The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.

Just following your lead. I thought it was the theme for today or something.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Hmmm... I wonder if you have found that post yet? The one where I "falsely accuse [-you-] of erring doctrine...?"

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

You're a real piece of work this morning Mike. You come busting in here calling me a liar. Next you play the pity card and claim that I had been persecuting you as if you were "erring."

Grow up dude. Reread the thread. You look quite silly. Oh, and find that post for me too, will ya?

[mfblume]

WIKIPEDIA:

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. Critics of the concept frequently allege that the concept of baptismal regeneration tends to emphasize form (including the role of water) instead of meaning; supporters of the concept may identify meaning with form and cite biblical passages such as Luke 6:46.[1]

DAVE HUNT'S STUDY ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

...

Trent [COUNCIL OF TRENT] anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. "

...

For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2: 41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.

"Is baptism regenerational" - by Mark Bonocore:

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) believe that Baptism is regenerational -- that is to say, that the Sacrament itself transforms the person by "water and the Word," (cf. Eph 5:26) thus adopting that person into the Body of Christ and making that person a participant in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 4:6-7).

Those who claim that the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation are actually proposing baptismal regeneration do err. They do not see the all-important issue that such a doctrine believes that baptism in and of itself does a work without the need for faith. When explanations are given about how baptism cannot be done without faith and, therefore, cannot really do anything for anyone, they are ignored such as we have seen on this thread.

It becomes a

Pel, when you can cool down and stop slurring me, and become a bit more objective, let's talk some more.

[mfblume]

Ignoring the juvenile slurs (you cannot stop, can you?), Pelathais, let me show you where you accused me of baptismal regeneration, which is what I meant by accusing me of erring doctrine:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Really... all of this baptismal regenerationism is getting to you too?

You came on here accusing me of something I distinctly proved I did not believe, and then when I respond and call you on it, showing you were faslely accusing me, you act as though I started this mess by saying you falsely accused me. Extrapolate a bit further, Pel.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

...

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.

Theology can really be a difficult subject if we ignore the terminology that is used within the different systems. By simply using the same word, but with a different meaning we can end up having all kinds of confusion and we also may inadvertently end up making the Bible appear to contradict itself over and over again.

How can we avoid this snare?

Say, for example that we wanted to be a part of a church and wanted to know how a "Bible" church behaved. Well, the Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia." Turning in our Bibles we find that an "ekklesia" behaves like this:

"Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together." Acts 19:32

That's how a NT Church is supposed to act? I guess so. It says so in the Greek.

Words have general meanings, and they can have particular meanings when used in special cases.

Hoeing a row of beans is "work" - but nobody ever claimed it was the same kind of "work" as being circumcised under the Law of Moses. Mixing the two together, in fact, will make a person look rather silly.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Ah yes, TL. Let's talk about John's Gospel.

What is the theme of John's Gospel? Believing. 3:16-18 perhaps being the thesis.

As I referenced 3:36, I'm not sure where you get "obey" from, though I was prepared to interact with you on that.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

The reason why it is obey is because the KJV is HORRIBLE with the dealing with the word "pistis" and present participle active and context which has been shown by modern scholars and why the ESV shows OBEY. You really need to do some research on the failures in this areas of which James White even shows among many that the aspect of John and his use of and context of "pistis" is a aspect of "faithful or "obey." Also this would be consistent wiht John 15 concerning obedience and the whole of Jesus teaching.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. KJV

34-36"The One that God sent speaks God's words. And don't think he rations out the Spirit in bits and pieces. The Father loves the Son extravagantly. He turned everything over to him so he could give it away—a lavish distribution of gifts. That is why whoever accepts and trusts the Son gets in on everything, life complete and forever! And that is also why the person who avoids and distrusts the Son is in the dark and doesn't see life. All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that." The Message

Point of note..... want to discuss scripture with me, don't ever use the lame paraphrase/commentary pieces of trash like the Message. Just saying...

