The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Good for you, cuz, who knows.... maybe you are saved by works!

Love it!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I see your point here and I agree with you that it was a command for them to change their lives after repentance.

However, II Thess 1:8 says that there is flaming fire waiting for those that would not obey the Gospel. That is a command to repent, etc., He isn't only referring to a command to change their lives here. He is addressing their immediate salvation. It is a command for them to do something on their part.

So, Paul is commanding the church at Thessalonika to be baptized - again? And, he's using the impending judgment of reprobates as a means to strengthen that command?

I don't accept the "once saved always saved" notion. There are many commands associated with the Christian life (John 13:34, for example). But salvation itself comes as a free gift whose only command is "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden..."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that Jesus "willingly" and "freely" gave His life and offers us a way of escape. Everything He has is available for us because of His sacrifice. As we have already stated, everything flows from the cross.

I stated that, but you can too now.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When He says "free" it is defined as "liberate". I don't see, in all instances, that it is being defined as "having no cost or without a charge."

I Cor 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

This scripture is reaching past our obtained salvation to the things we are "freely given" having His Spirit. It is referring to the things the Spirit does teach us. (I John 2:27)

If we obey the Gospel, we are then liberated from sin. It cost Him a great deal. By His grace and His mercy He has torn down the middle wall of partition to accept all those that are willing. But we must do our part. We must willingly obey the Gospel. That is the only way we can partake of anything Jesus has to offer.

Ephesians 3:6 "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" (Ephesians 3:6).

We are made partakers BY/THROUGH the Gospel. We must obey. (II Thess 1:8; Acts 5:32; Hebrews 5:9; I Peter 4:7).

It indeed cost Him a great deal, as I said earlier, but it costs us nothing.

Romans 5:15-21

Salvation is a free gift. It is made available - for free! - by the One Who gave His all.

Having received this free gift - we then become His servants (Romans 8:11-15) Not servants to sin and death, and not just servants either! We are fellow heirs to the Kingdom (Romans 8:16-17). As stewards of the Kingdom we have a tremendous responsibility (2 Corinthians 4:6-7).

I don't think we're arguing about different things, but rather about how best to articulate the same thing. The "One Stepper" method established the foundation with the Gospel as a free gift that is freely available to all. From this foundation the commands that follow are not onerous dictates of what the believer "has to do!" But, they are opportunities to serve our Lord.

They are not "assigned tasks and burdens" required to repay Him for our salvation. They are privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

"One Stepper" preachers don't look upon the saints they serve as "mindless sheep" whose legs need to be broken from time to time. They see themselves as servants whose life calling and purpose is to encourage and build up the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2) and to treat them as fellow servants and heirs to a Kingdom that is not their own.

All of this creates an entirely different atmosphere. The relationships are deeper and more genuine. The climate of worship is more open and free. The smiles on everyone's face are more ready and there's less of that "plastic smile."

How we articulate the free gift of the Gospel and the subsequent commands will affect everything else that we do. That's why I think it's important to get it right.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Which brings us to the Finished Work doctrine that opposed Wesley's view.

This debate actually still goes on today!

Yes! William H. Durham was the one who in essence cut the apron strings from the older Holiness Movement (Wesleyan). But in doing so, he rolled over a lot of the baggage - or really, those that followed did.

There was no more need for the "crisis" of sanctification (that others are teasing one another about on this thread). Instead, we have the whole "crisis" rolled up into a single evening... even if that makes for a very long evening, night and into the next morning.

Theologically, it was a great step forward from the endless pursuit of "sinless perfection." However, by picking up so much of the baggage of the Holiness Movement and the whole "You Gotta Earn It and Deserve It" mentality the difference really became more one of semantics, IMHO.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

This idea that perfection is a reality? You mean the idea that came from the Lord Jesus Christ?

48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48

Do you really compare yourself on a one-to-one basis with the Almighty, Michael? Or, am I missing something that you've left unsaid here?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...

