The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Who has waged the war of faith vs. baptism? Let's think about that. We believe in baptism, TL.

Yes you do wage war. You wage war against what until means.

Don't be so pompous to suggest it's all "so clear" in your direction, when you hardly represent a speck of theological thought with your pseudo-BR theology.

You minimize justification -- that's clear. You don't understand it -- that's even more clear.

no you make justification something contradictory to what Abraham said and what is meant by Paul and James. Justification IN NOT COVENANT!

Your definition of believing lacks any substance, and only shows your one-dimensional view of it is a straw man for mental assent. God didn't say his "response" was righteous. You contort Paul's whole purpose in what he's saying to attempt to make that point. Why can't you see that? Your interpretation must still match Paul's purpose in Romans 3-6.

Really. so what is "IT" in the Gen 15:6? If "it" was not a response you make James a liar and you are ignoring the text. You can't consider nothing! You are blinded and ingore the WHOLE teaching of what "châshab" means and how God is always doing justice toward our responses.

Responses/Works... how can you claim this is NOT a works theology? Does it end after baptism and tongues? Are our responses continually judged? Must we repent of all of them? If we forget? How secure is your faith? How can you make a claim other than fragile? What do you and I have in common with Abram -- faith. What is the most-used phrase in Gospel of John - believing. Why is "faith" and "believing" such a hard topic? Why so quick to drag your friends "works" and "credit" out to meet them. What an insult to His gift. You can't even obey God without already being covered by Grace. Don't you get it?

Again as pointed out above you don't understand works in relation to faith and never have. Yes we are consistently judged. LOL Ever read REvelations and the letters to the churches. God sees your response and heart. Ezekial 18 is clear on the very aspect of how God looks at the heart. We are always under his covenant but are w abiding by it's agreement and at peace and not at enmity with God? The Spirit bears witness with ours that we are his children. Either we are following or not.

Again you fail to realize the proper aspect of "believing" in John of which I have given support for it's meaning muliple times of which you ignore. Faith is about context. I have pointed out constantly James White and others on this very issue. Saving Faith is a continous aspect not a point in time in is based on the realization of the context. Faith is based on following and doing. ALways has been always will be. Faith must follow it;s context. what is the context of James view of Gen 15:6?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

We pass "through the water" as an imitation of what Christ did, and also in "imitation" of what the children of Israel did at the Red Sea and the cleansing of the priests at the laver or "molten sea" in the Temple (as a kind I wondered once if that had lava in it [1 Kings 7:23]).

The Israelites were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea..." (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). The "cloud and the sea" seperated the Israelites from their previous life of bondage - (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and these thing prevented them from turning back.

Baptism provides a "barrier" in one's life whereby the sins of the past cannot over take us, and we are prevented from going back as well. (We could "go back" - but it would take a more determined effort than following the path to safety).

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

...

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.

see Romans 4, and Gen 12 for starters

see again here is the problem YOU DON'T READ... SEe the line above that, that gives context to the questions? Let me point it out....

When reading James please clarify these points...


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?

you get awfully creative with the Story so it fits your agenda. It's really stretching. Remove the word "judged" for a moment. True judgement would have met Abram with death. God "accounted" and "reckoned" more than he "judged"

you don't even realize what God is doing in Gen 15:6 and you bring "death" into the discussion that is almost comical and totaly ignoring what is going on. How do you count, consider, reckon something? It's a process of judging that takes place. If you don't understand this most BASIC concept it's pointess to continue. reckoned, considered, counted, judged, all have the basic concept of God doing justice toward Abraham's response.

3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2 Good point.

Why is James even talking to the church about "good works." As an exposition of salvation theology? Telling them how to be saved??? Or is he encouraging them to live as who they are - Christ followers/imitators? Be honest here.

Because salvation is not about one point in time he is also dealing with how justification works which is very simple and how God does justice toward our actions. The theme from beginning to the end is the same. Simply having faith does not mean you are in covenant. Also coming into covenant does not mean you have obtained eternal life as it is still something we hope for and to be found worthy/faithful. That will not happen until the end and you have been judged faithful. James point to the meaning of Gen 15:6 just as Paul and gives depth to what "believed" is a reference to. James clearly says justification is not by faith alone but is the context to completion. Which is why "believed" is not a moment in time but the whole in view of narrator in Gen 15:6. FAITH IS CONTEXTUAL!

[pelathais]

Lost track of the time here... gotta BRB! I have more of a response for you, Mike, in case pop in along the way this morn.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.

Justification takes place when God, "the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus..." does the act of justifying (See Romans 3:26). For Abraham, the inspired Word of God declares this to have been in Genesis 15:6 and NOT in Genesis 22, when Abraham's "works made his faith perfect" (or complete) as per James 2.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

see again here is the problem YOU DON'T READ... SEe the line above that, that gives context to the questions? Let me point it out....