36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

NIV is not a serious translation...

appears some varying translations of this verse... I think "obey" misses the parallel of the verse, "if you believe this, if you don't believe this." That's the structure. But either way, I can accept "obedience to the Son." HELLO! I'm not against obedience! I'm just don't see salvation because of yours or my obedience.

Then you simply miss the text and clear teaching of Jesus which is consistent for your own fallacy. JEsus view of believing is about response of doing. Giving up to obtain. Following him at the negation of others. Thus he does not see your belief until he judges the response. Just like Abraham. God's offering may come freely but he demands something. To say he doesn't negates the words of Christ. Want eternal life.... obey the commandments and follow me..... THAT IS THE GOSPEL!

The ENTIRE theme of John is BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE. Every story. Every parable. Every miracle. All the issues center on belief. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Exactly believe which must be understood with what is meant not by POOR translation which you used and modern scholarship is revealing and showing the effects of LUTHER and his poor latin translating. The context of believe is unto following NOT simply mental assent. Which is the point of all of what Jesus says.

The present participle active in NT Greek reflects an “habitual behavior.” It signifies a “process [that is] continuous.” (This also is still true in modern Greek grammar. For example Adams, Essential Modern Greek Grammar (1987) on page 81....
This distinction has been recently confessed by a leading Calvinist who is yet a staunch faith-alone advocate. Dr. James White writes about the verb tense in John 6:35-45 as well as John 3:16 in "Drawn by the Father": A Summary of
John 6:35-45 pages 10-11:

"Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior."

THus the "continous" view has the whole scope of the context in view not simply as James says "the devils also believe and tremble" but a view of doing unto context of believ"ing" or faithfulness. THus when Jesus talks about giving up one must do that before one obtains covenant JUST LIKE ABRAHAM LEAVING HOME TO OBTAIN! You cannot say I believe and not cast off they are seen withing the scope of believe. The message is about taking upon a yoke which is by contract to obtain.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Ignoring the juvenile slurs (you cannot stop, can you?), Pelathais, let me show you where you accused me of baptismal regeneration, which is what I meant by accusing me of erring doctrine:



You came on here accusing me of something I distinctly proved I did not believe, and then when I respond and call you on it, showing you were faslely accusing me, you act as though I started this mess by saying you falsely accused me. Extrapolate a bit further, Pel.

I hope Rev Randy is having a real good laugh right now. Lemme see, did I say, "Hey Randy! Look at Mike Blume over there! He wears a hat just like Dagon the fish god!"

Or, did you pop in and pick up on an attempt on my part to get an infrequent poster to open up a bit in a conversation that had nothing to do with you?

What were my last two post TO YOU prior to that? Look carefully for some context here.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Jesus said it, not me. I get my doctrines from the bible and such statements that Jesus made.

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.

I really think you cannot get the concept of how salvation by works is the teaching that a work in and of itself makes us righteous without any dependence on the work of the cross.

My words only contradict if someone does not get that point. Like you said earlier, you know my position on salvation by works, and yet you cannot point your finger to the problem, which is because you really do not understand the relationship of righteousness in salvation by works, and where righteousness more correctly is understood as something God;s work alone provides.

Anyone who preaches this issue of righteousness correctly will receive the same confusion from people who cannot follow the point properly. Paul's words were always misunderstood for that very reason. He had to repeatedly clarify himself by posing hypothetical erring conclusions and saying "God forbid" in response, as in Romans 6. He knew people were getting this wrong all the time. He knew the pat responses that were simply caused by their lack of understanding the issue.

In fact, one wise teacher said that if people are not usually mistaking your position when you speak of righteousness, you are probably not preaching the truth of it like Paul was.

On the one hand, you got the law-keepers who thought Paul claimed Law was useless trash when he taught that we obtain righteousness apart from the law, and on the other hand we get good brethren like yourself who think we preach baptismal regeneration when we claim baptism is necessary for salvation, and you miss the all-important difference that the action in and of itself makes no one righteous.

