The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.



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



Exactly!

Now MR. BLUME!!! They received deliverance by believing it was true.... not by actually by crossing the Red Sea. God told them what he wanted to happen and they received deliverance right then. They obtained deliverance from the armies of Egypt before they crossed didn't you know that..... LOL! God forbid that doing anything actually to cross would be considered works. God seperating the waters... You know he provides the way. Us giving the good ol wink to God I believe is what actually delivered them.... Mike at some point it gets pointless.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

YES. THAT IS EXACTLY what the text says. You have to deny the inspiration of the Bible and offer a goat sacrifice on the altar of Ninhursag- Ki while simultaneously converting to Mormonism and handing out Watchtower tracts to read it any other way.

1 Peter 3:21:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Now, read it without the parenthentical clause that Peter adds to avoid having people think that the water is somehow "magical."

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Re-adding and temporarily lifting the parenthetical clause does nothing to change the meaning of Peter's simple statement. Baptism can only be said to "save us" - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

You make a goofy and false accusation against me just so that you can say the same thing that I did? Whatever dude. I clearly DID NOT "change the text" and everyone who reads this will question your integrity from this point forward.

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is exactly what I have been trying to say.

If you have been "trying to say" exactly what I have been saying, why don't you say THAT instead of beating that poor camel with a beam from your own eye to get it out of your throat and through the eye of a needle?

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Are you on drugs???? You just said that I had to "change the text" to say what you just repeated me as saying. Now, you repeat me - a notorious "One Stepper" - and claim that I would "never say" what you just quoted me as saying.

You just want to argue here, Mike. You make no sense at all. Get some coffee, clear your head and maybe we can try again later.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

I asked, "How does baptism save us?"

I answered, "Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21).

You have both agreed with me and disagreed with me. This is what I meant when I said earlier that I don't even try to "pin a tag" on you. You're all over the place.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

How can you say that without "changing the text?"

Easy. You simply say that.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Now you quote me on Genesis 15:6 - just to argue with me?

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

You have to change a lot of texts to get, "Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today."

The Bible offers us no information that Noah was "mocked" nor is there any evidence that anyone has "mocked" baptism here. You're just making things up.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's cool TL. Ignore all my comments from last night. Still not smart enough to deserve a response from you.

If T.L. would repent and convert to some form of behavior whereby he actually cared about human beings and tried to communicate with them, I suspect that he would have a lot of great things to say.

You just have to work too hard to dig out the gems from from his staccato posts and weed through too much arrogance and name calling.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I will admit to scratching my head just a bit when James 2 has been referred to in the salvational discussion. I thought about throwing in a discussion of Daniel 3 and the fiery furnace, but that might add confusion to the confusion.

So what, exactly, does giving one's coat to a cold stranger rather than praying for him, have to do with salvation? I'll study for a while and see what I can come up with.

The cross of Christ really does create a lot of division among those who claim to believe. You just bring it up and suddenly people jump from the woodwork thrashing themselves apart in an attempt to obscure our vision of the greatest gift of all.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How can you say that without "changing the text?"

Easy. You simply say that.

Now you quote me on Genesis 15:6 - just to argue with me?

You have to change a lot of texts to get, "Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today."

The Bible offers us no information that Noah was "mocked" nor is there any evidence that anyone has "mocked" baptism here. You're just making things up.

1 Peter 3:20 KJV Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

I was just quoting 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 - "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" - a major point and, I think, essential.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

The Egyptians represented the consequences and the penalty for our sins. Genesis 15:13, for example.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then the dividing of waters occurred the second day as baptism occurs after repentance.

Not certain how the creation account got in here.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Well again, the "not one alive" thing is a bit of addition to the text. I remember see Yul Brenner get away.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

No one has said that baptism is NOT essential - except YOU perhaps with your "guy in the car analogy."

Originally Posted by mfblume

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



Exactly!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

1 Peter 3:21:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Now, read it without the parenthentical clause that Peter adds to avoid having people think that the water is somehow "magical."

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Re-adding and temporarily lifting the parenthetical clause does nothing to change the meaning of Peter's simple statement. Baptism can only be said to "save us" - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

You make a goofy and false accusation against me just so that you can say the same thing that I did? Whatever dude. I clearly DID NOT "change the text" and everyone who reads this will question your integrity from this point forward.

Oh please. lol.

I took YOUR WORDS as follows:

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.

Instead of saying "we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." you should have said "baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Gripe all you want, but I showed what you said and what you did not say. Now, you either MEANT what you said or you were mistaken in what you wrote and actually meant baptism saves by resurrection of Jesus. It's like you cannot get yourself to say baptism saves as Peter said it, is my point.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I was just quoting 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 - "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" - a major point and, I think, essential.

The Egyptians represented the consequences and the penalty for our sins.

So sins are not in view, just consequence of sins and penalty for sins? Paul stated sins are washed away, not mere consequences.

Not certain how the creation account got in here.

The pattern of NEW creation is the same as Genesis 1, involving dividing of waters, exact same language used in reference to the Red Sea in Exodus, is my point.

Well again, the "not one alive" thing is a bit of addition to the text. I remember see Yul Brenner get away.

Exodus 14:28 KJV And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

No one has said that baptism is NOT essential - except YOU perhaps with your "guy in the car analogy."

Nice try.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Peter 3:20 KJV Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

And the idea of Noah being "mocked" appears where in this verse? We're just told that God is longsuffering. That's great, but was He the one "mocking" Noah?

"Hurry up! You're not building a piano, there!"