Love One Another and the Cross

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

And while

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

is surely true, the second "many" is open to definition, and it just may also be that "many" have also found a way to avoid

I suggest you consider that the MANY are those who are in Christ and those in Adam in both cases. Rom 6:3, the next chapter, shows how to get in Christ. Plus there is the 2 Cor 5:21 passage and the Romans 10 passage. Titus and Christ telling us to seek God's righteousness.

3Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope.

so that they may fit their desire for salvation--not to say any real desire for Christ--into their desire for the pursuit of happiness.

But what is the context of those words?

The context is simply saying that people who are so in love with Christ will glory in tribulations because they're endured because of Him. they rejoice because they're worthy to suffer for His name.

Now, you are free to define that "many" however you like, just like anyone else. If you truly believe that it requires discovering an OP church and walking up to the altar and doing Acts 2:38, and can be verified by listing your bona fides to others who believe similarly, and listening to theirs, more power to you; i believed that for years.

I do not believe that at all. Not sure why you even did for years. It's nothing about what church. It's about simply obeying the apostles' words. I've baptized people in Jesus, name in churches that don't believe nor preach it, but they let me use their baptistry. Your focus is always on OP churches and all these confirmations from others who are OP, and mine never was nor shall be. You really were a denominational dude, by the sounds of it. But you think everyone else is who believes in obedience to Acts 2:38. That must be why you repeatedly say we confess Acts 2:38 salvation to be saved, when it's nothing to do with what you say with your mouth by what God does in our hearts. So, I claim you read things I say (or more likely don't) and act like I never said them.

You seemingly had empty "religion" whether it touted Acts 2:38 or not. And you never seemingly saw true Acts 2:38 churches by the way you always consistently put Acts 2:38 in that "religious" off-the-wall context.

I was convinced that that was what Scripture was imparting to me. I know many OPs who adhere to this, and i would not call them hypocrites.

Unfortunately they are exceptions, and do not define the movement. What does define the movement is "Us four and no more," and i don't think people mean to fall into this trap--and i doubt that even most pastors mean to lead people into it--nonetheless it is what it is, aided i think by myopic reading of Scripture, and a slavish insistence on what has been presented as the essential thing, which is actually the thing most easily faked.

I thin it's more what you did and think everyone else does. It's not a matter of US and THEM. It's a matter of the word of God or not. Period.

Acts 2:38 is the Word. It's not me. And if you can pull yourself out of that boxed-in concept of religion you had, and realize Acts 2:38 is God's word for how to be saved, then you can see it's not US versus THEM. It is with some people.... denominational ones. But it's just God's word to me.

So this presents a conundrum, as i cannot claim that what you are quoting is wrong--but i can claim that what you are not quoting is right. I am called to judge a thing by the fruit, or results;

Again, you act like I never wrote a thing.

How can we talk when you do this?

You're focusing on what comes AFTER salvation and HOW WE determine who is saved. I am simply dealing with what causes salvation according to the Bible.

So stop coming from HUMAN perspective for a moment and let's look at what GOD SEES according to His word.

GOD SEES a soul as righteous as He is Himself when someone obeys from the HEART (Ro 6:17) the doctrine the apostles provided. And He sees them saved from sin before they get a chance to do anything good whatsoever.

THAT is what I am trying to deal with. But you aren't. I always said again and again ad nauseum that we can talk about fruit. But FIRST we must establish what GOD sees before we deal with anything men can see later.

for myself. Not for anyone else. And the only way i find to examine fruit is to look at the results of deeds, of which performing Acts 2:38 surely are, in a sense; nothing wrong with that.

I agree. But why are you talking about that when I am asking you to deal with what saves us before any fruit is visible? It's like you're unable to deal with what I ask.

"Us four and no more" seems unkind, but it actually mirrors the thought in Scripture provided by Christ that few attain the kingdom. The few are defined by attributes in Scripture that may be observed, or not, in others, and might also be deemed to be the fruit of the beliefs that produced them; and these do not lie.

So when one "proves" that every soul who does not believe as they do is lost, using Scripture, while simultaneously acting out other parts of Scripture that they do not wish to be associated with the proof, care should be taken that one is not possibly in fact just mocking God, which is very easy to do without even meaning to.

When the bible says denial of the Son means one is antichrist, and we read the Q'uran deny the Son many, many times, it is not saying "US FOUR AND NO MORE" to say they're lost like you're trying to say it is. It is simply seeing what the word says and seeing people blatantly reject it, and repeating what John said about those who reject it.

Any objections should be carefully considered, as there are no valid objections to the fruit of the Spirit. So, i think i am done here, and i will leave you the last word.

So you won't talk about it. Why did you not ell me that from the start that you would ignore the point of my thread? I asked and you implied you'd talk. Now you say you won't.

phew

[shazeep]

"You're so vague in your responses. Are you saying they need the death of Christ on the cross for remission of their sins, but they just do not need someone to help them grasp that? If you answered me and I missed it it is because you do not write clearly. I am not seeing what you think is obvious. Please elaborate on what you mean. You're simply too vague and unclear."

Muslims don't need some lost hypocrite telling them how to find Jesus, when they demonstrably have not found Him themselves.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Muslims don't need some lost hypocrite telling them how to find Jesus, when they demonstrably have not found Him themselves.

Let me try this again.

Are you saying Muslims need someone to tell them the cross of Christ's death is necessary for their salvation, but just that a hypocrite is not the person to do it?

I noted you're not answering me because you're not dealing with the core point I am seeking for. You're not telling me what they need to be told.

