The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;895927]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

That's simply not true. If you trust Jesus, you obey Jesus. The thread isn't about Christian living, it's about salvation we don't deserve. Get it?

again YOU DON'T GET IT! To come into covenant is a promise "TO OBTAIN" BY "____________" complete salvation is not realized until the end. To come INTO COVENANT STILL DEMANDS A PROPER RESPONSE! God judges/considers/reckons it "just" or not! Baptism is your hearts response to be united with Christ in his death. It is a appointed time BY GOD to obtain not APPOINTED BY MAN!

[sbo1971]

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

this is not true "REFORMED scholars who MUST have a covenant WHERE THERE IS NONE do. Read the BIBLE the covenant is made in Gen 22 and I have pointed this scripture out multiple times.

Wrong. I can name at least two predominant scholars who aren't REFORMED. But I can careless what we call them. First you say it's sort of a covenant, but limited to land, but then say there is NO covenant. Make up your mind.


CONTEXT= what is faith defined as!
HELLO... seriously connect the dots of what I have said multipletime. HIS faith is seen as a whole not just a isolate! James 2 "fulfilled"... when... ISAAC. Thus God judged/considered/thought "it" to him as just or righteous.



your point? This was not the covenant about offspring as sands of the sea etc... EVEN your reformed theologians say that is not the same covenant.
The covenant is clearly made in Gen 22 if you can't see that your blind.

ha. Get off the "your reformed theologians."

Gen 22 reinforces what was told to Abram in Gen 12. What is unique here that you are jumping up and down about?

Interestingly, this event also as Messianic overtones as well. But that's a TRUE tangent.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The new covenant has a part for us t6o play and we certainly can keep it. That is why we read in Heb 8 that the new covenant solved any problem in man not being able to continue.

But you totally missed my point. The point was that any given covenant has two parties. Us and God, in this case. And we have a part to play. Acts 2:38. And God promised to save BY HIS CROSS those who take part in that covenant.



Where are you getting this "new ways" thing from? Peter, not me, siad Acts 2:38. Jesus, not me, said Luke 24:47-49, the elements of Acts 2:38.



Strawman argument.



Only if it is faith that WILL WORK.



Nothing was redeveloped. God planned the gentiles to come into this thing since before Adam. Where are you getting these ideas? Redeveloped? The fact is that the new covenant has a part for us to play, and your accusation that baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues being salvation by works is simply and blatantly wrong, since those things are no more salvation by works than faith is. This keeps getting brushed aside, but it is the real issue.

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.


It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Wrong. Faith alone is NOT the covenant. Why did Peter not say "What must you do? Simply have faith!" in Acts 2:38?

Wow... that's all I can say.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that.

The shadow of baptism is anything in the Old Testament that was required by God in all their sacrifices that proposed the concept of vicarious sacrifice, for example.

We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

Baptism was never said to be regenerative work. This is where you are not listening to us. It is obedience to the covenant, and it MOVES God to regenerate and save. Baptism is not regeneration.

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=TheLegalist;895931]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

again YOU DON'T GET IT! To come into covenant is a promise "TO OBTAIN" BY "____________" complete salvation is not realized until the end. To come INTO COVENANT STILL DEMANDS A PROPER RESPONSE! God judges/considers/reckons it "just" or not! Baptism is your hearts response to be united with Christ in his death. It is a appointed time BY GOD to obtain not APPOINTED BY MAN!

The end isn't here. We are justified now in the future. Come on, TL, you know your Pauline eschatology a little better than that.

Yes, the proper response is FAITH. God reckons it as righteousness, not "judging an action as just." You make this stuff up sometimes.

I agree with your words about baptism, btw.

Note that we OBTAIN a gift that is freely offered (not ATTAIN). It's not a gift that you have to go jump through hoops to receive. You get it. Part of having that gift may include some hoops, but it's not on lay-away!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by sbo1971

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

I guess proof-texting means a lot for those uneducated folks, doesn't it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!

You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.

Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.

It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.

Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Words must mean nothing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by sbo1971

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

I agree. I said the same thing earlier. And that is not prooftexting either.

Folks can say all they want, but the issue is that faith and repentance are steps. So there are no one steppers, anyway. And baptism and Spirit infilling are no more salvation by works than they are.