The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The point is that the thief was not under the new covenant for Christ had not even made atonement yet.

Do we have a special dispensation for the thief? The Law couldn't save him (Hebrews 10:4), and he died (presumably) before Jesus rose from the dead and certainly before Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after that...

Just how was Jesus able to keep His promise to the repentant thief?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One cannot be baptized into His death until after Christ had died and resurrected. All before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ that occurred in time and space two thousand years ago. All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross in order to be saved by the atonement once it occurred. Such a shadow corresponds to our repentance and water baptism.

So then, you're saying that baptism is NOT essential for salvation because:

"ALL before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ..." and,

"All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross..."

They were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. We today are saved by faith in what that Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago.

Right?

[mfblume]

Whew, got some catching up to do here! So many posts.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Do we have a special dispensation for the thief? The Law couldn't save him (Hebrews 10:4), and he died (presumably) before Jesus rose from the dead and certainly before Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after that...

Just how was Jesus able to keep His promise to the repentant thief?

Anything, that occurred before the cross is one bracket of its own, including law, promise and Adam and Eve. And the HEART is the important factor. I already said this, which should cover all issues of this topic, but when God sees the heart that has the kind of faith THAT WORKS, it is the faith that works that saves.

It's the same situation as in the case of the hypothetical picture of someone who repented and is intent on getting baptized in obedience and dies on the way to church. Their heart had faith that works. That heart's faith was going to do something. That one is saved. Same with the thief. Jesus saw the heart of that man that had faith that works. He was saved.

It's so simple, but like Mizpeh said, so many here are missing the obvious issue that faith saves, but it is faith that works that saves, and not any other kind of faith.

Originally Posted by pelathais

So then, you're saying that baptism is NOT essential for salvation

No I am not. Baptism is part of salvation. I made that clear.

because:

"ALL before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ..." and,

"All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross..."

They were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. We today are saved by faith in what that Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago.

Right?

No, I said that anything required to be DONE before the cross was a shadow of repentance and baptism that is REQUIRED AFTER THE CROSS. And these are not done by way of works without faith, but rather faith that works.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wow, Mike.

Your post assumed the reason why some don't get the Spirit baptism is because they have certain sins that you didn't have?

No it does not. lol. I already said I can only speak from experience, and that was my experience, so I cannot speak for other reasons.

Originally Posted by notofworks

I think Mike's post really illustrates the "other side" very well. If tongues really is a necessary element to salvation and IF God withholds the gift of the Holy Spirit until sin is eliminated from one's life, then clearly the position Mike supports is a system that requires man to get better before he is saved.

No, it means repentance is required to get saved. I had not truly repented.

And such a statement is really, really, really, really scary.

When misconstrued like you did with it, sure.

This is really where I'd hope we would eventually arrive...the place where it's clear that "Three Steppers" believe in a system of salvation by works, believe in a system where we earn our salvation.

You shock me. After all the statements I made that state baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance, and you still say this! Wow. Brother, I thought you were more honest about this than that.

Several of you have parsed scripture and laid out quite an impressive exegetical argument...much better than I could. But the nuts and bolts of the whole thing? There is a large group of people here who believe they've earned their salvation.

You really shock me with your words today. I was hestitant to agree. but now agree with Leg. that you simply do not want to see another perspective. I am disappointed.

Again, baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance is because repentance is reliance upon the work of the cross alone for forgiveness, and baptism likewise is useless without faith that the cross saves, and Spirit infilling shows God giving utterance for tongues taking away anything in our minds that might think we do not need the cross and God's power to effect anything. but I already said that, and to twist my words like you have here shows me you were not interested in what I actually believe after clearly stating it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I think we are having just a smidge of progress in our agreement.

I have no concern in agreeing with your stance but simply agreeing with scripture.

I'm just curious why you believe the restored covenant ("new" covenant) requires anything more than faith to be effective... for initiatory/conversion purposes.

Because the covenant simply said so.

Your last few sentences: Faith corresponds with a shadow of water baptism and repentance? That's really stretching the undies, Mike.

I think not. baptism doth also now even save us. How you can avoid that one is stretching things, bro.

