The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!

I'm gonna sign-off on this and re-enter my AFF rehab (my boy wanted to play Mario-kart last week and I was on AFF and realized that Mario-kart is WAY more important) but you're basically saying that Jesus died on the cross so that we would have to do a bunch of stuff. But the system of humanity needing to do several things in order to be justified by God, was already in place! In reality, if we would have still needed to accomplish a number of steps, nothing would have changed! Jesus would have suffered the worst of executions, in order to change a formula!

Here are several things to consider and then I'll let Blume and PO pound me:

1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis. So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience? He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink? Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't. They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever?? Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.

See ya'll next Tuesday! Love you!

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

[iceniez]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

I am not in total agreement, I believe tounges is the sign ,However all the shenanigans that goes on is not needed . Plain and simple we go about it the wrong way. Peter preached the word and the Holy Ghost fell on them and people recieved the Spirit. Spirit and NOT US ,I once witnessed a Pastor lay hands on someone and he said say da da da da I was disgusted ,He looked at me and I shook my head no, I never went back to that church.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

In my experience of over 30 years of praying for people to receive the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, I must confess there is something deeply wrong with people needing this "Sign" to be saved.

I could go into gory details, but anyone who has been in the Apostolic Church for any length of time will admit (if they're honest), coaching, screaming, music so loud you can't hear yourself, jumping, peer pressure, and then concluding if it was tongues or not, this and much more has deemed this idea to me as being a false pretense to a true Spirit Baptism.

People can blurt out words, but claiming that God is in those words is where fallacy and failure on our part is obvious. We tell people, "You got it", but the only thing they may have gotten is relief that people/preachers are off their back.

I've also seen numerous people over the years become depressed, confused, and feeling so distraught because their effort at the altar is in vain. Then we have the audacity to tell folks, "There must be SIN in your life".

When will the nonsense stop? The Cross is sufficient!

yes it is but the cross by itself does not save. Salvation is synergistic with a monergistic source cross/Christ. Heb 5:9

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

but you're basically saying that Jesus died on the cross so that we would have to do a bunch of stuff. But the system of humanity needing to do several things in order to be justified by God, was already in place! In reality, if we would have still needed to accomplish a number of steps, nothing would have changed! Jesus would have suffered the worst of executions, in order to change a formula!

Unless you are proposing the error of universal reconciliation, the fact remains that although Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for us it does not mean we do not have to repent. Do you believe we have to repent? Let's establish that first, and then we con proceed.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Unless you are proposing the error of universal reconciliation, the fact remains that although Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for us it does not mean we do not have to repent. Do you believe we have to repent? Let's establish that first, and then we con proceed.

well guess what your about to have fun with him on that... LOL! ooops I think that might be NotForSale... not sure... LOL

[rgcraig]

I guess I'll throw my shoes in the circle.......

I believe the Cross of Christ alone can save because that is why he died on the cross - - for our sins.

That act CAN save us.......or allows us to be saved, but doesn't save us.

We have to accept what HE did for our sins before we are saved.

Repent - ask for forgiveness of OUR sins that he died for.
Be baptized - for remission of those sins.
Receive the gift he promised us.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I think you are mis-reading his tone.

She is. "Crisis experience" is actually common terminology when referring to a particular mode of Spirit baptism.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Any time we read of the Spirit indwelling people in regeneration, we either read people were filled with it, or it was poured out upon them, or shed forth, or they were baptized with it. These are synonymous terms, and all refer to the experience when we speak in tongues. Can you show anything different in Acts?

Please direct me.

And how can you so confidently say ALL those point you to, and are synonymous with tongues? A little stretch maybe?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Before I get the chance to read more of the thread, let me say this. The cross was required for the offering of a sinless sacrifice to atone for sins. Like the high priest offered the sacrifice on the altar, Jesus died on the cross. The high priest took that blood into the most holy place to sprinkle it on the mercyseat of the ark. Then the people were deemed atoned for. Sins were removed, FOR ONE YEAR ALONE. We all know Jesus died ONCE to atone for us forever.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus went to glory and sat on the right hand throne having made atonement. And on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and people spoke in tongues, Peter said the reason it was shed forth, or poured out, was because Jesus made atonement and is at the right hand.

So, the baptism of the Holy Ghost as seen in Acts 2 is the RESULT of the cross! To say we are saved by the cross is to say the RESULTS OF THE CROSS are our salvation. But the results INCLUDE Spirit Baptism!

Saying the cross is all we need in order to imply Spirit Baptism is not necessary, is like saying the Spirit outpouring was not the result of the cross' preparation to cause Christ to provide atonement for us and shed forth the Spirit as a result.

If Christ only DIED, and that was all -- no burial and resurrection -- then there would be no atonement. And saying the cross is all that is needful in the sense that it seems the original poster of the thread implies it, appears to me to be saying there is no burial and resurrection required.

The work of the cross includes the burial and resurrection, as well as the presentation of the blood in the true tabernacle of Heaven itself. And all of that entails his seating on the throne as well as the shedding forth of the river of Life that is the Holy Ghost baptism.

Jesus spoke many times of the Holy Ghost baptism to come due to His ascension to the Father. It is the promise of the Father He noted in Acts 1! It is the power to be witnesses! Luke 24 talks about the same thing. The REAL message of the work of the cross includes the atonement and right hand seating for the purpose of the promise of the Father, Spirit Baptism, being shed forth.

If the work of the cross is understood by all to include the burial and resurrection and atonement, then it is contradictory to say it does not include Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism with tongues is as much a part of the work of the Cross as is burial and resurrection and right hand seating!

Please show me where scripture baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation?

Blume, how was Abraham saved? Moses? Noah? Hint: Paul talks about this in Romans.