DAII makes and excellent point with "THE WORKS OF THE LAW" - one that I skipped right by.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief. I still have to respond and obey the Gospel. If all I had to do to be saved is to believe, what would be the point of repenting and baptism? My belief causes me to respond to the Gospel and to go on to perfection (maturity) in Christ.

How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

Hebrews 11:6. You must believe that God is actually "on the other end of the line," and you've got to believe that what you are doing (conversion, repentance) is worthwhile.

You've got to believe (Galatians 3:6).

But the gift of eternal life is free!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I will just apologize for everyone.

Clean slate.

Now let'er RIP!!

I must of missed it, Hoovie. You're alright by me!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So, Paul is commanding the church at Thessalonika to be baptized - again? And, he's using the impending judgment of reprobates as a means to strengthen that command?

Pel,
For heaven's sake - NO. He is not asking saved people to become saved once again. lol The point being made in II Thess 1:8 is that someone is going to end up in fiery flames if they do not obey the Gospel. He is speaking of someone giving them trouble who is not being receptive to the Gospel message.

For you to say there are no tasks involved is erroneous. I would prefer to say "action" on our part. II Thess 1:8 is saying that someone was not listening, cooperating, nor responding to the action required of them and their end is not going to be pleasant.

It is not as simple as saying - It's free. Free is being liberated. You are putting it in the context of having no cost - a monetary element.

I don't accept the "once saved always saved" notion. There are many commands associated with the Christian life (John 13:34, for example). But salvation itself comes as a free gift whose only command is "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden..."

You didn't finish the rest of this passage - "Take my yoke upon you..."

We have responsibilities on our part. How is His yoke easy and His burden light? "Casting all of your cares upon Him, for He careth for you." (I Peter 5:7)

It indeed cost Him a great deal, as I said earlier, but it costs us nothing.

Romans 5:15-21

Salvation is a free gift. It is made available - for free! - by the One Who gave His all.

I like the reading in the CEV for Romans 5:15-21. Free simply means that it not something that we can do ourselves - shed our own blood. That was his doings. The typology of the lamb without spot or blemish, the kinsman Reedeemer, etc. We could never have measured up to being qualified.

Isaiah 63:1 "Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.

(5) And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

I believe He gives us a measure of faith (Romans 12:3), but it is our responsibility to respond in obedience. Acts 5:32 says that the Holy Ghost was given to those that "obeyed". That means they had to do something on their part to receive that gift.

Having received this free gift - we then become His servants (Romans 8:11-15) Not servants to sin and death, and not just servants either! We are fellow heirs to the Kingdom (Romans 8:16-17). As stewards of the Kingdom we have a tremendous responsibility (2 Corinthians 4:6-7).

I don't think we're arguing about different things, but rather about how best to articulate the same thing. The "One Stepper" method established the foundation with the Gospel as a free gift that is freely available to all. From this foundation the commands that follow are not onerous dictates of what the believer "has to do!" But, they are opportunities to serve our Lord.

They are not "assigned tasks and burdens" required to repay Him for our salvation. They are privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

"One Stepper" preachers don't look upon the saints they serve as "mindless sheep" whose legs need to be broken from time to time. They see themselves as servants whose life calling and purpose is to encourage and build up the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2) and to treat them as fellow servants and heirs to a Kingdom that is not their own.

All of this creates an entirely different atmosphere. The relationships are deeper and more genuine. The climate of worship is more open and free. The smiles on everyone's face are more ready and there's less of that "plastic smile."

How we articulate the free gift of the Gospel and the subsequent commands will affect everything else that we do. That's why I think it's important to get it right.

I don't like using terms that we've come up with, but if you want to say three-stepper - okay - we seem to be forced into using it. I don't find any of those steps as laborious tasks or burdens. I view them, also, as privileges to share and serve in the Kingdom as joint heirs with Christ.

