The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):




Romans 10:1 Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is that the Jewish people might be saved.


Rom 10:2 I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal.


Rom 10:3 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Instead, they are clinging to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. They won't go along with God's way.


Rom 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.


Rom 10:5 For Moses wrote that the law's way of making a person right with God requires obedience to all of its commands.


Rom 10:6 But the way of getting right with God through faith says, "You don't need to go to heaven" (to find Christ and bring him down to help you).


Rom 10:7 And it says, "You don't need to go to the place of the dead" (to bring Christ back to life again).


Rom 10:8 Salvation that comes from trusting Christ--which is the message we preach--is already within easy reach. In fact, the Scriptures say, "The message is close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart."


Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


Rom 10:10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


Rom 10:11 As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.



This is a perfect description of repentance...a change of heart, a complete brokenness, turn, redirection, and a changed way of thinking.

We are going to kick your butt for breaking your promise

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I disagree. Dang it, I promised myself I wouldn't post until next week.

Repentance is being misunderstood and misapplied here. Typically, we see it as an action, something that's accomplished.

But repentance as it appears in this discussion is very different and in fact, works in perfect harmony with Romans 10:9-12.

In the Acts command to repent, we are being told to turn, to think differently, to reconsider; it is a condition of complete brokenness and a complete change of heart. We are not being told to slobber and cry at the altar. We're not being told to "work" on something.

It is, in fact, an exact description of what we are told will save us in Romans 10. See it described beautifully here (bolded emphasis mine):

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much as work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Maybe we should describe two categories of works. There is one kind of work that is passive where we don't actively do anything. Such is receiving the Holy Ghost.

There is another kind of work where we must actively go out and do something. Baptism is such a work.

So which category does repentance fit into? To repent must we actively do something or does it just kinda happen?

Repentance is where we actively do something. And Spirit infilling with tongues is where we also do something. But we speak as the Spirit gives utterance. It is cooperation in all cases! The Spirit does not simply come on us without any mental assent required for anything.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something, but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Agree!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Repentance is where we actively do something.

But you are still missing the real principle involved, I think. None of the categories you noted are relevant. Salvation by works is the issue. What falls in that category and what does not?

What did Paul mean by salvation by works? He meant there are things people assume we can do in our human energy to award ourselves righteousness without the need of the cross. THAT is the issue we must deal with and the category in which we must determine the works involved are. Anything else misses the entire point against our core issue of what exactly is salvation by works. And neither baptism, Spirit infilling with speaking in tongues (WE speak while the SPIRIT GIVES utterance) and repentance all have US doing something but in no way are they done in human energy to get righteousness without the cross.

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law? If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Amen!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I believe forgiveness and remission are the same thing. I do feel we get forgiveness at repentance. The angels rejoice over one soul that repents. But nonetheless I feel baptism is required since it is the fruits meet for repentance, as John the Baptist said. In other words, if it is a repentance in which God sees the obedience to do anything He wills to do, like baptism, then God forgives. But if the alleged repentance is seen by God to sidestep an obedient act of baptism, then God does not forgive.

It's like the fact that God granted Abraham righteousness for his FAITH THAT WORKS. If God knew Abraham would not obey to be circumcised, then the faith Abraham had was not the faith God took to grant Abe righteous. Same with baptism. [b]Otherwise, how can one get Spirit baptism in Acts 10 without forgiveness first?[/b]

simple... Gen 15:6 is not about forgiveness it is about judgment of response and God considered his response right. Which is the point of Paul and circumcision. God considered/ajudged a persons response(as in Abraham) righteous before he was circumcised. Thus circumcision is not a specific righteousing aspect in itself. Thus Pauls point that the person who does X and having not Y, yet you have Y and not doing X. Circumcision was simply setting apart of something that was supposed to be of the heart.

God's judgment of action as just/righteous does not mean a person is judged as a whole righeous but that the deed they did was considered righteous or just action unto them...

Psa 106:30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed.
Psa 106:31 And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.

We receive the blessings of God by faith... this is not about mental assent but abuut response

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

We where dead without the working of God and his circumcision at BAPTISM and cutting away of the old life of sin. Thus we where made ALIVE TOGETHOR WITH HIM. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN? AT BAPTISM!

1)God simply seeing a persons heart turned does not mean they have asked or received forgiveness or received atonement.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Which is talking about offering of atonment.

We still after turning have to seek the atonement and offer ourselves(covenant) to him.

2) Also doesn't mean they are in covenant.
3) Acts 10 they hear the Word and God moved. God had already seen these peoples hearts toward him in Word and deed thus the reason God summoned Peter to speak and witness. God thus considered them "right" beforehand. Has nothing to do with covenant but that they where not a enmity with him. Past action of sin does not stand in the way of God moving on you! The present aspect of spiritually your heart at enmity or against him does. Thus Acts 10 and the people being filled with the Spirit does not need forgiveness BEFORE he fills them or moved upon them. You can still have a debt against you it has nothing to do with the heart being toward God. They then where COMMANDED.... what does Peter say

Act 10:47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

Why would it matter to WITHOLD? Because it was about covenant unto unification with Christ and circumcising the old man away.


Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

It wasn't about oh you have confessed JEsus by your little prayer.... NO HE COMMANDED THEM! This was Peter seeing GOD'S ACTION as a command unto him to bring them into covenant..... HE SHOULD NOT RESIST THEM BEING UNITED WITH CHRIST! THus why he takes swift action!

what else does Peter say...

Act 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

way for what....? HOW CAN PETER STAND IN GOD'S WAY... what was the PATH that he could stand in? BAPTISM AND UNIFICATION WITH CHRIST!

v47 ...can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people...

Act 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance (TURNING CHANGING DIRECTION OF THE MIND) that leads to life."

Which comes after baptism because we are IN covenant and turned of heart with promises from God that our life has been made new and the old man taken away.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

as repeated above

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

We where dead without the working of God and his circumcision at BAPTISM and cutting away of the old life of sin. Thus we where made ALIVE TOGETHOR WITH HIM. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN? AT BAPTISM!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter stately in his epistle plainly, as well, that baptism saves. And the fact remains that repentance is as much an act as baptism, or speaking in tongues. Let's not get away from the point. Folks claim belief in Acts 2:38 salvation means one must speak in tongues to be saved, and that is salvation by works. That is not honest. Speaking in tongues is something we receive, and cooperate in of our own volition as much as repentance is. That is the principle. And whether Romans mentioned it or not in chapter 10, while it was mentioned in chapter 6 anyway, repentance is as much a work as baptism is.

And no one can say that Romans 10 shows how to be saved while Acts 2:38 does not. that would make the two verses contradictory. Acts 2 also stated that along with the words of verse 38, Peter told them HOW TO BE SAVED.

Romans 10 is not going to go into the details of how sinners are saved, like Acts 2 is because Acts 2 is actually speaking TO SINNERS and Romans is speaking to the church. Pel's (I think it was Pel, forgive me if I am wrong) argument, in all due respect, saying that Romans was speaking to sinners is error. Romans is written to BELIEVERS. ACTS shows actual sermons to sinners.

Sorry bros., you are wrong.

Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd state your case without the final bolded statements. That seems uncalled for and it's strictly your opinion. Your vast amount of knowledge doesn't give you the right to make such final judgements and proclamations. Of course, you have the right to believe that you're correct!

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:



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.




The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by jfrog

We are going to kick your butt for breaking your promise

Sorry!

I need to just not log on. I'm an idiot for thinking I can read and keep my mouth shut. But neither Pel nor Jeffrey, who both expound this much better than I, aren't around today. So I blabbed a little!