Love One Another and the Cross

[shazeep]

"This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: you must walk in love."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

"This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: you must walk in love."

But where does it say, "that you might be saved from sin"? We all know it's a command. But where does it say IT SAVES you? SAVES. There are lots of commands, but that doesn't mean they save us.

That is salvation by works. Nothing is mentioned about Jesus doing anything. That means He did not have to die and people would still be saved. Do you agree with that assessment?

Why didn't the apostles preach that instead of the cross?

[shazeep]

Well, i would argue that they pretty much did (it was "sufficient for them"); but Scripture is written in such a way as to allow people to choose. You bring up a point here to me--that we don't really understand saved very well. We got people defending OSAS, disregarding that a part of being "saved" is to "hold out to the end." You make a decent argument against the GS being "saved," too, even if to my mind it negates the First Son, and some other supporting Scripture. But that's just my opinion, i guess.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Well, i would argue that they pretty much did (it was "sufficient for them"); but Scripture is written in such a way as to allow people to choose.

It's not convincing when you don't show nor quote passages to prove the case. And that cannot be blamed on bias or choice. When we don't really get what they preached, and analyze form an emotional level that surely those who don't know Christ, but love people, cannot be lost. But the bible simply does not teach that.

You bring up a point here to me--that we don't really understand saved very well. We got people defending OSAS, disregarding that a part of being "saved" is to "hold out to the end." You make a decent argument against the GS being "saved," too, even if to my mind it negates the First Son, and some other supporting Scripture. But that's just my opinion, i guess.

Again, I think the simplest solution for the question is to study the message the apostles preached in Acts. They did not tell people to love as they pitched salvation to them. They just didn't. Read the sermon in Acts 2 and see. And Paul strongly stated apart from the cross one is lost. It's written in such a way in the many overall accounts that it's really easy to see without bias and choice.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Bro Blume,
The whole notion of someone not being saved until they are baptized and that the right way is an example of attempting to get saved by works.

There are several scriptures that plainly disagree with the salvation message presented by most Apostolic church organizations. The very plain scriptures have to be twisted in order Acts 2:38 to mean the way Apostolics present it.

Then there is the way Apostolics present speaking in tongues.

The Apostolics present a works-based salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Bro Blume,
The whole notion of someone not being saved until they are baptized and that the right way is an example of attempting to get saved by works.

Nope. How many times must we say that baptism is the furthest thing from a work that one can get. It is baptism into the death of all hopes of us earning anything. We're good for nothing except death, let alone working to save ourselves. It's death to all our hopes of saving ourselves.

There are several scriptures that plainly disagree with the salvation message presented by most Apostolic church organizations. The very plain scriptures have to be twisted in order Acts 2:38 to mean the way Apostolics present it.

I totally disagree. Show and explain how.

Then there is the way Apostolics present speaking in tongues.

The Apostolics present a works-based salvation.

You are wrong as can be.

Jesus preached baptism is experienced BEFORE salvation, and Peter flatly stated it's part of salvation.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

He did not say he that believes and is saved shall be baptized like you espouse.

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:

It saves! It's part of salvation. How can you deny that after Peter flatly said it?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nope. How many times must we say that baptism is the furthest thing from a work that one can get. It is baptism into the death of all hopes of us earning anything. We're good for nothing except death, let alone working to save ourselves. It's death to all our hopes of saving ourselves.


I totally disagree. Show and explain how.



You are wrong as can be.

Jesus preached baptism is experienced BEFORE salvation, and Peter flatly stated it's part of salvation.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

He did not say he that believes and is saved shall be baptized like you espouse.

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:

It saves! It's part of salvation. How can you deny that after Peter flatly said it?

The answer of a good conscience...

If you really believe, like you confess with your mouth that you believe, then you will obey the scriptures by getting baptized.

[votivesoul]

Until I experienced the cross, I didn't love anyone. So at least for me, no cross = no love, and of course, no salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The answer of a good conscience...

If you really believe, like you confess with your mouth that you believe, then you will obey the scriptures by getting baptized.

Right.

Otherwise it's not real belief. That makes baptism part of salvation.

[shazeep]

i will suggest again that those are two words that most people have only a ritualized definition for.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Until I experienced the cross, I didn't love anyone. So at least for me, no cross = no love, and of course, no salvation.

well that is great, but there is no denying that people have different reactions to Christ, some more religious, or ritualized, than others, and this becomes an examination of the fruit of an approach.

JD reflects a reality that can often occur, and that Scripture provides multiple warnings about. Simply denying this out of hand is to ignore a virtual cliche`. This is def not about denying the cross. More about recognizing that strong men seek to control the kingdom, and we are usually led to the cross by them.

If love one another is 9/10ths of the law and the prophets, Acts 2:38 adherents must rethink which is the cart, and which the horse.


"A new command I give you: Love one another."
"if we love one another, God lives in us"
"whoever loves others has fulfilled the law"
"For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another"
"everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another"
"may the Lord teach you to love one another and all men"
"This is my commandment, that you love one another"
"Above all continue to love one another"
"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love one another"
"This old commandment--to love one another--is the same message you heard before"
"Love means doing what God has commanded us, and he has commanded us to love one another, just as you heard from the beginning"

So the reality that you most likely heard Acts 2:38 from the beginning, and not this, simply becomes something else you must overcome. This does not mean that that isn't a great verse for personal application, but that if you have resistance to the first sentence in this paragraph, you have "taken a different gospel, and are not welcome."