The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by revrandy

I'm just glad I wasn't left on the cross or in the tomb.....I'm glad I have experienced His Resurrection and can walk in the newness of life.....

That is only true for those baptized into Jesus Christ, according to Romans 6:3.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I missed this remark from you, Pelathais. I never changed position. I always believed this!

Honestly, I truly think you folks who call yourself one-steppers (contradicted by the fact you believe faith and repentance - two steps - are necessary for salvation, no matter how you slice it) do not have an inkling about what Paul meant about salvation by works as I explained it correctly above.

Study righteousness and its place in the Kingdom and study Paul's explanation of it, and you may get it. But after all our explanation, I doubt it. It seems you do not want to get it.

As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thems fighting words, and you haven't proved yourself to possess the mettle to challenge my honesty. You really want to call me out? Son?

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

You know Mike, if you actually took time to pay attention to what is going on around you and also spent a bit more time in the Word than pompously pontificating you might begin to make a little sense.

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.

You started out on this thread essentially denying that the cross saves us.

See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.

Then, after a couple of days you suddenly pop up with 2 or 3 posts with a really nice explanation of justification through faith.

Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

AND... you've confused "baptismal regernationists" with paedobaptism. lol.

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?

... so far?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

Okay, Pumpkinhead...

Show me some examples of "baptismal regenerationists" that fit your definition.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.

You have impinged my morals. You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

Just what do you suppose the "regeneration" part is supposed to mean?

* - A New Birth! Yes!!! With the misapplication of John 3:5 we have baptismal regeneration - REGENERATION = "BORN AGAIN!"

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

Originally Posted by mfblume

See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.

No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna. In time you came around, and I complimented you on it. Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest!

You're the one who is false here, Mike. Baptismal regenerationalism goes hand-in-hand with the "Water & Spirit" doctrine a.k.a. "Three Stepper."

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?

Brother, do not make it out like I am suddenly being unfair here. You are the one, along with notofworks, who falsely accused me of baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, and ignored my explanation.

Pulling you to some honesty as much as is possible, and indicating you are failing at being patronizing, let me repeat it... You do not understand the sort of works that Paul explained were part of the erring "salvation by works".

You take ANY ACTION and consider it salvation by works by sheer virtue of it being a physical action. You do not stop to consider what place such a work has in relationship faith. Explanations about that mean nothing to you. For some reason, in your assessment a physical action is more an action than a mental action of repentance. Such a conclusion can only come from an infatuation with fleshly issues, where for some reason fleshly physical action is considered different from mental action. You do not stop to ask yourself why you think that way. And I said it dozens of times, but repentance is as much an action of faith as is baptism. But since baptism is done physically, you immediately think of salvation by works. .

Read, bro:

Joh 6:28-29 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Did you see that? FAITH IS A WORK WE DO! Jesus said it, Himself. Read it again, please.

If baptism had been called a "work" like that in the bible, then you might have stopped to realize that such works are not part of the "salvation by works" category that Paul condemned. [b][u]But since your version of works is a flip-flop of that reasoning, and since you claim reference to "works" speaks of things that cannot possibly save us, you need to read this passage and notice that Jesus called it a work as much as you call baptism a work.

YOUR FAITH IS A WORK! And it is necessary for salvation. Jesus said it, Himself. And I trust you may just presently realize by reading Jesus here that there is a drastic difference between the sort of works that Paul condemned as "salvation by works", and works like faith and baptism. There is no other explanation in light of Christ's words.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

Display it again. Call me "dishonest" again.

You didn't "display" anything the first time. Go back. Google it. Show it to me. Wave it under my nose.

But you HAVE TO ACTUALLY "DISPLAY" SOMETHING!!!

... otherwise, you'll be telling a fib when you say, "I have displayed exactly where you were not honest."

And THAT, is the height of irony.

Look up irony for yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Okay, Pumpkinhead...

You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna.

Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.

