haran," so to speak. Saving faith is the start of a life long journey of trials, test, triumphs and if we were to be completely honest - even some failures. But this is a journey. Saving faith enables us to make that journey.

We must never forget that at the start of the journey something took place that we simply could not do for ourselves. And, we continue on this journey - NOT as a payment for some debt - but because the journey itself is also a free gift.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mike appears to inhabit a "middle ground" on this. Much of his rhetoric however appears to have been devoted to almost aligning himself with baptismal regenerationalism - but at least one of his examples and several caveats do appear to exclude him from that category.

What would happen if "our side" were to develop a hypothetical situation like Mike's "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized?" What would we have? A "Guy Who Sincerely Repents and Believes in Christ with Saving Faith But Refuses to be Baptized?" That stretches credulity.

Clearly, saving faith will involve the individual "Leaving the Land of Haran," so to speak. Saving faith is the start of a life long journey of trials, test, triumphs and if we were to be completely honest - even some failures. But this is a journey. Saving faith enables us to make that journey.

We must never forget that at the start of the journey something took place that we simply could not do for ourselves. And, we continue on this journey - NOT as a payment for some debt - but because the journey itself is also a free gift.

We've really turned the "Word" into a legal document, and have lost sight of its value as a Story.

In fact, when people read "God's Word" in Scripture they are really thinking of their red letter KJV. Pretty amazing if you ask me.