Love One Another and the Cross

[shazeep]

ok it might be tempting, but i'm not sure there is anything more to be gained here. I would never claim that you don't need the Cross for salvation. What i am doing is reflecting upon how many believe that they have clung to the Cross, crying "Lord, Lord," who have deceived themselves, according to Scripture. Being a hypocrite myself, i see that it is easy to play on peoples' hypocrisy, possibly without even meaning to be hypocritical, as that is the nature of hypocrisy; people hear what they want to hear.

But i see that if one reads the whole of Scripture, not skipping over the parts they don't like, a picture of God's love for the world emerges that is anathema to religion, especially in its more critical and exclusive perspectives--which vary from sect to sect--and basically define what that religion is, or believes.

So with that in mind, i would answer your questions in this way:

"What remits sins?"
"A good deed covers many sins."

"What makes us righteous?"
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok it might be tempting, but i'm not sure there is anything more to be gained here.

I am dealing with your claim of what salvation by works is. It is everything to be gained while pertaining to the entire difference between our views is concerned.

I would never claim that you don't need the Cross for salvation.

Then why do you think Islamics don't need it?

What i am doing is reflecting upon how many believe that they have clung to the Cross, crying "Lord, Lord," who have deceived themselves, according to Scripture.

I agree. But before we deal with that, WHICH WE CAN DEAL WITH, deal FIRST with what actually saves us.

Being a hypocrite myself, i see that it is easy to play on peoples' hypocrisy, possibly without even meaning to be hypocritical, as that is the nature of hypocrisy; people hear what they want to hear.

But i see that if one reads the whole of Scripture, not skipping over the parts they don't like, a picture of God's love for the world emerges that is anathema to religion, especially in its more critical and exclusive perspectives--which vary from sect to sect--and basically define what that religion is, or believes.

And here is where, once again, you totally ignored what I said about God and loving the world, and act like I never said anything about that. And you say you are talking?

I repeatedly said I agree with you that God loves the world and wants us to love it, too. But all the while MY Point has been that does not save us. If it did, that is salvation by works. So, I am trying to show you what salvation by works is all about in my view based upon the bible. And if I show you scriptural basis for my view, and you disagree the Bible says that. then you are to show me why I am wrong according to the same verses.

So with that in mind, i would answer your questions in this way:

"What remits sins?"
"A good deed covers many sins."

That is salvation by works! That's what I mean. Having sins remitted is essentially be saved from sin. And you attribute salvation from sin to doing good works.

Meanwhile:

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

You asked for Jesus' words. They're right there. That's why I repeatedly stated the work of the CROSS saves us and is the ONLY means by which anyone can be saved WITHOUT WORKS.

So, how is remission of sins by doing a good deed not categorized as "salvation by works"?

"What makes us righteous?"
"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous."

That does not explain WHAT MAKES US righteous. It shows who is righteous already, but does not show the means that makes the person righteous to begin with. Like you said, FRUIT of righteousness comes through in what we do. But that is INDICATION we are rightheous, and is not the REASON we are righteous. It is the reason we can SAY we are righteous, which is what James touched upon. It VERIFIES we are righteous, but it is not the cause for our righteousness.

The CAUSE for our righteousness is as follows:

First, God has His own righteousness we must seek.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Secondly, people can try to establish THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS and abrogate the RIGHTEOUSNESS that belongs to GOD, Himself.

Romans 10:3-5 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

You apparently see no understanding in those words in Romans 10 that indicate the righteousness of the Law is attained by GOOD WORKS that we DO in order to have life! But Paul taught, as did Jesus, we must seek GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. And it is not that we do a good deed to attain it, but SUBMIT TO IT by FAITH. work We BELIEVE before we get a chance to do one single good deed. You claim good deeds make us righteous, and misunderstand John's statement that only says you can tell who is ALREADY MADE RIGHTEOUS BY GOD by the things they DO.

It is not OUR obedience in good deeds that make us righteous, and more than it was our disobedience that made us sinners.

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.

.

Jesus' work on the Christ satisfied God and justified us.

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Your words are the reason I say you preach salvation by works, though you do not like to call it that, and actually believe you don't preach it, because you know the bible teaches against it. And you think, "After all, I preach the truth. And if the bible relates truth that salvation is not of works, the I do not preach salvation by works because my belief agrees with the Bible."

But you never learned what the bible also says about remission of sins and what makes us righteous.

Righteousness is a gift, Shazeep. No works you perform can obtain it. No obedient deeds you do can earn it. The obedience that earned our righteousness was Jesus Christ's obedience when He died.

JESUS DID WHAT MAKES GOD SEE US AS RIGHTEOUS!

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Wages come from works. that's why Paul said there are wages for sin. but salvation comes NOT BY WORKS, so he did not call it wages of God, but GIFT OF GOD. Salvation is a free gift. You put requirements of works on salvation when you based your belief on said good deeds and doing righteousness.

Do you see the difference between BEING ALREADY MADE RIGHTEOUS and others seeing evidence of it in 1 John, and being granted that righteousness THAT WILL WORK through the FREE GIFT that Jesus paid for, not us?

What makes us righteous?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus being made sin for us is the CAUSE of us BEING MADE (not making ourselves) righteous. BEING MADE something is not us making it true ourselves. ANYTHING WE DO to be righteous is called salvation by works.

