The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save - Page 4

Pressing-On · #31 03-30-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jude 1:6 and Jude 1:14?

Well, I was actually speaking of our salvation. I should have clarified that and not said "anything".

NotforSale · #32 03-30-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

Believe only?

Does the devil believe?

We are not the Devil.

Pressing-On · #33 03-30-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

We could not and we simply cannot do anything to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:12-13 and Acts 2:21-40). We must call out to Him for salvation (as you have said) and then trust in His salvation, the cross of Calvary.

How do you reconcile this scripture, Pel?

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

berkeley · #34 03-30-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jude 1:6 and Jude 1:14?

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation.

Jeffrey · #35 03-30-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They are all preaching the same message and do not stand on their own. It doesn't matter when any of it was written. It matters when it happened and it matters that they are all on the same page with their message. They are. The canon of the Bible was chosen for it's intertwining truths and message. Nothing stands on it's own.

You are right about what they preached. That is why I don't buy the "We only need the HG for empowerment", but it's not salvific." John does indeed refer to the Spirit in function AND it's role in salvation. We need the HG for both. It is the earnest of our inheritance.

Galatians speaks of receiving the Spirit by faith or by the law? And that we cannot be made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit. That allows me to know that it is not some "measure of the spirit" that some say they receive at repentance. The Bible doesn't ever bear it out that way. It does not say they received the HG any other way than how the Apostles identified their reception of the HG - speaking in tongues. But that issue has been discussed ad nauseam.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in Acts 2:38. I have never studied the Epistles where it did not take me back to Acts.

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only. On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.

pelathais · #36 03-30-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Why do some have problems accepting this?

I believe it is because they are beholden to churches and teachings that added more and more of the traditions of men to the truth of God.

Like frogs in a kettle that is approaching the boiling point after being slowly turned up, they react with alarm when cool fresh water is thrown on them. The sudden and invigorating change back to where they were when the Gospel was first preached is alarming to them and causes loud complaints.

They've just been lulled into slumber and mesmerized by the last couple generations of having the heat slowly turned up. They can't see that they've been robbed and blinded and are about to poached, blanched and served on a skewer.

Pressing-On · #37 03-30-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkley

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation.

Thanks, Berkley! I did know my "anything" was going to get me in trouble, but I left it - just in case someone wasn't paying attention. Of course, Pel arrived on the scene! LOL!

Jeffrey · #38 03-30-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Why do some have problems accepting this?

I have a hunch why. And I have a hunch why in our human nature is a hesitancy to accept. But most would be tradition.

Jeffrey · #39 03-30-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I was actually speaking of our salvation. I should have clarified that and not said "anything".

Interesting. So only the "salvation parts" refer "back" to Acts?

Jeffrey · #40 03-30-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkley

Technically, you are correct. However, you have taken her comment out of context per the conversation.

Well, actually Pel was taking her statement at face value, in perfect context. As if all truth in the Bible revolves around Acts.

I've shown why this is false based on the dating of the writings. And I've also posited why this should be false based on the idea that somehow Acts is the gold standard of the NT that all other writers must point back to.

Paul, nor James, need Luke's permission to give their testimony and witness. It's a common fallacy to interpret a writing of Luke by the words of Paul.