When reading James please clarify these points...


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?

Why don't you have on the kids around there read you Genesis 15:6, and Romans 4, from one of those comic book picture Bibles. The KJV seems to be way over your head.

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

you don't even realize what God is doing in Gen 15:6 and you bring "death" into the discussion that is almost comical and totaly ignoring what is going on. How do you count, consider, reckon something? It's a process of judging that takes place. If you don't understand this most BASIC concept it's pointess to continue. reckoned, considered, counted, judged, all have the basic concept of God doing justice toward Abraham's response.

And just what was Abraham's "response" here in Genesis 15:6? "Abraham believed God."

Abraham didn't speak in "tongues." Abraham didn't care for the lepers and orphans of Calcutta. Abraham didn't give a dime to your building fund. The only time Abraham is ever said to have "paid tithes" - he did so with another guy's money!

So, how was Abraham "justified?" ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD. How does this apply to us 3:26

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2 Good point.

Because salvation is not about one point in time. The theme from beginning to the end is the same. Simply having faith does not mean you are in covenant. Also coming into covenant does not mean you have obtained eternal life as it is still something we hope for and to be found worthy/faithful. That will not happen until the end and you have been judged faithful. James point to the meaning of Gen 15:6 just as Paul and gives depth to what "believed" is a reference to. James clearly says justification is not by faith alone but is the context to completion. Which is why "believed" is not a moment in time but the whole in view of narrator in Gen 15:6. FAITH IS CONTEXTUAL!

Justification IS "about one point in time." Genesis 15:6, Romans 3:26.

Salvation itself could be seen in the way you intend - "I am saved" (Past tense - Romans 3:26); I am being saved (Present tense - Romans 5:10) and I will be saved (Future tense - Romans 5:9).

But we have to understand that the work of Jesus Christ at the cross accomplished something that you neither you nor I could do for ourselves!

Ephesians 2:4-10.

HE "hath quickened us..." (made us alive). We are HIS "workmanship." The life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God! (Galatians 2:20).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

That is not my intention at all. Here is how it went down in my mind to begin with: Baptism is being alleged as part of salvation by works if someone says people must be baptized to be saved. All along I have stated that FAITH THAT WORKS is what God requires in order to save us. I compounded that clarification by saying that if someone never gets baptized before being killed in a hypothetical situation while enroute to be baptized, then that one is saved. How can baptism be salvation by works in such a concept? With such a FAITH THAT WORKS concept in mind, I explained repentance is exactly the same thing. No matter how anyone tries to slice it, repentance is a work since it is a conscious action done in obedience, whether or not it is a physical action.

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).

You seem to be stuck on the issue that since repentance is an act of the heart it is not an act. It matters not if it is an act of the heart or of the physical. It is something we do in obedience as much as baptism is. The only real fundamental difference between repentance and something like baptism is that one action of choice is inward and the other is outward. Even if repentance occurs before baptism, as it does, it still is an act of volition in obedience.

Also, FAITH is not an action. It is something we have or don't have in response to the hearing of the Word. Faith is totally different from repentance or baptism. But baptism and repentance are works, but not "salvation by works" type of works.

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.

I respectfully disagree. It's common sense, as I see it. It avoids the trap of thinking something is not a work just because it is not physically accomplished.

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.

I disagree. One can have faith and refuse to repent. I already noted that I had faith when I heard the gospel, but I refused to repent at first. I did not want to release some sins.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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?

I thought I explained this, but evidently I need your questions to clarify myself. So, thanks!

Justification is not conditional on future deeds. Faith is what God looks for to save us, but it is only a living and actual faith if it is faith THAT WORKS. The emphasis is not upon the works that such a faith produces. It's just that the sort of faith that is real and actual is faith THAT WORKS. James was simply saying REAL FAITH will always have action to follow it, and I think James is mocking people's claims of faith who never have any works that follow by calling it dead faith, when he is actually saying it is not faith at all.

God is simply looking for ACTUAL FAITH, and when He sees ACTUAL faith in the work of the cross, He justifies us. And it just so happens that ACTUAL faith always has actions and works that WILL follow since it is only found in such a heart that genuinely is sincere enough and faithful enough to obey anything the Word commands, such as baptism.

Abraham in Genesis 15 knew nothing of Genesis 22 but yet he was justified in Genesis 15.

Right! But his faith was evidence of a completely obedient and open-to-anything-God requires faith. Real faith is just like that. He would have pointed his tents with purple spots if God required it. But God required circumcision.

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)

I have no problem with that. We know when we REALLY believe or not. But such a belief will follow with works.

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.

Again, it is FAITH THAT WORKS that saves, since only faith that works is actual faith.

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.