Originally Posted by notofworks

I don't know. I think Timmy may have a legitimate point....IF.....one has to do all the tongues stuff. I mean, it's pretty fool-proof to get a bull & goat and drain the blood and go once a year and do all the offerings....it's lot of work, but hey, if I kill the goat, it's dead and I'm done.

On the other hand, if I have to go to the altar for 600 consecutive Sundays and beg God for the Holy Ghost and STILL maybe never get it, I might just opt for the OT plan.....

.......IF I have to do all that stuff.

All we do is speak as God givers the utterance. Anyone who speaks in tongues knows this. How can "all this tongues stuff" be a work like you say if YOU speak in tongues and KNOW that it is no effort? Wow, bro. You shock me again.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Mike... they don't want to get it. That's the thing. They have false views of works/law etc... which then goes and floods over to poor views of atonement and baptism, judgment and covenant requirements unto eternal life.

I agree. Notice there is no inkling of atonement concept in their words. KWSS even said that the difference of the cross is nothing as though it is a stretch to say that before the cross and after the cross there would be a huge difference. Wow. I ,mean, wow. WE are the ones speaking about atonement and covenantal issues that require an action on our parts by way of standing as faith that works, and by non means Works without faith. And that corresponds to James' words quite perfectly. It's a wonder Noah had to build an ark according to this doctrine!! Why did Abel have to offer a better sacrifice? Why did Abraham take one step at all to go to a land God promised? All of these acted by faith and that action was required and did not take the place of salvation by works any more than baptism and Spirit infilling do. Read Hebrews 11. ACTIONS AFTER ACTION AFTER ACTION by FAITH. They acted without any evidence that what was said was true, making it an act of faith. And that action alone did not save them since it was faith that works and was action of faith.

So, let us rip out the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews, for that is saying exacvtly what we have related to these folk. And let us rip out James 2, and, for Heaven's sake, remove Peter's words that say "Baptism doth also now even save us."

[mfblume]

Lest the actual beliefs we propose get buried with strawmen arguments:

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.

The correct emphasis is about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationalist argument which is error.

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?

Neither baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are actions of self making self righteous.

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance.

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.

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.

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 save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree. Notice there is no inkling of atonement concept in their words. KWSS even said that the difference of the cross is nothing as though it is a stretch to say that before the cross and after the cross there would be a huge difference. Wow. I ,mean, wow. WE are the ones speaking about atonement and covenantal issues that require an action on our parts by way of standing as faith that works, and by non means Works without faith. And that corresponds to James' words quite perfectly. It's a wonder Noah had to build an ark according to this doctrine!! Why did Abel have to offer a better sacrifice? Why did Abraham take one step at all to go to a land God promised? All of these acted by faith and that action was required and did not take the place of salvation by works any more than baptism and Spirit infilling do. Read Hebrews 11. ACTIONS AFTER ACTION AFTER ACTION by FAITH. They acted without any evidence that what was said was true, making it an act of faith. And that action alone did not save them since it was faith that works and was action of faith.

So, let us rip out the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews, for that is saying exacvtly what we have related to these folk. And let us rip out James 2, and, for Heaven's sake, remove Peter's words that say "Baptism doth also now even save us."

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

It's either interesting or sad that we used to converse and share, in the past (FCF, NFCF), on our views of various scriptures. Now we seem to come here to defend the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Of course, that is probably just my opinion.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

And such reasoning from scripture is simply avoided. Anyone with any sense of understanding covenantal works realizes that every covenant has a part for each party to accomplish, otherwise the covenant is not in effect. To say all one needs is faith and repentance are TWO STEPS whether the "one step" folks agree or not. And baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more works for salvation than those two are.

God's part is to save and our part is to obey. If we claim God saves, then it is ridiculously moot for anyone to claim we believe in salvation by works.

The only way we could ever espouse salvation by works is to DENY that the cross is required in any form for us to be saved by baptism and Spirit infilling. Ironically, though. KWSS and others claim there is no real difference between the times before and after the cross. This implies that the cross is not necessary to save! And yet you and I are accused of salvation by works without the cross! Go figure.