The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, Ma'am!!! Thanks for joining in. I was wondering where I was for a while. LOL!

You're the Lone Ranger in these parts!

Those who bad mouth AFF for being too liberal really ought to come back here and defend the doctrine they so strongly believe in instead of going behind closed doors to fight amongst themselves. They leave it to the women to defend the ranch!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

FIRST... let me say... My husband is NOT a drunk. Sorry if I gave that impression. LOL. Nor do I think that people sitting on barstools are necessarily DRUNKS. (Some may be... but most of the drunks I know stay home and drink their brains out.)

Second, drunks are NOT always nice. Matter of fact, they aren't even usually nice.

But I do agree with you on the prayer conference thing. It's nice to get with people who are serious about "getting with God."

I didn't think that your husband was a drunk. I wasn't getting that impression from you. LOL!

I was a licensed bartender and there are drunks that do not stay home! LOL! I'll refrain from any stories. I was a very friendly drunk. but, I have a younger sister who was not! Oh, boy! LOL!

I'm telling you! It changed my view of the UPCI - totally! Everyone needs to attend a prayer conference. There is noting more horrible than a Pentecostal that does not have a prayer life! Or a church full of women that are not prayed up! LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Don't look at it as a fight. It's really a discussion with information presented.

But such as it is, I must say good night.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...
Can you elaborate on 4)?

You didn't address this to me but I'll give it a shot.
number 4 said "There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Just look at the reaction when a person preaches that we are saved by faith and not by works. We hear epithets like
Charismatic,
Greasy Grace,
easy believism,
false doctrine,
Bapticostal,
nominal,
compromiser,
one-stepper,
PCI,
Trinnie,
not declaring the whole counsel of God,
not rightly dividing the Word,
backslid,
prodigal,
reprobate,
etc.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You're the Lone Ranger in these parts!

Those who bad mouth AFF for being too liberal really ought to come back here and defend the doctrine they so strongly believe in instead of going behind closed doors to fight amongst themselves. They leave it to the women to defend the ranch!

LOL! I'm probably just talking to myself more than defending anything. Sometimes when I lay out my thoughts they become even more solid. So, I go along for the ride, for a while. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

You didn't address this to me but I'll give it a shot.
number 4 said "There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Just look at the reaction when a person preaches that we are saved by faith and not by works. We hear epithets like
Charismatic,
Greasy Grace,
easy believism,
false doctrine,
Bapticostal,
nominal,
compromiser,
one-stepper,
PCI,
Trinnie,
not declaring the whole counsel of God,
not rightly dividing the Word,
backslid,
prodigal,
reprobate,
etc.

Well, I wouldn't call anyone a name, but "wrong' comes to mind.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Don't look at it as a fight. It's really a discussion with information presented.

But such as it is, I must say good night.

Thank God! I'm so tired of talking about this tonight!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No, the entire NT has to be harmonized. Your assumption that our approach to soteriology demands that Acts be placed before the Epistles doesn't make sense since the epistles coincide with the historical events in the book of Acts.

It would be like taking the history of Israel as written in Samuel 1, 2 and Chronicles 1, 2 and then inserting the writings of the prophets into those history books. We could take Acts and insert Paul's epistles into it. The soteriology would not change.

Excellent post, Mizpeh!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

REALLY??? That's what I believe?

Actually, I think you'll have a hard time connecting tongues to being saved. You make the mistake of thinking Acts is the most broad interpretation of "how to" be saved (which it isn't a how-to book at all), and fitting all of Paul's incomplete writings into the broadest book. Let Luke speak for himself. Let Paul speak for himself. They aren't disagreeing or contradicting! They are giving unique thoughts and ideas on a myriad of subjects.

Listen, I'm only stating what any Hermeneutics professor would say. Pennies like Hermeneutics, but not when it takes the Sacred Cow (called Acts) down to an equal footing with all of scripture.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Why is it a mistake to look at the books of Acts as a "how to book?" Are you suggesting that we go to the epistles to learn how to baptize? Paul certainly didn't teach that baptism is by immersion in the epistles. Are the epistles "how-to" books?

I connect tongues to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and then I connect the necessity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to being part of the body of Christ and then I connect the necessity of being part of the body of Christ to salvation.

On a side note...I'm thankful for the promise that God made to Noah. I'm hoping to see the sun soon. I'm tired of all of this rain!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I wouldn't call anyone a name, but "wrong' comes to mind.

Snowballs are thrown from both sides of the fence. (Maybe not in Texas! LOL!)