I never said that faith is conditional upon future works. It is conditional upon being the sort of faith that WILL work.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

As a "one Stepper" I ask, "How does baptism 'save' me?" Peter's answer is: "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I don't think I have ever heard a "Three Stepper" quote Peter on that. Instead we have the partial quotation of 1 Peter 3:21, thrown at us - "baptism doth now save us!!!" and few can even quote the entire verse.

To the charge that I am "misrepresenting the 'Three Steppers'" - I can cite a number of examples where water baptism is described as being a fundamental part of "Regeneration."

This article contains a number of errors and states:

"If believing in Jesus Christ is the same as “accepting Jesus”, it is important to notice that at no time in the scripture was a person told they were saved only by the act of believing or accepting Jesus. A believer must also “be born again” of water and the spirit, (John 3:5-8). When we read the examples of salvation in the Bible, this proves this very point."

Nowhere will we find the phrase "born again of the water" - in fact, we never even find the word "water" in the same verse as "born again."

In DKB's "Essentials of the New Birth" page 17, it says: "Baptism is part of the new birth (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)." The appeal to both those verses to make his point is a classic sign of "Baptismal Regenerationalism." We may agree or disagree with DKB on this, however since neither verse even refers to water baptism, those making that stretch are indeed "Baptismal Regenerationalists."

The list goes on.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

We pass "through the water" as an imitation of what Christ did, and also in "imitation" of what the children of Israel did at the Red Sea and the cleansing of the priests at the laver or "molten sea" in the Temple (as a kind I wondered once if that had lava in it [1 Kings 7:23]).

I do not think of it that way. Israel passed through the Red Sea in IMITATION of our baptism, and same with the laver issue. Minor point, but yet important.

The Egyptian soldiers represent our sins. Our sins tormented us in the Egypt of "sin". And just as God said Let there be Light, and then separated light from darkness, the pillar of cloud came and stood between the Egyptians and Israelites as we receive truth and believe it and repent as God separates our sins from our lives.

Then the dividing of waters occurred the second day as baptism occurs after repentance. At the Red Sea, God divided the waters and Israel went through the sea. It was in this act that God was able to take the Egyptians and drown them out leaving not one alive. Not one sin survives after repentance and baptism. The picture clearly shows ALL SINS are eradicated in the BLOOD ("Red" Sea) which is why Baptism is said to be burial into Christ's death.

Did the Red Sea stand as an absolute necessity for Israel's freedom from Egypt and the soldiers? It sure was. So is baptism.

The Israelites were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea..." (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). The "cloud and the sea" seperated the Israelites from their previous life of bondage - (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and these thing prevented them from turning back.

Exactly. They were required in the DELIVERANCE/SALVATION of Israel.

Baptism provides a "barrier" in one's life whereby the sins of the past cannot over take us, and we are prevented from going back as well. (We could "go back" - but it would take a more determined effort than following the path to safety).

Exactly!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As a "one Stepper" I ask, "How does baptism 'save' me?" Peter's answer is: "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

You said initially that the resurrection of Christ saves us. I pointed out that this is not what Peter said. I said Peter told us that baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. Difference.

I don't think I have ever heard a "Three Stepper" quote Peter on that. Instead we have the partial quotation of 1 Peter 3:21, thrown at us - "baptism doth now save us!!!" and few can even quote the entire verse.

I think that is why you seem to miss our point in how baptism is involved in salvation. No one is dumb enough to believe baptism in and of itself saves. Since it is a work that follows actual saving faith, it saves BY the resurrection of Jesus. This is the same thing as saying baptism baptizes us into the death of Christ. The death of Christ followed by His resurrection, obviously (since death is useless and not unlike our own without resurrection) saves us.

Again what one stepper has ever said baptism saves by the resurrection? They do what you did... they say the resurrection saves. Look back at your initial words about this.

To the charge that I am "misrepresenting the 'Three Steppers'" - I can cite a number of examples where water baptism is described as being a fundamental part of "Regeneration."

This article contains a number of errors and states:

"If believing in Jesus Christ is the same as “accepting Jesus”, it is important to notice that at no time in the scripture was a person told they were saved only by the act of believing or accepting Jesus. A believer must also “be born again” of water and the spirit, (John 3:5-8). When we read the examples of salvation in the Bible, this proves this very point."

Nowhere will we find the phrase "born again of the water" - in fact, we never even find the word "water" in the same verse as "born again."

You claim that BORN AGAIN is not the same as BORN OF THE WATER AND SPIRIT?

In DKB's "Essentials of the New Birth" page 17, it says: "Baptism is part of the new birth (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)." The appeal to both those verses to make his point is a classic sign of "Baptismal Regenerationalism." We may agree or disagree with DKB on this, however since neither verse even refers to water baptism, those making that stretch are indeed "Baptismal Regenerationalists."

The list goes on.

I think you read predetermined errors of what you think we actually believe into things too much, personally.