The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Which is exactly why I said that salvation by works is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is notofworks who needs to hear this more than anyone else here. He has been insisting I preach salvation by works and that we earn salvation and improve ourselves.

But that is very point i was making in saying Jesus claimed faith was a work. It is ridiculous to say something that is a work necessarily falls under the category of salvation by works.

But what exactly are you referring to in my posts when you repeat the idea of words and meanings. You are not quoting anything specifically that I said, but are just pointing these statements of yours at me. The reason I say this is because your very reasoning quoted above is the basis for my claim that baptism is not salvation by works.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

So, baptism into Jesus Christ in Romans 6 refers only to WATER baptism?

And allowing some one to immerse you in water, or to sprinkle or pour water on you, or to self-immerse puts you into Christ and into His death?

Could it not refer to an action by the Holy Spirit which has put you positionally into Christ and has happened before water baptism takes place?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

So, baptism into Jesus Christ in Romans 6 refers only to WATER baptism?

And allowing some one to immerse you in water, or to sprinkle or pour water on you, or to self-immerse puts you into Christ and into His death?

Could it not refer to an action by the Holy Spirit which has put you positionally into Christ and has happened before water baptism takes place?

It is referring to water baptism, yes. But it is not the immersion in to water that actually puts you into Christ's death. I know some propose this is not about water baptism at all. It is. But not in the way you described it.

Water baptism is an act of obedience that falls in the category of the works that are caused by faith. Faith that works is the saving faith. The works cannot save in and of themselves. But the faith that saves is faith that DEMANDS the following resultant work of baptism. Within that explanation is where Romans 6 is understood., I believe.

Faith that does not work, and never sees the person baptized as an integral result, does not save.

[mfblume]

Sam, I agree with Adam Clarke:

Rom 6:3
Know ye not, etc. - Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts.

Baptism is a planting into death. Spirit Baptism is not about that. No other baptism is. Water baptism alone is about that.

Romans 6 is about water baptism, but the water is not what we are planted into that does anything, but rather Christ's death.

Water Baptism as part of baptismal regeneration teaches that the planting is actually into the water. lol. But it is a planting into Christ's death. And since those who understand water baptism correctly realize that we are not physically lowered into Christ's physical death, but merely water, and yet burial into His death is the point of water baptism, realize that FAITH is required for this to effect anything. This denies baptismal regeneration.

The scholars of older days had it more correct than most today. Most today claim water baptism is not the theme of Romans 6. However, it is.

John Gill wisely noted:

were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ

Modern scholarship makes no sense of Acts 22:16.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Which is exactly why I said that salvation by works is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is notofworks who needs to hear this more than anyone else here. He has been insisting I preach salvation by works and that we earn salvation and improve ourselves.

But that is very point i was making in saying Jesus claimed faith was a work. It is ridiculous to say something that is a work necessarily falls under the category of salvation by works.

But what exactly are you referring to in my posts when you repeat the idea of words and meanings. You are not quoting anything specifically that I said, but are just pointing these statements of yours at me. The reason I say this is because your very reasoning quoted above is the basis for my claim that baptism is not salvation by works.

The use of "works" in John 6:28-29, does not carry the same meaning as ... say for example, Romans 4:1-5.

In fact, in Romans 4:5, "works" (whatever they may be) are contrasted with belief.

In effect, Paul is saying that the "work of God" in John 6:29, is not really a "work" at all. How can he do this without contradicting the words of Jesus? He does it because he is using the word in a different sense and a different context than Jesus did.

(And just for the record, the underlying word in the original is the same as well).

When someone seriously says that "believing" is a "work" needed for salvation in a conversation about the cross, they are committing the same error as a person who says Acts 19:32 is an instruction for the church assembly.

[mfblume]

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!"

From words like this, Pel, it looks like you are accusing me of baptismal regeneration. See what I mean?

You seem to infer here, for it is not totally clear what you are saying, that those who believe Jesus involved water baptism in "born of the water and of the Spirit" propose baptismal regeneration. The point actually is that SOME who actually DO believe baptismal regeneration see no place of faith in all of this. Yes, they use this verse, but they claim FAITH is not involved with baptism in this reference.

But those of us who believe this is indeed speaking of water baptism, and are not baptismal regenerationists, claim that this water baptism is useless without faith. We believe that our obedience to be baptized is the work that makes "faith that works" a present reality. Our faith includes belief that God actually does a circumcision of the heart while we are baptized in water. The action of baptism is not the saving element, though. This is what we have been trying to say over and over again. Baptism is just the inseparable work that comes along with the "faith that works".

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The use of "works" in John 6:28-29, does not carry the same meaning as ... say for example, Romans 4:1-5.

Exactly! That is my point. The works of Romans 4 are works that in and of themselves are deemed to make us righteous. I do not look at baptism as such a work any more than I do faith. but baptism and faith are still works. BUT THEY DO NOT MAKE US RIGHTEOUS IN AND OF THEMSELVES. The "in and of themselves" clause seems to be the missing factor in your assessment here.

In fact, in Romans 4:5, "works" (whatever they may be) are contrasted with belief.

Again, EXACTLY MY POINT! But you seem to miss the fact that belief is a work, but not a work that in and of itself makes us righteous. We need works, brother. But those works are not inducing righteousness aside from the imputation of righteousness by God. THAT IS THE ISSUE. And I still think you are missing THAT point.

In effect, Paul is saying that the "work of God" in John 6:29, is not really a "work" at all. How can he do this without contradicting the words of Jesus? He does it because he is using the word in a different sense and a different context than Jesus did.

I disagree somewhat here, though. Faith is indeed a work. It is a work of our spirits that do exert effort. This is where people get confused since they think exactly the opposite of what you stated in the first two lines of your post.

Faith is a work. But it is not the works that in and of themselves make us righteous any more than baptism is. Works are found in the phrase "salvation by works". But we know those works in "salvation by works" are works that in and of themselves make us righteous.

Put it this way, the whole concept that we cannot do anything to make ourselves righteous. So long as one KNOWS THIS, then our insistence on baptism is not an erring insistence.

I cannot explain it better than that.

The works of Romans 4 are works that in and of themselves make us righteous. Period. Neither baptism nor faith fit that cetegory, although the two are still works.

(And just for the record, the underlying word in the original is the same as well).

When someone seriously says that "believing" is a "work" needed for salvation in a conversation about the cross, they are committing the same error as a person who says Acts 19:32 is an instruction for the church assembly.

Acts 19:32? Did you make a typo there? I cannot respond since I do not see the connection.

Saying that believing is a work for salvation is not at all wrong. The important distinction is that only works done to make ourselves righteous by sheer virtue of those works, and nothing at all from God, are the erring works. Works aside from that are not wrong. That means faith is indeed a work. I have tried getting that across when saying faith and repentance are no more part of "salvation by works" than baptism, although faith, repentance and baptism are still all actual works.

Notofworks does not seem to understand that, God bless him. And I humbly think you are missing it, too.

[Sam]

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration is wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of the sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.