The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Good point, you ornery old quibbler... LOL!

By "cross" we mean everything that is associated with that rather terrible weekend our Lord suffered long ago and His triumph on the first day of the week. As I pointed out in another post - baptism doesn't save us because we get wet. Baptism saves us because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

being that faith is contextual.......sure I could agree almost to anything HAHAHA! I would agree that all authority comes from the point of the cross unto the resurrection for salvation. Which is the point of Heb 5:9 He became the source.....

[augustianian]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by augustianian

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

hmmmm define deed! I think work/deed/response all fall into the realm and I believe Blume has went over this many times as well.

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.
2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac?
3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2
4) What is teh clear statement of James about faith in James 2?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Mike, so you're saying someone that believes that doesn't follow it up with the works of baptism and tongues didn't really believe in the first place??? That sounds like my old pentecostal past that would beat someone over the head when they first walked in, watch them walk out, and then proclaim, "Well, they just weren't ready."


Why is it so hard to follow? I don't know that it's hard to follow, oh great teacher,

More digs?

but it IS hard to fathom how such a simple thing can confound the wise.

Bro., forget what so and so did and what so and so walked away from. Does the Bible teach anything about FAITH THAT WORKS?

James said faith is dead without works. Useless, iow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by augustianian

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

Yes, if those deeds are deeds that are eventually done. Otherwise, the faith that works was not present.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

More digs?

Bro., forget what so and so did and what so and so walked away from. Does the Bible teach anything about FAITH THAT WORKS?

James said faith is dead without works. Useless, iow.

Oh calm down, Mike! I put a laugh thinggy beside it. Aren't you aware that on AFF we can say anything, no matter how mean, if we put a laugh thinggy by it? It's in the official policy somewhere! But I didn't really do the "dig" there. But the, "Why can't you people get this??" statement, kinda set me up for the spike!

BUT YES!!!!! We have finally found an area where we agree and consequently, where you are right! (I put a laugh thinggy...don't criticize me) The bible definitely teaches faith that works and James 2 is revolutionary, in fact, the whole book is.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How are sins "washed away?" Are they washed away by the waters of baptism? NO!

Amen, but it is not BY the waters, but AT the waters. Otherwise baptism would not be mentioned.

Look at it as though repentance SEPARATES the sins from us like the pillar of fire divided the Egyptians from the Israelites. Then the RED SEA wipes out the Egyptians as baptism eradicates the separated sins, only because of the BLOOD OF THE LAMB that occurred beforehand. Israel stood still and saw the salvation OF THE LORD, not of themselves. Boy, that is opening up a huge issue even moreso, but this shows the need to realize there is more to it than just seeing a lamb's blood shed.

Peter makes this abundantly clear: "...— not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"Getting wet" does nothing, in and of itself. Peter is emphatic about this in the very proof text that "Three Steppers" like to bandy about.

No, you are misrepresenting three steppers. H20 does not cut it. But BAPTISM SAVES, Peter said. Not in the way you might think three steppers claim it does. The water does not wash flesh. The obedience fulfills the works in the saving FAITH THAT WORKS, though.

Despite all one steppers say, Peter said "baptism doth also now even save us". I do not think any one stepper would ever make such a statement. Think about it.

How does "baptism now save us...?" It is clear - we are NOT saved by our obedience to the instruction to be baptized, rather, we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No that is not what it says. See? You have the CHANGE THE TEXT to deal with it. You cannot take the text as is.

It actually says that Baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. You asked HOW baptism saves, and then you changed the text. Whereas you said we are saved by the resurrection, Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection. BIG DIFFERENCE.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. If baptism saved in and of itself, it would not add the clause "by the resurrection of Jesus." However, he said baptism saves and said it saves by the resurrection. He said two things one steppers would never say.

1) Baptism saves.

2) Resurrection is that by which baptism saves.

One steppers say what you said, but what Peter did not say: We are saved by the resurrection. That is an incomplete statement in regards to the truth of what saves.

Whatever happened to that "guy who dies in the car on the way to get baptized..." Mike? How does baptism save him? You seem to me to be "alternating" again between "Three Stepper" rhetoric and your own good sense.

No, your question is only evidence that you are not getting what I am saying. My example of the dying on the road to baptism is the entire explanation that answers it all. The reason the guy on his way to get baptized is saved is because the baptism in and of itself saves no one. I have always maintained that. Baptism only saves because it relies upon the resurrection of Christ showing the work of the cross actually saves. Since the FAITH THAT WORKS causes the man to intend to WORK the act of baptism, even though not baptized, the man is saved.

It's like saying Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised, because GOD KNEW his faith would move him to be circumcised in obedience. God knows if your faith is one that works or not. If it is dead faith with no works to ever follow, God sees that nature of the dead faith, so He does not deem such a one righteous.