You falsely accuse me of erring doctrine, and then are taken back when I call you on it, and then resort to juvenile name-calling, as though I started the problem. This is what is always done when one has no actual argument.

Are you going to talk seriously and respectfully, or not? Please do not claim I believe baptismal regeneration when I lay forth a definition of it and prove it is not what I believe. I will garner some reference material again for you to realize your error of this false accusation. But please cease the juvenile name calling.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What was Abraham's action in Gen 15? How does Paul interpret that action?

You've yet to address that.

ARE YOU JOKING? I have addressed this so many times it's crazy. THE NARRATOR IS SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM'S LIFE IN VIEW. and he "believed" the lord. What is the narrator speaking about. He is speaking "believed" with Abraham's life in view not just a moment but the WHOLE. What do you have in the very next fuew verses... Abraham AGAIN doing what God commanded to "bring" to make covenant. Abraham ASKS God replies what to do and HE DOES thus again God is considering Abraham's response to his WORD.

Gen 15:8 But he said, "O Lord GOD,

how am I to know that I shall possess it?"

(WHAT IS HE ASKING TO OBTAIN?)

Gen 15:7 And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."

WAIT I thought it was a given already? NO! god says what he wants but it is not COVENANT YET! Thus Abraham askes how to "obtain" and what is God's response to "obtain"...

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

What is Abraham's respons to God's Word to him which is "context" ... Is this response by Abraham "righteous"? YES! Which is exactly up UNTIL Gen 22 the narrator sees as ("believed" the Lord) as James says is fulfilled.

God comes into covenant because of obedience in Gen 22 and the continuance in Gen 12 and Gen 15:10 he is responding "righteously", "just"
thus God makes COVENANT to obtain the land.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Brother, do not make it out like I am suddenly being unfair here. You are the one, along with notofworks, who falsely accused me of baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, and ignored my explanation.

Pulling you to some honesty as much as is possible, and indicating you are failing at being patronizing, let me repeat it... You do not understand the sort of works that Paul explained were part of the erring "salvation by works".

You take ANY ACTION and consider it salvation by works by sheer virtue of it being a physical action. You do not stop to consider what place such a work has in relationship faith. Explanations about that mean nothing to you. For some reason, in your assessment a physical action is more an action than a mental action of repentance. Such a conclusion can only come from an infatuation with fleshly issues, where for some reason fleshly physical action is considered different from mental action. You do not stop to ask yourself why you think that way. And I said it dozens of times, but repentance is as much an action of faith as is baptism. But since baptism is done physically, you immediately think of salvation by works. .

Read, bro:

Joh 6:28-29 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Did you see that? FAITH IS A WORK WE DO! Jesus said it, Himself. Read it again, please.

If baptism had been called a "work" like that in the bible, then you might have stopped to realize that such works are not part of the "salvation by works" category that Paul condemned. [b][u]But since your version of works is a flip-flop of that reasoning, and since you claim reference to "works" speaks of things that cannot possibly save us, you need to read this passage and notice that Jesus called it a work as much as you call baptism a work.

YOUR FAITH IS A WORK! And it is necessary for salvation. Jesus said it, Himself. And I trust you may just presently realize by reading Jesus here that there is a drastic difference between the sort of works that Paul condemned as "salvation by works", and works like faith and baptism. There is no other explanation in light of Christ's words.

I sat the other night talking to Prax about just this thing (on the Matthew 28:19 thread). We explored different ways in which "works" is used in the NT and found examples of where it is strictly associated with "The Works of the Law" and other examples of extrapolations, you name it.

You're the one who is trying to be silly by claiming the act of "believing" is a "work." That's ridiculous, and you keep throwing it out as if you've stumbled upon something profound.

Why don't you take a look at the Venn Diagram I threw together as an aid for my discussion with Prax?



The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine). Whether you actually subscribe to this belief I can not really tell. You've been all over the place in this thread. Go back and reread your posts.