The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What a beautiful chapter if I may add as well.

The writer's argument about how Jesus has become our High Priest. Jesus relates with us vv1-3, he is our Eternal highpriest vv. 4-6, and then the writer gets more to the point, using Jesus' relationship to the Father as an example of our relationship to him. "Though he was God's son, he learned trusting obedience by what he suffered, just as we do. Then having arrived at the full stature of maturity and having been announced by God as high priest he became the source of salvation for all who (believingly) obey him."

The point of this passage is not "how to be saved" but rather "Jesus understands weakness, temptation, testing and sin. So grow up! Be mature! This is a conversation from the end of Chapter 4 which continues through Chapter 6. His audience are those who have believed and are living like unbelievers. Paul says they have "re-crucified Jesus" in a sense.

Chapter 6 softens the rebuke from Paul in a reassurance of their salvation in Christ. God keeps his word and his promise.

All that to say, TL, I don't think proof-texts like this are the best way to "prove" baptismal regeneration.

what in the world did I say about baptism regeneration. Plain texts tell you how that relates. As I have said before your view is skewed from start to end when you make baptism a "work" of "ours" to obtain covenant as your positions smell gives havoc to everything you believe in relation to the word of God.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

sadly it is nothing but defending the faith anymore on these boards that now seem to be overun with sympathists to false teaching. Want to argue about minute things like preference in standards applied.... ok whatever. BASIC TEACHING ON what the basics are thrown out the window on what the covenant is let alone coming into covenant and baptism and God filling you with his Spirit. I see way to much reformed/protestant mentality on these boards and many don't even realize how much they are effected by such teachings. They may not hold to the hard theology but in part they have brought in bits and pieces that still smells the same with it's end results.

Yeah, it's so sad when people question the sacred cows of modern Pentecostalism. I mean, questioning is a BAD BAD thing.

Your ideas and beliefs are shaped and formed by a religious background as well. Wesleyan, Methodist, Puritan, heck... even some Martin Luther to an extent! We are all products of history.

I think people like you and Blume are integral to forums like this. I really do. Though we disagree often, you give an articulate voice to your positions that unfortunately is quite uncommon.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

oh so TURNING FROM SIN/REPENTING is not necessary? ROFL!

Turning from sin is not a moralist's new year's resolution, I'm-going-to-be-perfect mental exercise. It's placing complete trust in Jesus. Turning TO JESUS. It's what happens at faith.

[KWSS1976]

dang Jeff you posting every 2min...lol

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

hmmm then I question they had... maybe they are one of that had someone do the hallelujah tongue twist game... no matter the point still remains that reception is not by blind faith.

Well in fairness, it is a possibility for one to come to Jesus in faith and fall again. KSS must believe in a form of total perfection, a doctrine made popular by Wesley.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So He'll save only those who deserve to be saved?

Wow. Timmy, in just a few characters said more than all of us have with this one question.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

he will save the faithful.... pretty clear what scripture says just like Abraham. God gives mercy to the humble and resists the proud. hmmm sounds pretty conditional to me.

you don't understand Heb 5:9? Why do you fight scripture?

CONDITIONAL????????? Holy ......... Seriously. Jesus died because we couldn't freaking live up to the "terms of conditions." He made a way!! If it's conditional, and his side of the bargain is like an earned wage, you've missed the entire Pauline thought of salvation by faith. I thought we were farther along than this!!!!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

yeah.... knowing they had not received the HS in Acts 8... no big issue. They only called down the Apostles... Paul asking have you received "since" or "when" you believed.... no big question or issue. As you view and most I know never ask such a question.... WHY? Because the blind faith view does not even think to ask such a question as it is thought autumatic upon belief.

You are speaking in parables or something. I need a ring decoder to decipher your message here. Let me try

Spirit baptism. Baptism in the Spirit. Promise of the Father.

I don't believe these are synonymous terms with every mention of "Spirit" in the Bible, but are a unique experience, particularly with the primary purpose of demonstrating God's acceptance of Jew AND Gentile in the Lukan narrative.

Acts 8 only tells us that it is expected that ALL can receive the Spirit after believing in Jesus. It is a gift for them that they can have. There is no regenerative talk in Luke's account. Surely you will admit that.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

baptism is the realization of the cross... seriously how difficult is this?

Faith is defined by the word/context known to the hearer and believed unto what is said. The cross is faith... Baptism is faith.... Baptism is seen as the pointof the working of God in which we realize Christ and his cross being applied to us and thus we then "abide" in him. THAT IS FAITH!

Agreed. Seriously. I agree.

It is an expression of faith. Is is some type of realization of what the cross has done. But it's NOT regenerative. We are saved the same way Abraham was, by faith. Only for us, the terms of our CONDITIONAL covenant are held up by a testator, Jesus Christ. So we have faith in Him and what He has done. WHAT A RELIEF!!!!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

context... "faith" must be defined. The covenant is not just about hearing and thinking yeah I agree but it is a obligation due to contract. The blood being applied is about authority realized at which Christ can judge. His blood was spilled ONCE and by such he has authority over death, hell and the grave. We DO not realize his blood until we are united with him in his death/blood in baptism.

When you say "realize" you are attempting to say that when we come to faith in Jesus, we are not justified at that point, but only after baptism. This just isn't accurate with Scripture.

Faith is not "hearing and agreeing" either, it's a heart-level expression of trust toward God, that certainly includes "hearing and agreeing." So this talk about faith being "mental ascent" is determined misunderstanding of what faith is. So yes, let's "define" faith

You are including blood with "death" to read your doctrine into what Paul has compared baptism to ("united in his death"). So not only am I not justified at faith, not forgiven at repentance, but the blood isn't even in the story until I've earned my way by being baptized? TL, that just doesn't add up for me. I'll give you that baptism has more significance than unfortunately many evangelicals today give it... but can't go that far with you. Sadly, that's not the end of the salvation game for you guys either... after the waters of baptism I now have to earn God's salvation by doing enough and being good enough for him to choose to fill me with Spirit baptism and speak in tongues.