The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

"Once again, as we turn to Strong’s concordance, we find that the English word perfect is translated from the Greek word telios. Looking for the ideas implied from telios, we find that the word translates as ‘complete’ or ‘completeness’. In fact, if we look at the history of the English language, we find that even the word ‘perfect’ has evolved in the last 400 years (from the time when the bible was first translated into English). At that time, the word perfect was used to describe a sense of completeness, just as the word telios does. It is only in the time since the King James Version of the bible was first printed, that the word ‘perfect’ has evolved from meaning complete, to meaning flawless. If we use this ‘old’ meaning for the word perfect in verse 48, we find Yeshua teaching the people that we should seek to love one another ‘completely’, even as the Father loves us completely."

Whoa! You're good!

[Michael The Disciple]

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.

I'm just wanting to make sure you're not propagating that we, as believers, are bound & obligated to be flawless, never failing. If that's what you're saying, I'd have to join with Jeffrey and ask, "How's that working out for you?"

[Michael The Disciple]

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.

The Ecumenical Church will be without spot or blemish. Yes, I agree. I, however, am not flawless, and you and I hold that in common. But really, I have no idea what this has to do with much of anything we're talking about here, so I'll drop it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I wholeheartedly disagree. I am shocked you state this. Exegesis and correct hermeneutics requires us to address the question of whom the writing was given originally and why. There is no assumption of anything. In fact, to miss this vital issue of whom the book was written to will take one precisely in the direction to which you have gone with the very doctrine of salvation! And that chills my bones.

I cannot express how much a person has to realize, especially after reading this thread, of how vitally important it is to know that Romans was written to a church of saved people and reading it with that in mind is absolutely vital, and offers NO ASSSUMPTION whatsoever.

I mean, it is as much error to say otherwise as to read Peters words of how baptism saves and then say baptism is not part of salvation (1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:).



Paul wrote to believing Jews and gentiles, but mostly to the believing Jews who were caught up in the same error that Paul faced in Acts which called for the Council at Jerusalem to deal with the question of Gentiles in the church and circumcision.

Adam Clarke wrote:

Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.

...

finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.

...

Therefore, in an epistle directed to Roman believers, the point to be endeavored after by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts to the opinion that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious situation with themselves, and that without their being obliged to keep the law of Moses. In this epistle, though directed to the Roman Church in general, it is, in truth, a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly, as often as his argument leads him to say any thing derogatory from the Jewish institution, he constantly follows it by a softening clause.

John Gill:

The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church;

Albert Barnes:

Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews;

It is a minimalizing of an EPISTLE to a CHURCH, and refusal to deal with the fact that sermons preached to sinners included Acts 2:38's elements, and insistence on maintaining one's doctrine that one need not be baptized and Spirit filled with tongues, to deny this fact that the epistle was NOT WRITTEN TO SINNERS.

Wow, you guys. God love you, but, wow.



One thousand times NO! I would make this an issue of fellowship! Really.

An issue of fellowship? *baffled*

Shall I cite the portion of Texts where exegetes believe Paul is using diatribe to represent Jewish unbelievers? Are you familiar with Moo, NT Wright? There's no question that the primary audience is the Christians in Roman. However, you spent 5 paragraphs going hysterical that I said there are some references in Romans that were addressed to Jewish (non-Jesus) believers. Still ignoring the blatant premise that Paul's writings would be making major assumptions that would cause him to leave out some pretty critical facts in his theology, where you can freely fill in the blanks. And let's be clear -- those gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost (in Acts) were most certainly not categorically "unbelievers." And if they were, to adjust a story by Luke, who is not trying to explain to us theology, and take theology by Paul and discount it is at best dishonest.

So be shocked. Be beside yourself. But the true shock is on how well your sacred cow rebuttals are extremely unstable.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Adino

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.

Furthermore, it's quite amazing that the letters that come the closest to systematizing theology (though they clearly aren't systematized), come the closest to articulating salvation in didactic ways... these writings leave the important stuff out on the basis of assumption, and include other information that should equally be obvious. Then... the account that is neither didactic, intended for theology or responded to doctrinal issues is heralded as the gold mine of theological teaching. Does that make anyone but me scratch my head?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

What does that mean to you?

And again... how's that working out for you?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

My answer may shock you, NOW Maybe even shock MTD.

However, verses like this show us the direction of sanctification, and help us realize our sanctified butts are still undeserving of God's righteousness.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

My answer may shock you, NOW Maybe even shock MTD.

However, verses like this show us the direction of sanctification, and help us realize our sanctified butts are still undeserving of God's righteousness.

As a result of God's efficacious grace, I certainly am flawless! Ephesians 2 even calls me His "Masterpiece!" Imagine that! The cross of Christ alone has made me flawless and His masterpiece!