The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Mike at some point it gets pointless.

Yes, with bypassing covenantal conditions and glossing over explanations of faith THAT works... whatever.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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!"

The people did not believe Noah's entire ark thing. He was a preacher of righteousness. What did he preach? How did he preach it? He may not have audibly told them about the flood, but even his actions preached a message. The point is God PUT UP WITH JUNK while Noah built the ark and people refused. Any tone of mockery towards truth is present when truth is not obeyed nor believed.

The concept is the point, and you're splitting hairs now.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Oh please. lol.

I took YOUR WORDS as follows:



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.

Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.

Pel, you better be careful saying that people are "arrogant". I got in big trouble for that!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.

Pel, pause a moment. lol I watched how NO ONE STEPPER ever said "Baptism saves" whether it is a complete statement or not. So I looked to see if you would AT LEAST say baptism saves by the resurrection, and I was stunned that you did not. You had to say we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus, and not say baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus. So I asked, why? Why did he USE THOSE WORDS?

Sorry if it exposed something. But if you claim you IN NO WAY MEANT what it looked like to anyone who would read "we are saved by the resurrection", then okay. Get over it. Chalk it up to lack of clarity, but do not say pride caused me to become blind to what is plainly written. lol (whew) (PS. Pride also causes us to forget overall issues at hand any time that something personal is hinted at, and spends all its time defending self. We've all fallen victim to that!). Honestly, who's trying to be more objective here? At least trying?

[mfblume]

Pel, maybe you definitely believe baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus, but it's just that I was wondering if you would make that statement, since I never saw a one stepper say it. Look at your INITIAL words about that issue. Consider my question. Maybe you flubbed in not clearly saying you MEANT baptism saves us by resurrection, but you said we are saved by resurrection. If you looked for a particular statement and did not find it, thinking it confirmed your hypothesis, what would you say?

Anyway, the discussion is getting away from being objective. Thanks, brethren.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

Paul never said, "your sins are washed away just like the Egyptians..." He said the people were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea."

And, the "mere" consequences of sin are torment (1 John 4:17-18) and death (Romans 6:23). That's a pretty big deal. Christ has delivered us from sin, and the consequences of sin (Isaiah 25:8).

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

The restraint of Tiamat - The Abyss or The Deep, brought some order to the cosmos. And, we are "new creations" in Christ. But, I don't see the "second day" as being directly linked to the concept of water baptism.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.



Nice try.

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.
If you had been paying attention, Yul Brenner didn't "go after them." He stood in his chariot in a regal pose on the shore and was spared.

The Egyptians who were drowned (or crushed) were the ones who were foolish enough to try and make the passage themselves.

[mfblume]

Typology can be argued all DAY. Again, we're both getting away from the point.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Paul never said, "your sins are washed away just like the Egyptians..." He said the people were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea."

And, the "mere" consequences of sin are torment (1 John 4:17-18) and death (Romans 6:23). That's a pretty big deal. Christ has delivered us from sin, and the consequences of sin (Isaiah 25:8).

The restraint of Tiamat - The Abyss or The Deep, brought some order to the cosmos. And, we are "new creations" in Christ. But, I don't see the "second day" as being directly linked to the concept of water baptism.

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.
If you had been paying attention, Yul Brenner didn't "go after them." He stood in his chariot in a regal pose on the shore and was spared.

The Egyptians who were drowned (or crushed) were the ones who were foolish enough to try and make the passage themselves.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The people did not believe Noah's entire ark thing. He was a preacher of righteousness. What did he preach? How did he preach it? He may not have audibly told them about the flood, but even his actions preached a message. The point is God PUT UP WITH JUNK while Noah built the ark and people refused. Any tone of mockery towards truth is present when truth is not obeyed nor believed.

The concept is the point, and you're splitting hairs now.

My point is that you accuse me of "changing the text" of 1 Peter 3:21, and then you say the same thing I had just said on the subject, almost repeating me verbatim. Then, you add all sorts of things to the text yourself.

You just want to argue and not have a discussion on the Scripture.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pel, maybe you definitely believe baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus, but it's just that I was wondering if you would make that statement, since I never saw a one stepper say it. Look at your INITIAL words about that issue. Consider my question. Maybe you flubbed in not clearly saying you MEANT baptism saves us by resurrection, but you said we are saved by resurrection. If you looked for a particular statement and did not find it, thinking it confirmed your hypothesis, what would you say?

Anyway, the discussion is getting away from being objective. Thanks, brethren.

The "guy who died in the car" ... was he saved by baptism or by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Passive/ aggressive. You follow this pattern all the time. You launch into a bunch of name calling, you slip-slide back and forth halting between two opinions - and then you denigrate everyone on both sides of the issue.