And as much as you want to say there are no instructions for anything we "have to do" on our part, except to believe, I beg to differ. II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17 beg to differ. Those two scriptures alone let you know that only believing is not going to save you. If you don't obey the Gospel, you are going to have a fiery end. I guess that is not lovely enough or positive enough to include in a message, huh? lol

Your last few paragraphs reveal where the angst of this issue actually lies, Pel.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

DAII makes and excellent point with "THE WORKS OF THE LAW" - one that I skipped right by.

How can you say "nothing is demanded on my part..." and then list just what is actually demanded? Something is demanded - faith!

Hebrews 11:6. You must believe that God is actually "on the other end of the line," and you've got to believe that what you are doing (conversion, repentance) is worthwhile.

You've got to believe (Galatians 3:6).

But the gift of eternal life is free!

I did not say that "nothing is demanded on my part". My exact quote is: "This gives the impression there is nothing demanded on my part - just belief."

Faith is not all that is demanded. Obedience is also demanded (II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17) two good examples of that.

I do believe we must have faith/belief to even begin to obey. But our salvation does not stop at believing only. That is the impression you are giving me concerning salvation.

In Galatians it does say that Abraham was counted righteous for his belief, but if God had known that in his heart he had no intention of obeying His command to become circumcised, his righteousness would not have been able to stand.

[mfblume]

Man, you folks write so much in a couple of days that posts are hard to find in order ot catch up.

Originally Posted by notofworks

That being said, I'm surprised that someone of your learning would use such a pointless argument that you used when you said that Acts is speaking to sinners and Romans is speaking to the church. That is a very tired, worthless, and inaccurate argument and I'm baffled that anyone would use it. It's right up there with the, "But the devil believes" argument......in my opinion.

As shocked as you are by my use of that thought, I am shocked you deny it. Sorry, I stand wholeheartedly by it. Acts is accounts of actual sermons, and Romans is written to saved people not sinners.

I am no know-it-all, but I have studied Romans more than most other books of the bible. My ministry focuses on the work of the cross and Romans does the job better than any other book, I think.

Romans 6, for example, says that we must know that we who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. That is speaking of saved people. Romans is speaking to the church no matter how anyone slices it, according to that. It is an epistle. Epistles were written to churches.

I'll restate what I said in post #141 of this thread:

1) As Pel has said, "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

That is a moot point. Again, let me repeat my thoughts:

Those who accuse us of proposing one must speak in tongues to be saved, are implying that tongues are something we do to inherit eternal life from fleshly effort, and that is simply not the case.

And the same principle applies ot bpatism, as I have stated.

2) Jeffrey made a great point in that Paul's epistles were distributed long before Acts was available. The "Romans was written to people that were saved" argument has no scriptural basis.

Oh please. Internal evidence abounds to that end.

So we're to believe that Paul was skipping important details because of his audience?

Why preach to the choir, is the point.

He gave a summary because he wanted to save ink?

Let us reason here. If I preached in your church and all of you were saved, and I had to deal with the situation of how salvation brought us to a place where we have to assess our relationship with Israel and God's plan, (which was the case with Romans 10), I would not go into redundant details about it.

The context is emphasizing Israel's need to come to God like the rest of us in the here and now. And Paul cited Deut 30's reference to the mouth and the heart. Now, everyone SHOULD know that Deut 30 did not detail the plan of salvation as it would be revealed once the cross occurred. But Deut 30 mentioned the heart and the mouth. Paul played on that passage and showed how it applied to the church salvation he preached. No one could read Deut 30 to sinners and claim it shows salvation in complete form, for more reasons than that Jesus' name is not mentioned!

Think of Paul citing Deut 30, and I feel it proves my point.

Are we to believe that when 3-step pastors teach salvation to their churches, they just say, "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved", because they're talking to people that are already saved??? No, of course they don't.

