The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

We are not the Devil.

"What is thy name?" Mark 5:9




p.s. I found the thread I needed.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

"What is thy name?" Mark 5:9




p.s. I found the thread I needed.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

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.

Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.

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.

I don't agree with you here and there is no sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Berkley

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

Hey! I was picking on P.O.!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

I was just picking at you.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Not just, but I can't say "everything" that is written in the Epistles is in Acts, obviously. I was meaning salvation and the example of the operation of the gifts are there, the more spiritual things of the NT church. The Epistles speak of these things, but there is more detail in Acts and them some further instructions in other places like I Cor 12, etc. But, the basis of where to begin, after it was arranged, would be in Acts. I'm not going to go to Romans to find out how to be saved. If I read that I need to "call on His name", I'm going to study that out to see what it entails. Hence, I find more detail in Acts 2.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I was just picking at you.

I know you were. LOL! But, I did feel that I should clarify my words.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).


Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.
Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.
I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.

I don't agree with you here and there is not sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.

If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Not just, but I can't say "everything" that is written in the Epistles is in Acts, obviously. I was meaning salvation and the example of the operation of the gifts are there, the more spiritual things of the NT church. The Epistles speak of these things, but there is more detail in Acts and them some further instructions in other places like I Cor 12, etc. But, the basis of where to begin, after it was arranged, would be in Acts. I'm not going to go to Romans to find out how to be saved. If I read that I need to "call on His name", I'm going to study that out to see what it entails. Hence, I find more detail in Acts 2.

But, what about the people back in the Bible days - - they didn't have the Bible to go "study" out from other writings. Do we not complicate things sometimes?

[Neck]

Originally Posted by notofworks

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

amen!