The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wow, so justification is by EACH ACTION now? You amaze me, TL. I know you are smarter than this. I've read your words before.

God didn't judge Abram's ACTION he reckoned and accounted to him righteousness because of his faith. Quit changing terminology.

Your minimizing of justification by faith would cause Paul to have a heart attack and write you a very colorful letter. And of course, Martin Luther would roll over in his grave.

Justification, to you, is all something we deserve for being good. Amazing.

I will respond to this later... as I have pointed out the language 1000 times and "it" was considered. What is "IT" in Gen 15 being considered or being judged. BELIEF! God judges response! Thus IT was considered/judged to him as righteousness/right/just. Abraham is the benficiary of the judgment concerning his action. this is clearly how judicial aspects work.

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. ESV

Gen 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. NET

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

well I am having to wonder seriously... Whether you don't agree that is one thing but you TOTALY ignore what is said TOTALY and then call me a BAPTISM REGENERATION believer. Seriously you IGNORE what is said! How in the WORLD you can say this is beyond my imagination. Anyone who would do that is ignorant of the issue OR simpy likes to flame accusations and lump people. Probably true since several of you lump works so why not baptism to. Why you do such I have no idea. After a while it get pointless.

What scholars? That is hilarious! REFORMED SCHOLARS? CATHOLIC? NAZARENE? PENTECOSTAL? LUTHERAN? You do realize that most likely don't agree with each other on a lot of things. Many will agree with my point in Gen 15 and 22 and 12 etc...

Please give me some citations of scholars (reputable) that agree with you concerning Gen 22. I find it amazing that Paul missed the memo on that point, when he pointed back to Gen 15 and when Abram was reckoned righteousness.

On Baptismal Regeneration, I may have confused your position. You are probably right. I'm not the BR expert. You are playing with semantics, though you believe literally "baptism which now saves us" you believe only because its in accordance to the Gospel plan, and not isolated as source of salvation on its own. I think it still toes the line.

You insist on lumping me with Reformed scholarship, though I'm not concerned if that is true, but it's not my aim. What scholarship do you identify with? William Seymour? Durham? Charles Parham?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I will respond to this later... as I have pointed out the language 1000 times and "it" was considered. What is "IT" in Gen 15 being considered or being judged. BELIEF! God judges response! Thus IT was considered/judged to him as righteousness/right/just.

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. ESV

Gen 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. NET

You use the word "judged" more than anyone I know.

"It" = "his faith" = "his believing the Lord" the precedent clause of Gen 15:6.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I only know faith. Faith that is alive, and faith that dies. Faith that dies slowly resorts back to sin and death, and the underlying issue is disbelief.

There is dead faith and living faith, not faith that dies.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

I've not rejected Peter. I think Peter and I would get along fine. I think you'd make Luke's account of Peter's sermon something it was not: namely a systematic theology of how we are saved.

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.

Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Let me clarify. When I say "redeveloped" I'm speaking in Pauline terms. For him, as a Jew, it certainly was. They never saw themselves sharing the election of God with Gentiles. Yes, it was God's original plan, and yes, they missed the boat.

Incorrect. Let's see what Paul actually said. Paul taught that Abraham was told that his seed would be blessed and the inheritance would go to his seed. Paul said Christ is that seed. That is redeveloping nothing.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The same thing is found in Romans:

Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

God told Abraham exactly what the New Covenant involved, and did not redevelop anything He said to Abraham.

Refuse to deal with it? Huh?

I have laid out the correlation and showed this was Christ's will for the apostles to BEGIN TO PREACH in Jerusalem. Nary a remark.

Repentance and forgiveness of sins comes by way of Jesus and the authority he has because of the resurrection.

Right. And that includes baptism. Repentance and baptism together accomplish this. If you refuse to agree, and say baptism comes AFTER remission, then why are the Greek words ("for the remission of sins") in the same sequence in Acts 2:38 as they are in reference to the blood which causes remission of sins?

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I'll give it to you since Acts 2 and Luke 24 are the same writers, that one could certainly entertain your logic. But that's precisely where I go with it to. I read Acts 2:38 through Luke 24, and don't come out of it with baptismal regeneration. I come out of it salvation by way of and authority of Jesus.

And you evidently do not know what baptismal regeneration is, as I already explained.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

and then call me a BAPTISM REGENERATION believer.

Evidently many here do not know what baptismal regeneration is. How can there be communication when dogmatic titles are misunderstood and used anyway? Faith is created in baptism according to baptismal regenerationists. No one here espouses that.

[Jeffrey]

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Evidently many here do not know what baptismal regeneration is. How can there be communication when dogmatic titles are misunderstood and used anyway? Faith is created in baptism according to baptismal regenerationists. No one here espouses that.

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith.

This is a common doctrine of Restorationist movements (which would include Classical Pentecostalism)


I can certainly understand your semantical differences, but they are minute at best. And given this definition, I think we've used the term in a fair context.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Do you actually believe that Peter was merely telling them how to get out of their rotten culture? How many salvations did you think were going on in Acts 2?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith.

This is a common doctrine of Restorationist movements (which would include Classical Pentecostalism)


I can certainly understand your semantical differences, but they are minute at best. And given this definition, I think we've used the term in a fair context.

Read your own quote that I underscored and emboldened.

Infant baptism is done due to baptismal regenerationism. Minute? Hardly.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Adam Clarke:

Act 2:40
Save yourselves from this untoward generation - Separate yourselves from them: be ye saved, σωθητε: the power is present with you; make a proper use of it, and ye shall be delivered from their obstinate unbelief, and the punishment that awaits it in the destruction of them and their city by the Romans.

The idea is that they had steps to take to rescue themselves from the wrath to come on Jerusalem. And that would be due to God rescuing them from sin. See the difference? Would you think salvation from sin was theirs without baptism and Spirit, but salvation from the wrath to come was not unless they got baptized? lol