But we have to also understand the example of Noah. Baptism is the antitype of deliverance by water in Noah's day. God commanded the ark's contstruction as well as man's baptism. Not man. Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today. Noah and his family entered the ark like a sort of BURIAL with Christ. As the ark had waters above and waters below strike at it, baptism is by immersion.

But it is not a salvation by the CAUSE of baptism, and it does not cleanse FLESH but is involved in SINS washed as Acts 22:16 says. Only the blood of Jesus causes sins to be washed. But baptism saves BY the resurrection of Christ which alludes to the work of the cross that includes resurrection. Baptism saves because it is an answer of a good conscience. This is where it is intrinsically associated to FAITH. FAITH THAT WORKS is saving faith. If no works follow, as though one refuses baptism, one is not saved. But since faith THAT WORKS is what saves us, then if someone possesses that faith, intends on baptism, and is slain beforehand, one is saved because they had the faith THAT WORKS.

Paul's sins were "washed away" when he called "upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21).

... during baptism.

Ananias of Damascus seems to have had Peter's sermon on Pentecost clearly in mind here.

We are baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ when we first believe - because of the cross! NOT, "instead of, or in addition to" the cross!

RIGHT!! This is what I have been saying all along!

Baptism is not a replacement to the cross as though the cross need never have occurred for baptism to save us. It is totally reliant upon the cross.

We were identified with the "circumcision of Christ" in repentance (Ephesians 2:10-18), and our sins are "remitted," (Romans 3:25), "forgiven" (Colossians 2:13) and we are "redeemed" (Galatians 3:13) - - ALL THIS! BEFORE WE EVEN PUT ON THE BAPTISMAL GOWN.

That is only true if baptism definitely follows. If baptism never follows, then there has been no actual identification. Again, this is because FAITH THAT WORKS is what saves, before the works occur, but ONLY BECAUSE THE WORKS DO LATER OCCUR.

[augustianian]

Mf Blume,

Are you saying that justification is conditional on future deeds? Then at what time can I say that I am justified, before the deeds are done or as soon as I get them done?

Abraham in Genesis 15 knew nothing of Genesis 22 but yet he was justified in Genesis 15. Isn't it more accurate instead to say that a believer can know that he is justified before God WHEN he believes (apart from works either future or present)

Saving faith can be present in deeds, can be absent in deeds, and obviously can be present without deeds, and necessarily so at that, considering that faith without deeds IS the kind of faith that saves, otherwise it's not saving faith. Saving faith, which is the issue, is an inclination of the heart that is disheartened by deeds or works...otherwise if it were not such an inclination it would be presumptuous enough to have no need of a worker other than itself. Saving faith IS the acknowledgment of the inability of deeds to justify, whether past present or future, and the reliance on the ability of another to justify regardless, not on account of, deeds whether past, present or future.

If you are saying that saving faith will lead to good works, then I agree. However, saving faith and justification is NOT conditional upon future works. There is a difference between fruit and root.

James says we're justified by works...Paul says it's by faith apart from works. The only difference is the clause "before God." And since God gives faith, and since God justifies then no one can say a person is NOT justified because of the absence of works, and the opposite is true also...no one can say a person is justified because of the presence of works. God knows.

But I agree that it is faith that is the causal agent of salvation.

a

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

AGAIN justification does not mean one has come into covenant! PERIOD!

Aside from what I believe is a very near-sided view of justification, which you've explained as "God judging an act/work," (granted you say one expressed in faith) -- is that the totality of your view of justification/justified? So when it is in scripture each time this is what you have in view? Just curious.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Brethren, if you cannot see how repentance is a work in the sense that we choose to do it, and we may or may not do it once we have faith, and if you choose to believe there is no all-important difference between faith THAT WORKS and works that make us righteous in and of themselves, then I can only conclude you have not studied the issue of righteousness in the bible adequately enough. IMHO, that is. Hence, we're at loggerheads.

And that is why you care less if someone really ever gets baptized and how the New Testament is so insistent on it by contrast. Until you realize mental turning to Christ and from sin is an action, and say more than "walking old ladies across the street is a work, but turning the heart is not," we get no where. But I have enjoyed the chat.

Indeed, we are at a loggerhead, brother.

First, you are jumping to call repentance a work to justify throwing everything you can that is similar enough to repentance to be counted. Second, we've conversed with you on the fundamental and unique differences of a repented heart and a later work (either hearing about baptism and choosing to be baptized or God choosing to baptize someone in the Spirit where they speak in glossolalia).

I frankly see your attempt quite honestly as an intellectual grasping of the straws. It falls woefully short. In form, it sounds okay, but when fleshed out, it just doesn't work.

Aside from how we want to try to compartmentalize repentance (which you believe is a directed act of the will to not be bad anymore, and I see that as a very minor dimension of repentance, if one at all), it's not easily compartmentalized at the moment of faith. At faith, our heart "turns" toward God. This is the earliest movement of repentance.