The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

My point was, there is a danger in making things dependent on Jesus while using the excuse "as long as it points to faith." I would say the event is a Christ event only as long as it points to Jesus and springs from faith. However, I think it's putting the cart before the horse otherwise. One has full faith in Jesus before they've stepped into the waters of baptism. Regeneration doesn't happen in the water, it happens at the heart level.

Our views of repentance. I will come back to that later. I believe they are simultaneous. You believe, because people were commanded to do these things, that they are not simultaneous. I challenged that (though I admit I did not fully engage your rebuttal) with the idea that we are also told to be "filled with the Spirit," to "be perfect," to "wash away our sins," and to "confess Jesus as Lord," but none of these things can we do for ourselves nor by our own will.

There is a common denominator in all these things you listed, as well as repentance. We are required to step up so that God can go to work, I think.

I cannot see how this is not Calvinism, otherwise.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If we do not even choose to repent, then Peter, Jesus and John told people to do something they had no choice to do. And ultimately that is predestination of the individual. I do not agree.

Again, and I said this many times, the issue is not whether we do something but rather if what we do merits righteousness in and of itself. Since the cross alone directly was the work that provided righteousness, repentance required for salvation is not "salvation by works." I see no other concept that fits the Word.

I think you're painting too stern of an "either/or" here. Peter, Jesus and John (and everyone else who said it) were appealing to people to do what the Spirit of God was already "pricking their hearts" to do.

It's not a case of "either predestination OR free will." It is a case where BOTH elements are true. They simply describe the view from two different angles.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think you're painting too stern of an "either/or" here. Peter, Jesus and John (and everyone else who said it) were appealing to people to do what the Spirit of God was already "pricking their hearts" to do.

It's not a case of "either predestination OR free will." It is a case where BOTH elements are true. They simply describe the view from two different angles.

Well we just have to agree to disagree. Even if the Spirit is pricking their hearts to do something, they still make the choice of their own free will to do it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Well we just have to agree to disagree. Even if the Spirit is pricking their hearts to do something, they still make the choice of their own free will to do it.

You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"

[pelathais]

The important point that Paul is making in places like Romans 11:35, is that God graciously sends His Spirit to convict us BEFORE we have done anything worthy of this gift. To focus only upon the human aspect of making up one's own mind is deficient and doesn't take into account the activity of God "behind the scenes."

It is this same unbalanced approach to evangelism that has led to the plethora of frauds and hoaxes that have plagued the Christian faith. Because people think that they "have to do something" in order to persuade others that they in turn "have to do something" we end up with piles of literature and outrageous claims like we have from AnswersInGenesis, the ICR, Benny Hinn, Steve Munsey and the rest of the frauds and hoaxes.

When we fail to incorporate the activity of God into our understanding of salvation, we may end up leaving God out entirely. John 6:44-45.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"

A monkey genetically matches human DNA 98% of the time and that the monkey's genome is about 93 percent similar to the human genome,..... it's still a monkey.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You've just said nearly the exact same thing that I just did. Both "things" are happening - perhaps even simultaneously.

Why do you repeat what I said and then say that we "disagree?"

We disagree because you do not interpret that as a work we do. WE make a choice and WE decide to either give in to the Lord or not. So WE are meant to DO something. And no matter which way you slice it, that is a work on our behalf as much as baptism is. This is just how water baptism comes into the picture as well. It is an answer to God's offer of righteousness and salvation, not a cause.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We disagree because you do not interpret that as a work we do. WE make a choice and WE decide to either give in to the Lord or not. So WE are meant to DO something. And no matter which way you slice it, that is a work on our behalf as much as baptism is. This is just how water baptism comes into the picture as well. It is an answer to God's offer of righteousness and salvation, not a cause.

Mike I totaly agree but one thing I would note... The more proper term I would believe would be "justice" or the sense of "justice done" than righteousness. God's source of justice on our part is based on CHrist's atonement to them that respond/obey/have faith. Thus repentance is not justice done or the source which we do on our behalf but part of the reason WHY we have justice done on our behalf by his deeming and authority. Thus it is a work as you have shown and also not the source of our righteousness.

He became the source of salvation to them that obey. Thus he was the source of justice done on our part because he died to obtain and have authority to administer such justice as our kindsman redeemer. Why because he is the "Son of man" who overcame and obtained authority and sits at the right hand of power. Thus he deems our response worthy of his suffering which we obtain by faith which is contextual of the whole meaning, not a isolate point in time which is as James says is good but not the whole. Which Paul AS WELL AS James points to the whole of what the believed in referenced to and the "counting" was.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Mike I totaly agree but one thing I would note... The more proper term I would believe would be "justice" or the sense of "justice done" than righteousness. God's source of justice on our part is based on CHrist's atonement to them that respond/obey/have faith. Thus repentance is not justice done or the source which we do on our behalf but part of the reason WHY we have justice done on our behalf by his deeming and authority. Thus it is a work as you have shown and also not the source of our righteousness.

He became the source of salvation to them that obey. Thus he was the source of justice done on our part because he died to obtain and have authority to administer such justice as our kindsman redeemer. Why because he is the "Son of man" who overcame and obtained authority and sits at the right hand of power. Thus he deems our response worthy of his suffering which we obtain by faith which is contextual of the whole meaning, not a isolate point in time which is as James says is good but not the whole. Which Paul AS WELL AS James points to the whole of what the believed in referenced to and the "counting" was.

Amen. Good words. I have always emphasized righteousness since the Old Testament made Israel keenly aware of righteousness and how they cannot get it by their own works. God knew law would not do it, because law listed all the do's and don'ts one would have to do without fault in order to be righteous by works, but he needed man to know that beyond doubt. So law came, man tried and realized no one could successfully keep all the law flawlessly. And once law was over with, God showed how he would GIVE righteousness to man without works (Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works - Rom 4:6). And since righteousness is stressed as much as it is in the New Testament, that was my point of emphasis.

I think I was referring to righteousness in a different manner than you might have.

I like how you noted justice. Great bro!

[mfblume]

Bump for Pel,

I do not think you directly answered this yet. Forgive me if you did.

Originally Posted by 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.

Also I made this question to Jeffery, I believe it was.

Why then does the book of Revelation say plagues will strike people and, for all that, they would still not repent? Why even comment on their refusal to repent if one cannot choose to repent or not of one's own volition? If one gets true faith and has no choice but to repent, removing it from a personal decision (ironic), then there is no reason in noting some do not repent. It should say God refused to give them true faith. But it put the onus on their shoulders and said they refused to repent.

If repentance is done by someone EVERYTIME God's Spirit moves them to do it, like Baptism, then why do we read this?