It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, you think a person is a hypocrite just because they think Muslims need to be told they need the death of Jesus. And that means NO ONE CAN TELL THEM THEY NEED the death of Jesus, because hypocrites can't tell them, and anyone who tells them is a hypocrite. You got them locked up without the gospel ever coming to them. You think if a person feels the need to tell muslims about the death of Jesus for salvation, they are "US FOUR AND NO MORE" hypocrites.

Would YOU tell a muslim they need Jesus' death on the cross?

[shazeep]

"And you're quoting scripture out of context."

you cannot prove this, although you are welcome to expand the verses i replied with and try.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

"And you're quoting scripture out of context."

you cannot prove this, although you are welcome to expand the verses i replied with and try.

I am trying to compare your thoughts of the verse with mine, and you wont engage it. I asked you whose sins are covered in that verse. You won't respond. By comparing views FIRST we can then proceed to discuss whose interpretation is correct.

[shazeep]

"Who said He does?"

in a sense, anyone who insists upon their interpretation, me included.


"can you understand what I say when I claim that there is a beginning point of remission of sins and salvation, and it is before we get the chance to do one good deed? And it is the work of God in the death of Christ."

sure, and i would call that Unitarianism, which might be correct for all i know, in some way.


"Why did you not say the remission of sins is by the blood of Jesus when I asked?"

because that means something different for me than it does for you. As you have just demonstrated, my verbal agreement is sufficient for you; it is not for me. Let me be crystal clear now; i have no faith in your declaration that having performed Acts 2:38, even earnestly, as best you are able, makes you saved. People are hypocrites; even nice people. I think, or maybe suspect, that you are a damned liar, and didn't truly believe a word of it either, even as you were saying it; how do you like me now?
How, oh how, can you prove me wrong?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by shazeep

"Who said He does?"

in a sense, anyone who insists upon their interpretation, me included.


"can you understand what I say when I claim that there is a beginning point of remission of sins and salvation, and it is before we get the chance to do one good deed? And it is the work of God in the death of Christ."

sure, and i would call that Unitarianism, which might be correct for all i know, in some way.


"Why did you not say the remission of sins is by the blood of Jesus when I asked?"

because that means something different for me than it does for you. As you have just demonstrated, my verbal agreement is sufficient for you; it is not for me. Let me be crystal clear now; i have no faith in your declaration that having performed Acts 2:38, even earnestly, as best you are able, makes you saved. People are hypocrites; even nice people. I think, or maybe suspect, that you are a damned liar, and didn't truly believe a word of it either, even as you were saying it; how do you like me now?
How, oh how, can you prove me wrong?

^

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

"Who said He does?"

in a sense, anyone who insists upon their interpretation, me included.


"can you understand what I say when I claim that there is a beginning point of remission of sins and salvation, and it is before we get the chance to do one good deed? And it is the work of God in the death of Christ."

sure, and i would call that Unitarianism, which might be correct for all i know, in some way.

It's not unitarianism. Unitarianism is belief that God is one and Jesus is not God, but a human like us. It has nothing to do with the blood saving us.

"Why did you not say the remission of sins is by the blood of Jesus when I asked?"

because that means something different for me than it does for you.

Then explain what it means and how you derive that. You're only stating conclusions and not showing how you arrive at them and what the thought process is behind your intrepretation.

As you have just demonstrated, my verbal agreement is sufficient for you;

I have not demonstrated that and repeatedly denied that.

it is not for me. Let me be crystal clear now; i have no faith in your declaration that having performed Acts 2:38,

I really do not care if you faith in it or not. I am trying to demonstrate it has nothing to do with my declaration. It has to do with what the Word teaches GOD SEES in it all. You won't touch that, though.

even earnestly, as best you are able, makes you saved.

I could care less what anyone thinks of my faith in Acts 2:38. Your opinion does not save me. God's opinion saves. And I am trying to get you to deal with what the bible says God demands FROM HIS perspective what saves or not.

People are hypocrites; even nice people. I think, or maybe suspect, that you are a damned liar, and didn't truly believe a word of it either, even as you were saying it; how do you like me now?
How, oh how, can you prove me wrong?

That's the point. Who gives a flying flip? That's not my concern. My concern is what the bible relates to us regarding God's demands and what He sees. You won't touch that. Hmmm...

[shazeep]

[shazeep]

It's not unitarianism.
Universalism then; or whatever "everyone gets saved" is.

Then explain what it means and how you derive that.
well, to me it means that if Acts 2:38 justifies one forsaking humility, condemning others who do not verbally agree with them, and disregarding the uncomfortable parts of Scripture that do not fit with their dogma, then i am looking for a better way.

I am trying to demonstrate it has nothing to do with my declaration. It has to do with what the Word teaches GOD SEES in it all. You won't touch that, though.

Really? Well then, let me touch it now. How will you demonstrate this?

And I am trying to get you to deal with what the bible says God demands FROM HIS perspective what saves or not.
You are privy to God's perspective? Do you really believe that all Muslims are lost to God? That God does not weigh their hearts, but instead requires that everyone must believe like Mike in order to be saved? Because you can--wait for it--prove it beyond a doubt using Scripture? While rejecting any other Scripture that provides a different perspective? And hence end up @ "God is love, and all Muslims--and for that matter pretty much everyone else--are lost?" listen to yourself, man

That's the point. Who gives a flying flip? That's not my concern.
you misunderstand. i am asking you how one might prove me wrong, in that position.