The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Read your own quote that I underscored and emboldened.

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

Lutherans believed in BR, and many Lutherans who rejected infant baptism. Both qualified and clarified particular points, but it was essentially the same -- baptism is a requirement for salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Lutherans believed in BR, and many Lutherans who rejected infant baptism. Both qualified and clarified particular points, but it was essentially the same -- baptism is a requirement for salvation.

No, you still have it wrong. BR is the belief that baptism without faith causes faith, salvation, or anything else we need. It is the idea that exerting FAITH before baptism is not involved.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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?

You're not hearing me. Just because you see the word "salvation" doesn't mean Peter is giving them the covenant terms, or explaining HOW they should be saved. Peter surely told them what to do, but it's folly to insist that Peter's instructions are the theological treaty of the NT, or that even his instructions don't need any qualifying, since many have attached their doctrines to his words, making Peter say something he did not. He did say to be baptized. He did NOT say you aren't saved until you are baptized. He did say to those Jews at Pentecost that they WOULD receive the Spirit. He did NOT say, without Spirit baptism with tongues you are not saved. Just a couple examples.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, you still have it wrong. BR is the belief that baptism without faith causes faith, salvation, or anything else we need. It is the idea that exerting FAITH before baptism is not involved.

I've heard it otherwise, Blume. Like most doctrines, I'm sure the platform is quite broad. I'll concede to you on this point, though, since you're more the expert there.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've heard it otherwise, Blume. Like most doctrines, I'm sure the platform is quite broad. I'll concede to you on this point, though, since you're more the expert there.

Jeffrey, that is not the real point, though, anyway. The fact is that salvation by works means actions are believed to make one righteous in and of themselves without God's grace. And no one here believes in that. If I said it once, I said it a hundred times, repentance and faith are of the same nature as baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. Baptism and Spirit infilling in no way are accomplished by us as though we do not require the cross to be the ONLY work that saves us. Why is that so hard to understand?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You're not hearing me. Just because you see the word "salvation" doesn't mean Peter is giving them the covenant terms, or explaining HOW they should be saved. Peter surely told them what to do, but it's folly to insist that Peter's instructions are the theological treaty of the NT, or that even his instructions don't need any qualifying, since many have attached their doctrines to his words, making Peter say something he did not. He did say to be baptized. He did NOT say you aren't saved until you are baptized. He did say to those Jews at Pentecost that they WOULD receive the Spirit. He did NOT say, without Spirit baptism with tongues you are not saved. Just a couple examples.

Your words fail in light of the simple words Christ said. Christ said the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Period. It takes a lot of stretching to deny that. He did not say He that believes is saved and shall be baptized. And Peter's words merely reflected those as well as the words of Luke 24:47-49. Why did Jesus tell them to preach those things in Luke 24?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jeffrey, that is not the real point, though. The fact is that salvation by works means actions are believed to make one righteous in and of themselves without God's grace. And no one here believes in that. If I said it once, I said it a hundred times, repentance and faith are of the same nature as baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. Baptism and Spirit infilling in no way are accomplished by us as though we do not require the cross to be the ONLY work that saves us. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because, like circumcision, the gift of salvation is a gift that is unearned, only accepted. Your point is hard to understand, because I can't reconcile it with the words of Paul, or even the words of Jesus, or of John. I agree these things are not "works" in the pure sense of the word (The Law, etc), etc...

Repentance is a heart action, nothing else, and comes because of faith. We are baptized because of faith. We can obtain gifts of the Spirit because of faith. It's all centered on FAITH. And that faith is recognized as righteousness UPON faith, not dependent on anything else.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Your words fail in light of the simple words Christ said. Christ said the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Period. It takes a lot of stretching to deny that. He did not say He that believes is saved and shall be baptized. And Peter's words merely reflected those as well as the words of Luke 24:47-49. Why did Jesus tell them to preach those things in Luke 24?

Finish that verse, Blume, and you tell me if his point was belief or some sort of doctrine on baptism?

Belief, Belief, Belief, the entire theme of St. John, of Jesus, of Paul... WHY is that so hard to understand.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Because, like circumcision, the gift of salvation is a gift that is unearned, only accepted.

Right, but that misses my belief totally. Baptism IS part of the ACCEPTING as much as repentance is. What is the difference between baptism and repentance as far as being means towards salvation?

Your point is hard to understand, because I can't reconcile it with the words of Paul, or even the words of Jesus, or of John. I agree these things are not "works" in the pure sense of the word (The Law, etc), etc...

I think your struggle is in not really getting our words. We are saying baptism is a means of acceptance of salvation. The only thing wrong with salvation by works is the law's type of works that disregard the cross to be righteous. If you refer to anything else in your attempts to refute the need for baptism, you are out of the category of the issue of salvation by works or not.

Repentance is a heart action, nothing else,

That is moot since ACTION is ACTION whether it is of the heart or not. And neither heart action nor action of baptism in the physical are meant to make us righteous.

and comes because of faith. We are baptized because of faith. We can obtain gifts of the Spirit because of faith. It's all centered on FAITH. And that faith is recognized as righteousness UPON faith, not dependent on anything else.

RIGHT! I have said that all along! Why do you think I did not? But that does not mean baptism is not necessary. It is not necessary in the sense that it is something that makes us righteous. WHAT MAKES US RIGHTEOUS is the issue! Notofworks refuses to hear us saying this. It seems you are as well.

It's like you're caught up in a difference between physical action and heart action, and as far as righteousness is concerned, they are not different from one another.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Finish that verse, Blume, and you tell me if his point was belief or some sort of doctrine on baptism?

Belief, Belief, Belief, the entire theme of St. John, of Jesus, of Paul... WHY is that so hard to understand.

I understand it. Without belief none of it is of any use. That is why I do not believe salvation by works.