The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Either I didn't read it, don't remember it, or breezed through it. Either way, it was probably 6 months after you said it originally.

And I would great disagree that your initial vicious attack on me with the "Passive-Aggressive" thing was anywhere NEAR "tongue-in-cheek."

Here it is from August 28, 2009:

"First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong."

See anything TIC there? I don't.

Furthermore, the first time I brought it up a few weeks ago, you said you didn't remember it. How do you suddenly now remember that it was TIC? Interesting.

Will you not stop? I thought you wanted it to fizzle out? I said what I said and have never lied to you.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Will you not stop? I thought you wanted it to fizzle out? I said what I said and have never lied to you.

When you part by hurling yet another accusation when you said, "but you cannot get away with fabricating things", when in fact, you are clearly making things up......No, I won't just let that drop.

Do you really think I'm going to just say, "Hey thanks Mike for another accusation" and hit the trail? Even Pel took exception to the way you spoke. Sorry, you don't get to hurl multiple baseless accusations, attempt to make excuses for your egregious accusations that aren't true, AND misrepresent the way you originally presented them, and have no one say anything.


Here's the chronology:

1) You called me passive-aggressive and I provided the original quote. Nowhere in that quote was there any hint of kidding.

2) I brought it up and you told me you didn't remember why you said it.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=30

3) You now claim you were kidding, and I can't imagine how anyone could read the original post and believe that.

4) You tell me the discussion is finished but reprimand me for "fabricating" things, which is ironic considering this chronology.


Sorry, but no, I won't go away quietly and allow you to say these things.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

When you part by hurling yet another accusation when you said, "but you cannot get away with fabricating things", when in fact, you are clearly making things up......No, I won't just let that drop.

Then go and look for one post in which I namecalled you. Prove your point, for all you are doing is making empty claims about namecalling. Regarding the "passive aggression", whether you see it or not, I said it was tongue in cheek. If you disagree, then call me a liar. If you cannot believe what I am saying as though I lied, then why continue to talk to a liar? Would you not only continue to get lies?

This does not need to be on the forum. Let's take it to a PM.

[mfblume]

The issue of when the blood is applied is a hairy one. It gets into all sorts of confusion, I think. So I do not use it.

For instance, since the blood was applied to the three posts of the Hebrew doors in Goshen during Passover, some say there is a three-fold application to denote repentance, baptism and Spirit infilling. No one stepper would agree with that. I would be called a three stepper, but I do not agree with that correlation either. However, that is the sort of can of worms one opens when one discusses when the blood is applied, when the New Testament does not use that terminology. Since it is not used, then neither sides of the steppers' views are proposed in relation to it.

We do read of BLOOD SHEDDING and BLOOD SPRINKLING. And that is another category altogether, though. Sprinkling of the blood occurs on thy human conscience and depicts a changing process of coming to full assurance of faith in Hebrews 9 - 10, after salvation.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then go and look for one post in which I namecalled you. Prove your point, for all you are doing is making empty claims about namecalling. Regarding the "passive aggression", whether you see it or not, I said it was tongue in cheek. If you disagree, then call me a liar. If you cannot believe what I am saying as though I lied, then why continue to talk to a liar? Would you not only continue to get lies?

This does not need to be on the forum. Let's take it to a PM.

Before I go digging through dozens of pages of this thread for something that you'll, most likely just explain away, let's deal with what I've already provided.

Here's is the original post you gave, in its entirety, in which you called me "Passive-Aggressive", which is a very serious behavioral/personality disorder:

First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong.

The epistles all spoke to saved people. And the focus in each and every epistle to churches is spiritual maturity. I can get into each and every epistle to prove that if you wish. References to salvation were given in some cases only to reinforce the need for the manner in which saints were to continue onward.

To say Romans 10;9-10 is the entire scope of what anyone needs to know to be saved is simply incorrect. No one intends to belittle Romans 10:9-10 when saying Acts shows the details. But if you are correct, Peter was preaching false doctrine in Acts 2. Now, was he or wasn't he? And why did Peter give his answer in Acts 2:38 to their question? Furthermore, if that question has not changed today, why should we give any other answer. Show me where anything like Romans 10:9-10 was all that the people heard in the sermons in Acts where folks were saved as a result.

It is simply that Romans 10:9-10 is not speaking in detail as any sermon in Acts is. Otherwise we have grave contradiction in the Word, and the view I hold seems to me to be the only view that makes no contradiction of the Word.