That is the reason I say you preach salvation by works. I know you wont' call it that, but according to all the scriptures I laid out, you do actually preach it.

When you said a good deed covers many sins, you misunderstood that as well. John referred to recovering a backslider. And the sins that are covered, are not our own in order to save ourselves by our good deed to recover a sinner. The sins that are covered are those of the backslider! Not our sins! the doer of the good deed is not seeing remission of sins BY THAT GOOD DEED TO RECOVER A BACKSLIDER. They are the SINS OF THE BACKSLIDER whom we recover to faith in Christ. And that recovery causes the sinner to reach out to the cross like they once did in the past and once again see sins remitted through the blood of Jesus.

Titus 3:4-7 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (6) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (7) That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Sure you heard GRACE is UNMERITED FAVOUR?

If you were correct, the above statements in Titus would not be true. You believe in good deeds done to recover a backslider COVER YOUR SINS, when they're actually teh sins of the backslider!

[shazeep]

"Then why do you think Islamics don't need it?"
my point was that they do not need anyone who cannot demonstrate that they do not grasp It either telling them how to define it. I think this is pretty obvious at this point.

"I agree. But before we deal with that, WHICH WE CAN DEAL WITH, deal FIRST with what actually saves us."
sounds good, until "what actually saves you" is what actually allows you to cry "Lord, Lord," in which case it is dead. Again, i think this point has been made several times now.

"That is salvation by works! That's what I mean. Having sins remitted is essentially be saved from sin. And you attribute salvation from sin to doing good works."
ma, i am just quoting Scripture!

"So, how is remission of sins by doing a good deed not categorized as "salvation by works"?
That is the essential question, and the answer resides in one's heart. I explained it from my understanding, but it likely requires individual experience to be grasped. It is the difference in "i will do good deeds in order for God to accept me" and "God has accepted me, so i will do good deeds." In the first case, whether consciously or not, an acknowledgement of the good deed is expected--a reward or whatever. In the second case, it is acknowledged that truly good deeds often anger others, and one will likely be sorry in some sense for doing the good deed; and they might even die. There are other permutations, we haven't even broached good deeds done in secret, the why of that, which does not apply to fear of retribution for a good deed, but that is a brief explanation. The point may be don't worry, God is not going to be mocked, and doesn't need a protector of the Cross or whatever; an Inquisition.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

my point was that they do not need anyone who cannot demonstrate that they do not grasp It either telling them how to define it. I think this is pretty obvious at this point.

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.

sounds good, until "what actually saves you" is what actually allows you to cry "Lord, Lord," in which case it is dead. Again, i think this point has been made several times now.

And I have agreed several times. Why can't you see that I agreed? When a person cries "Lord Lord," and cannot enter the kingdom, that does not mean the cross that saves us is not what saves us. This is where I see you do not read what I say and act like I never said it. I explained the Lord Lord crying and showed knowing he is Lord cannot be done except God's Spirit does a work of revelation. But THAT IS NOT ALL REQUIRED! FOLLOWING THAT one must hear Christ's words and do them.

Jesus saw Peter learn from the Father His identity and then called Peter satan because Peter rejected the words of Jesus that followed the Father's words. Same thing in Matt 7. We can call Him Lord and not continue to do His will. But none of that changes the fact hat THE DOING HIS WILL FOLLOWS the FAITH THAT SAVES BEFORE we engage in the DOING.

ma, i am just quoting Scripture!

And you're quoting scripture out of context. I already stated it is not the SINS OF YOU OR I that are covered WHEN YOU OR I DO A GOOD DEED. And here you go again acting like i never said that. This is why I said you are not talking.

That is the essential question, and the answer resides in one's heart. I explained it from my understanding, but it likely requires individual experience to be grasped. It is the difference in "i will do good deeds in order for God to accept me" and "God has accepted me, so i will do good deeds."

EXACTLY. That is what I have been trying to say to you all along. When I say FAITH THAT SAVES WILL WORK, that means one understands salvation is not of works. It understands we are righteous before we commit one good deed. And what Jesus did on the cross is the good deed that initially makes us righteous. And if we really are righteous, we will do good after the fact.

In the first case, whether consciously or not, an acknowledgement of the good deed is expected--a reward or whatever. In the second case, it is acknowledged that truly good deeds often anger others, and one will likely be sorry in some sense for doing the good deed; and they might even die.

That is certainly a farstretch away from the actual point of good deeds, though. lol. So why even mention it? But also, it's not always true what you say here:

Luk 2:52 KJV And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Act 2:46-47 KJV And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

There are other permutations, we haven't even broached good deeds done in secret, the why of that, which does not apply to fear of retribution for a good deed, but that is a brief explanation. The point may be don't worry, God is not going to be mocked, and doesn't need a protector of the Cross or whatever; an Inquisition.

Who said He does?

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.

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

[mfblume]

Please elaborate on this:

Whose sins are covered?

1Pe 4:8 KJV And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

The person who does the act of charity or the people to whom the act was done?

Why did you choose this scripture when I asked how sins are remitted? Please be more clear in your responses. They're too terse and vague.

[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

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.

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 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.

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; 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.

"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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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