The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Adino

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.

I am repeatedly astounded that anyone who has ever studied anything could resort to such a pointless, meaningless, and worthless argument as the "Romans-was-written-to-saved-people" argument. First, it's not completely true, and secondly, so what? Does the target audience change the content of the statement? Of course not. It has to be the most absurd argument I've heard about anything.

And I think you're correct...there's a version of "truth" that has to be defended at all costs and if the only thing that can be grabbed is the "Romans-was-written-to" defense, they'll use it.

It's the oldest hermeneutical mistake in the book, developing a belief and then looking for verses to match, and if any verses contradict the belief, explain it away however one can.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Wait......are you saying.......

......sorry to jump in here, but are you saying that we are to be perfect like God, as in "perfect"??? Like flawless, no error, infallible, etc.? I must've missed something, 'cause you can't mean that.

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So there are TWO STEPS? Faith and then repentance?

See, your tortured misapprehension of NT theology in this area causes you to behave in a manner that you probably wouldn't do otherwise. Why didn't you add the "scratches himself on the chin while he thinks" as a third step?

The problem is Mike, you MUST deny the efficacious work of Jesus Christ on the cross in order to justify yourself with the brethren who forced you aside long ago. This desire to justify yourself in their eyes is actually unnecessary and ironically, further evidence of your misapprehension of Calvary.

You simply cannot justify yourself. Your attempts to do so result in your statement above. Why not fully embrace our risen Lord on this Easter weekend? Quit trying to "work," and to "deserve" something that Jesus Christ offers freely.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

You are right. I am not saying we must be perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.

It is not me saying it at all.

It is the Lord Jesus Christ!

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

Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

See, your tortured misapprehension of NT theology in this area causes you to behave in a manner that you probably wouldn't do otherwise. Why didn't you add the "scratches himself on the chin while he thinks" as a third step?

The problem is Mike, you MUST deny the efficacious work of Jesus Christ on the cross in order to justify yourself with the brethren who forced you aside long ago. This desire to justify yourself in their eyes is actually unnecessary and ironically, further evidence of your misapprehension of Calvary.

You simply cannot justify yourself. Your attempts to do so result in your statement above. Why not fully embrace our risen Lord on this Easter weekend? Quit trying to "work," and to "deserve" something that Jesus Christ offers freely.

AMEN!!! I just ran the aisles!! Well, you know.....

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that our faith is what causes us to obey the Gospel. I don't believe our faith alone saves us. You must also obey. Of course, you cannot have obedience without faith and I don't think true faith would not include obedience.

The title of the thread is "The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save" - not "faith alone..." In our discussion of the cross we obviously need to have some sort of language that will explain how an event 2,000 years ago could even have any sort of impact on our lives today. The way that we "reach across time and space" to place ourselves at the foot of the cross along side the centurion and the repentant thief is through faith.

It is a Calvinist maxim that "faith alone" saves (Sole Fide) and I'm not a Calvinist. Though I do have some respect for that particular strain of thought, I have also noticed that even most Calvinists will scurry to add something like "Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone..." so even they don't really appear to mean "faith alone."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And as we have discussed, concerning works, I believe these things (repentance and baptism) are actions of obedience and not in the category of a works based faith on the level of the Law - obtaining our own righteousness.

And I have agreed. They are not.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would be more accurate to the Word to relegate the term "works/toil" - good works - to the things we do after we are saved. And then, again, we must continue in the faith to ultimately have eternal life.

Having faith, we must obey the Gospel. Having salvation, we must continue in that faith.

Due to the prevalence of Pauline writings using the word "works" and how that clearly is never applied to repentance (nor even baptism) I chose to just stay away from that application altogether.

Technically, anything that is a verb can be said to also be a "work." Verbs are action words. They describe and action or a response to an action that in itself is just another action anyway. That is why it's important to see how the words and terms are being used in their specific context.

"Believing" is a verb; but it is never described as a "work" in the NT. When people's reasoning has become so broken down that they demand upon expounding this sort of confusion - well, then the least of their problems is the need for an English lesson from me.

I enjoy talking to PO. I think we're both on the same page generally speaking, we just have different ways of articulating it. As you pointed out earlier, I do have my reasons having chosen to take this tack. I also believe that in the long run it will be more beneficial for everyone.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Ok so, "Perfect" here means:

1) Complete, mature? or;
2) Flawless, without blemish?


Are you suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew 5:48, instructs us to be flawless and without blemish, or that is He is instructing us to be complete/mature?

Points one and two are related are they not? But for the accurate definition just consider the words EVEN AS.

Be perfect EVEN AS the Father is perfect.

Can we be complete and mature EVEN AS the Father is complete and Mature?

Or can we be without flaw and blemish as he is?

Or both?

The born again believer has no option in the matter. He must be perfect.

And before the usual comments start coming this command is not for the lost. It is for the saved. Those who have repented, been baptized into Christ and filled with the Spirit. This is their destiny. This was/is the purpose of their calling.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Why would how its working out for me be more important to discuss than the fact Christ commanded his disciples to be perfect EVEN AS the Father in Heaven is perfect?

Whether or not it was "working out" for someone would not change what the Lord Jesus Christ said.

I admire that gutsy honesty Michael.

But couldn't it also be that our problem with this verse isn't that we have failed to become "God-like" in our perfection, but that the continued use of the modern English word "perfect" in translating the Greek word "telios"

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

But couldn't it also be that our problem with this verse isn't that we have failed to become "God-like" in our perfection, but that the continued use of the modern English word "perfect" in translating the Greek word "telios"

"Once again, as we turn to Strong’s concordance, we find that the English word perfect is translated from the Greek word telios. Looking for the ideas implied from telios, we find that the word translates as ‘complete’ or ‘completeness’. In fact, if we look at the history of the English language, we find that even the word ‘perfect’ has evolved in the last 400 years (from the time when the bible was first translated into English). At that time, the word perfect was used to describe a sense of completeness, just as the word telios does. It is only in the time since the King James Version of the bible was first printed, that the word ‘perfect’ has evolved from meaning complete, to meaning flawless. If we use this ‘old’ meaning for the word perfect in verse 48, we find Yeshua teaching the people that we should seek to love one another ‘completely’, even as the Father loves us completely."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Adino

How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?

We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.

The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.

An excellent point, Adino. The epistles were all written to belivers "in the church" (though some "stragglers" are also singled out along the way). However, the "Three Step" plan of salvation as articulated by many is simply nowhere to be found.

At one point Paul clearly states that he has to preach the Gospel to a group of believers "all over again" (so to speak, see verse 1).

1 Corinthians 15:1-22

He reminds them that this is material that he has already preached as "the Gospel." He points out that this is the same message preached by all of the apostles.

What is this "Gospel?"

"How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

That's the Gospel!