Moot. You are neglecting the overall context of Romans 10 and how Paul was dealing with the issue of ISRAEL. He was contrasting works from salvation by faith. You know the issue about Israel and their handle on Law and how they missed the boat. That changes everything. Let's not take a couple of verses in Romans 10 and propose an entire dogma here.

They detail the "3 steps." Blume, have you ever said, "You're saved when you believe" even in passing? I can't imagine you doing that. You'd want to be clear, wouldn't you?

I have in fact said that! I did so in contrast to the idea that people can work to be saved.

3) So we're to believe that even though the formula of the 3-steps is absolutely essential to eternity, Paul didn't mention it once??? Not ever??

Paul was not dealing with that issue, whether you agree or not. I am being honest here. You are missing the context.

Paul had the well-being of the Early Church on his shoulders. He even said so. And he never mentioned the most important thing? Ever? If this is the case, he was a horrifically negligent apostle.

4) What he did constantly mention was the absoluteness of salvation through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He never left it out. So are we to believe that the churches to which he wrote were just supposed to assume the other stuff? How did they learn about the "steps"....through gossip circles??

They heard the steps through preaching that occurred before there even was a church in Rome, and before the congregation formed to later receive this epistle.

5) I believe the value system of attaching "steps" to salvation is doing exactly what Paul warned against when he said in Galatians 6:11 that he was using big letters. It is attaching conditions to an unconditional sacrifice.

Then repentance is not required for salvation.

6) To say that we take 3 steps to salvation is to insert a verb on our part, indicating "action." What action are you able to take to be saved? Very simply, none. Jesus took all the action and because of his action, we have salvation.

You did it again! You make it sound like baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are human efforts we employ to save ourselves using fleshly effort alone. And they're not.

As Dr. Segraves used to bellow, "You like to say that if you take one step, God will take two. But you can't even take one step!" That will ring in my ears forever.

Speaking of steps in that context is totally different than what I am proposing. In fact, I have never called my belief "three step salvation."

The books of Acts is a history book. If we're going to copy everything in that book, we need to have tongues of fire on top of our head, the wind needs to blow really hard every time we have church, and people need to jump out of their wheelchairs when you pass by.

No, look at the common denominator in all accounts of major ethnic groups beings saved for the first time.

The epistles, however, were written to the churches to shore up their doctrine, behaviors, theologies, and practices. Ultimately, it doesn't mean a hill of beans who Romans was written to. It was written and THAT'S what matters, and it is what it is.

Mike, in my opinion, you are very learned but very wrong.

You want me to refrain from phrases such as what you just made? lol

Brother, you are not concerning yourself over the context of Romans 10 's reference to Deut 30, and his overall point.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I get where you are going and I agree in part. The works Paul were speaking of weren't repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. The works we was speaking of were good deeds and keeping the old law.

However, repentance is not anything we actively apply our human energy toward doing and neither is receiving the Holy Ghost. Both of these are reactions we have to God. Repentance happens not when we actively go out and stop sinning but when our desire is to turn toward God and no longer sin (and we can actively do nothing to change our desires). Receiving the Holy Ghost happens not when we speak in tongues (assuming the doctrine of tongues is true) but it happens before we speak in tongues and then speaking in tongues follows.

Baptism on the other hand is the only "work" we do in the 3 step process that has us doing something and then God doing something. We actively go down in the water and only after that does God wash away our sins. See the difference?

I think you got our idea of what happens in baptism incorrectly.

I already stated forgiveness happens at repentance. Before baptism. But it is the faith that works that God sees in our repentance.

The question I want to leave is whether Baptism is a work likened unto keeping the law?

If it is, then it is wrong.

If it is then I think by the principle behind Pauls statement about salvation not being of works, then Baptism is not a work that is required before salvation.

It is not, so it is part of salvation. Baptism is not something that involves the action of lowering into water to move God to remit sins. God could have said anything, but there is a heart that has faith which must be so obedient for it to be the heart God requires of us.

IMHO.