I in no way feel superior to you or anyone else here. lol. Please cease with personal attacks, and deal with the issue objectively. I sense the same confusion in your accusation of my pride that I do in your reasoning that baptism is a necessity for salvation is salvation by works. Ironic as it is,. baptism is done to PUT AWAY ANY EFFORTS OF SELF THAT COULD EVER HOPE TO MAKE ITSELF RIGHTEOUS, rather than part of a salvation by works system. If anyone has a revelation on the importance of baptism, it is not because they, themselves, were so superior, but rather God was gracious enough to shed light into their spirits on the issue.

So, once again, please, please, please, stop the personal attacks. Let us reason together.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus said it, not me. I get my doctrines from the bible and such statements that Jesus made.


I really think you cannot get the concept of how salvation by works is the teaching that a work in and of itself makes us righteous without any dependence on the work of the cross.

My words only contradict if someone does not get that point. Like you said earlier, you know my position on salvation by works, and yet you cannot point your finger to the problem, which is because you really do not understand the relationship of righteousness in salvation by works, and where righteousness more correctly is understood as something God;s work alone provides.

Anyone who preaches this issue of righteousness correctly will receive the same confusion from people who cannot follow the point properly. Paul's words were always misunderstood for that very reason. He had to repeatedly clarify himself by posing hypothetical erring conclusions and saying "God forbid" in response, as in Romans 6. He knew people were getting this wrong all the time. He knew the pat responses that were simply caused by their lack of understanding the issue.

In fact, one wise teacher said that if people are not usually mistaking your position when you speak of righteousness, you are probably not preaching the truth of it like Paul was.

On the one hand, you got the law-keepers who thought Paul claimed Law was useless trash when he taught that we obtain righteousness apart from the law, and on the other hand we get good brethren like yourself who think we preach baptismal regeneration when we claim baptism is necessary for salvation, and you miss the all-important difference that the action in and of itself makes no one righteous.

I in no way feel superior to you or anyone else here. lol. Please cease with personal attacks, and deal with the issue objectively. I sense the same confusion in your accusation of my pride that I do in your reasoning that baptism as a necessity for salvation is salvation by works. Ironic as it is,. baptism is done to PUT AWAY ANY EFFORTS OF SELF THAT COULD EVER HOPE TO MAKE ITSELF RIGHTEOUS, rather than part of a salvation by works system. If anyone has a revelation on the importance of baptism, it is not because they, themselves, were so superior, but rather God was gracious enough to shed light into their spirits on the issue.

So, once again, please, please, please, stop the personal attacks. Let us reason together.

Uh... you ready to clear up your head and stop the personal attacks? You jumped right on line this morning and twisted a one liner conversation that I had with another poster into a personal attack on you.

Are you really that important in the grand scheme of the cosmos? Did you check Drudge this morning? That guy is really tearing you up. How can you take it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I hope Rev Randy is having a real good laugh right now. Lemme see, did I say, "Hey Randy! Look at Mike Blume over there! He wears a hat just like Dagon the fish god!"

Or, did you pop in and pick up on an attempt on my part to get an infrequent poster to open up a bit in a conversation that had nothing to do with you?

What were my last two post TO YOU prior to that? Look carefully for some context here.

Please. Do you or do you not propose I believe baptismal regeneration? That was the accusation I claimed you made that was false. You even said so yourself, here:

The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine).

You brethren call me a three stepper if I believe the three elements of Acts 2:38 are required for salvation. If I am incorrect, forgive me. And you say three steppers preach baptismal regeneration, despite my proofs that baptismal regeneration is belief that baptism in and of itself makes us righteous and creates faith rather than is done only DUE TO FAITH.

If you did not refer to what I believe, then I am sorry, but that is how I took it. You made that claim to Rev Randy in the midst of myself posting about baptism's necessity for salvation. What else am I to think? If you did not mean me, then I accept that and am sorry. But that is what stirred the issue of false accusation.

If you did not mean me, then who did you mean?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.