So are you seriously, with a straight face,going tell me that you were only kidding with this post? If you say that, after reading it in its entirety, then I'll fly away and be at rest, Psalm 55-style, and then it'll be up to you to sleep at night.

I'm not sure I want to dig through dozens of pages for your name-calling...I'm sure you'd just explain it away, but it's noteworthy that Pel also recalls the name-calling. So for now, can we just deal with what we DO have, rather than what we don't? For me, this post of calling me "Passive-Aggressive" is name-calling and it's what I'm displeased with the most, and it's also what you refuse to make right.

[mfblume]

Pelathais,

Just to bring things up to speed on everyone's behalf, let me say your words are confusing. This is not to slap you. I am trying to get your point.

You claim one does not need to be baptized to say they are saved. I ONLY say such a thing if there is a situation where baptism is physically impossible, as in the guy in the car scenario. And that is because it is FAITH THAT WORKS. (I know I am repeating this, but you still indicate you cannot understand why I say someone can be saved without having been baptized when I claim baptism is part of salvation). The FAITH in FAITH THAT WORKS is what saves directly. If no works like baptism follow, then there was no FAITH that saves. And when someone has FAITH that saves, one WILL WANT TO BE baptized, and THE WANT TO is the evidence of the saving FAITH. So regardless if the person did not get baptized due to some mishap, THE FAITH that saves was present since they would have done so.

Anyway, you said that demand for baptism for salvation is error. But when I say baptism is part of salvation you agree. Now, that is why TL said the question has not been answered, and why I said I have not gotten an answer. When we get to this point with you, you then state something like this is a very complicated issue and would take many more words (or something to that effect).

I said baptism is necessary for salvation. You said it is not, I THINK. And then you said it is part of salvation. Now, what is the difference between baptism necessary for salvation and baptism part of salvation? This is where your words confuse me, not saying my words never confused you. But bouncing these things off one another helps us each understand where the other is coming from more clearly.

[mfblume]

N.O.W. if you want me to say I never meant a tongue-in-cheek with those words then take this as what you want. But I told you already more than twice now that I did not lie when I said it was tongue in cheek, whether I forgot and then later remembered, or not.

Now, I stated my claim about that issue in finality. So find ONE POST where I called you a name. That was the issue you took issue with in your refusal to let this drop. Come good with one post where I called you a name, and I will sincerely ask forgiveness for saying you fabricated that accusation. I promise! Ok?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

N.O.W. if you want me to say I never meant a tongue-in-cheek with those words then take this as what you want. But I told you already more than twice now that I did not lie when I said it was tongue in cheek, whether I forgot and then later remembered, or not.

Now, I stated my claim about that issue in finality. So find ONE POST where I called you a name. That was the issue you took issue with in your refusal to let this drop. Come good with one post where I called you a name, and I will sincerely ask forgiveness for saying you fabricated that accusation. I promise! Ok?

When I have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, I'll go looking. Like I said, calling me "Passive-Aggressive" IS name-calling and you won't admit that so I'm not very hopeful that you'll make anything else right either. Whatever I produce, you'll just pass off as "joking" so it really won't do any good. If you can't admit the original was serious, there's nothing you'll admit.

The bottom line, however, is that, "The Cross Alone Can Save!"

But when I have some time, I'll look.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

When I have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, I'll go looking. Like I said, calling me "Passive-Aggressive" IS name-calling and you won't admit that so I'm not very hopeful that you'll make anything else right either. Whatever I produce, you'll just pass off as "joking" so it really won't do any good. If you can't admit the original was serious, there's nothing you'll admit.

The bottom line, however, is that, "The Cross Alone Can Save!"

But when I have some time, I'll look.

Hey, NOW! Did you know that Mike Blume has written a book, "Take A Bite of Eternal Life, The Kingdom of God, The Garden Restored!"

You should buy it from him. It's a good read. And, incidentally, you called him "long winded" in a previous post. Guess what? The book is only Volume One!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Hey, NOW! Did you know that Mike Blume has written a book, "Take A Bite of Eternal Life, The Kingdom of God, The Garden Restored!"

You should buy it from him. It's a good read. And, incidentally, you called him "long winded" in a previous post. Guess what? The book is only Volume One!

Good grief, even the title is long! Can I get a comped copy?

Interestingly enough, I'm in the process of writing a book!. The problem is, I can't get more than three pages written!