The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You may compare repentance to just about anything you wish, however it is what the Gospel requires of each of us.

You missed my point. The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

To extend your line of reasoning, could we say that "REPENTANCE IS THE SAME THING AS BAPTISM?" Are they interchangeable?

Inapplicable and moot. Again, read my emphasis about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationist argument which is error.

So then, what purpose is served by REPENTANCE and what purpose is served by BAPTISM? They clearly serve two purposes.

It matters not, bro. The issue is whether or not they are self efforts that are done through self-s abilities to make self righteous without God's grace making us righteous. Why does this keep getting away from THAT issue? That is the issue Paul dealt with in speaking of salvation by works, which is the implication folks give when they accuse people of saying we must speak in tongues to be saved?

Repentance is how the sinner comes to Christ and is saved.

Baptism is what the newly saved believer does to begin their new life - "rising" into the newness of life.

Sure. But neither are actions of self making self righteous.

There of course is more, however this serves to show the "One Stepper" belief that "the blood is applied at repentance."

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance, though.

The "Three Stepper" plan is more ambiguous. Some will say the blood is applied at baptism (the way I was brought up), others will say salvation is not complete until a person has "spoken in tongues" and they then avoid the whole "blood" analogy altogether.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.

Set aside your arguments that you have had with "Evangelicals" and the like for a moment. Your argument now is with Oneness brethren. Dropping the "anti-Evangelical" line will allow the discussion to carry on (on both sides) free from the confusion of "What is a Work?" and all of that baggage.

Paul's arguments against "Works" were directed against "THE WORKS OF THE LAW." Evangelicals apply these statements to try and argue their thoughts on water baptism. While there can be a sort of "New Testament era" application concerning "the Works of the Law" (see any dress code thread), water baptism exists as something entirely apart from all of that.

Which is why baptism and tongues should not be referred to in speaking of what someone does to be saved, as though they were works of the law. So folks have to stop using that language, since that basis of works of law are what they are implying when they use it.

Water baptism and repentance are two different things that accomplish two different things in the life of the believer. Neither are "works" in New Testament theology.

Good. So no one here can criticize people who believe we need Spirit Baptism as part of new birth by saying we require tongues to be saved.