The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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."

If we say, "The Cross of Christ alone can save", then I will have to say that the message Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost is the message of the Cross. It includes what the Cross entailed. I can then agree that the message of the Cross is what saves. That there is no other message.

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 agree we need to be careful with our wording and explanation of "works".

But, I also want to remember that the Word says that Abraham believed God, had righteousness imputed to him and was called the friend of God. Yet, James states that we see how he was justified by his works and not by faith only. James 2:23-24

Abraham's faith caused him to be obedient. The Bible says that he was not only justified by his faith alone, but by his works. It's hard to read that and not say that our obedience is not a work. If we have obeyed the Gospel, I believe we have done a work. Not in obtaining our own righteousness, but in our obedience to Him.

James also speaks of Rahab being justified by her works, which not only brought her salvation, but into the lineage of David.

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.

Enjoy talking to you also, Pel. I think we are, generally, on the same page. But, I am a strong proponent of Acts 2:38. If that makes me a three-stepper, than I willingly accept that tag. LOL!

[notofworks]

I'm gonna try to bottom-line the discussion here because I'm a bottom-line kinda guy. My attention span issues compel me to wade through the detail and make it simple.

So here's what I've observed:

There's one side saying that the cross of Christ alone can save us and this takes place when one simply accepts the gift and believes. In this thread, great information and argument has been provided by Pelathias (what a shock) and Jeffrey, who has become a warrior of grace. Dang Jeffrey, what's the deal??

There's the other side that's been led by MBlume and Pressing-on. This side says that the cross of Christ alone can save us and it happens when we take numerous actions...numerous deeds, numerous works, numerous, steps, numerous something-or-other. One of those has to work.

So, is that accurate?

Now, of course, the "Grace" side points to the "Works" side and says, "You're making people do stuff to get saved." The response, of course, is, the "Works" side says to the "Grace" side, "So do you! You're saying that people have to believe." Then, of course, the repentance and baptism argument starts.

Still accurate?

Here's the bottom-line problem I have with the second position...This position tells us that deeds are required by the individual and that seems to directly violate the verse that started this thread. Early on in the early church, there were people that were trying to attach their hobby-horse (circumcision) to salvation. It seems no different that what's happening here with baptism and tongues.

I think we could easily substitute a phrase and make Galatians 6:11-12 current. It seems we could easily say:

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to speak in tongues are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Baptism, in my opinion, is a side issue here. It's a natural by-product of faith and I've never had anyone refuse, or heard of anyone that refused. I'm sure someone's gonna say, "My neighbor's aunt's sister's husband's oldest daughter's boyfriend's second cousin refused." But I've never heard of it. And if they refuse, I seriously doubt if the "turn" to faith has been taken.

So no matter how many ways I read all this, I still see that the "steppers" (I'm a zero stepper) are adding to the cross. I've quoted Pel more times than I can count, but man, he really wrapped it all up in a simple question: "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

It is completely beyond me how any of you good folks could put someone on their knees (or wherever) and wait for them to speak in tongues before you pronounce them "Saved." That is SOOOOO Galatians 6:11-12, it's just ridiculous. Are you suggesting that Jesus died on the cross and suffered the worst death possible, took on the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later so that we could spend 4 months at the altar, grinding our guts out begging God for the "Holy Ghost"? Come on.

One final point...the very fact that we're having this discussion negates all this "step" stuff. You're telling me that God weaved all these steps into scripture and only a special few of you get to figure out the riddle? Nuh uh.

We can now settle this matter: I'm right and you're wrong!!

[DAII]

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm gonna try to bottom-line the discussion here because I'm a bottom-line kinda guy. My attention span issues compel me to wade through the detail and make it simple.

So here's what I've observed:

There's one side saying that the cross of Christ alone can save us and this takes place when one simply accepts the gift and believes. In this thread, great information and argument has been provided by Pelathias (what a shock) and Jeffrey, who has become a warrior of grace. Dang Jeffrey, what's the deal??

There's the other side that's been led by MBlume and Pressing-on. This side says that the cross of Christ alone can save us and it happens when we take numerous actions...numerous deeds, numerous works, numerous, steps, numerous something-or-other. One of those has to work.

So, is that accurate?

Now, of course, the "Grace" side points to the "Works" side and says, "You're making people do stuff to get saved." The response, of course, is, the "Works" side says to the "Grace" side, "So do you! You're saying that people have to believe." Then, of course, the repentance and baptism argument starts.

Still accurate?

Here's the bottom-line problem I have with the second position...This position tells us that deeds are required by the individual and that seems to directly violate the the verse that started this thread. Early on in the early church, there were people that were trying to attach their hobby-horse (circumcision) to salvation. It seems no different that what's happening here with baptism and tongues.

I think we could easily substitute a phrase and make Galatians 6:11-12 current. It seems we could easily say:

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to speak in tongues are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Baptism, in my opinion, is a side issue here. It's a natural by-product of faith and I've never had anyone refuse, or heard of anyone that refused. I'm sure someone's gonna say, "My neighbor's aunt's sister's husband's oldest daughter's boyfriend's second cousin refused." But I've never heard of it. And if they refuse, I seriously doubt if the "turn" to faith has been taken.

So no matter how many ways I read all this, I still see that the "steppers" (I'm a zero stepper) are adding to the cross. I've quoted Pel more times than I can count, but man, he really wrapped it all up in a simple question: "What is it about the cross that wasn't good enough?"

It is completely beyond me how any of you good folks could put someone on their knees (or wherever) and wait for them to speak in tongues before you pronounce them "Saved." That is SOOOOO Galatians 6:11-12, it's just ridiculous. Are you suggesting that Jesus died on the cross and suffered the worst death possible, took on the sins of the world, and rose again 3 days later so that we could spend 4 months at the altar, grinding our guts out begging God for the "Holy Ghost"? Come on.

One final point...the very fact that we're having this discussion negates all this "step" stuff. You're telling me that God weaved all these steps into scripture and only a special few of you get to figure out the riddle? Nuh uh.

We can now settle this matter: I'm right and you're wrong!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, I also want to remember that the Word says that Abraham believed God, had righteousness imputed to him and was called the friend of God. Yet, James states that we see how he was justified by his works and not by faith only. James 2:23-24

James also speaks of Rahab being justified by her works, which not only brought her salvation, but into the lineage of David.

The thing that contrasts James 2:23-24 with Paul's writings in Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-8, is that James is skipping all the way down to include Genesis 22, in his discussion. Paul is just focusing on what God did and said in Genesis 15.

The point that "One Steppers" tend to want to make is that God has done something in our lives that we were helpless to do for ourselves (our "Genesis 15" experience). Both Paul and James (and everybody else, for that matter) do go on to emphasize the "Genesis 22" experience; but I ("One Steppers" i general) feel that it is still vital to keep reminding ourselves that it was God's grace that got us started on this journey and really it is the same grace that will keep us going.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Enjoy talking to you also, Pel. I think we are, generally, on the same page. But, I am a strong proponent of Acts 2:38. If that makes me a three-stepper, than I willingly accept that tag. LOL!

As a "dyed in the wool One Stepper," I believe like the other "dyed in the wool One Steppers" believe - that secretly all "Three Steppers" are actually "One Steppers" in their heart. LOL.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The topic needs its own thread. Its a very easy topic to teach and cannot be refuted.

Well, that sums it up for me, right there!







j/k

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Jesus is coming for this kind of Church:

25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

All else will be lost.

How did the church get to be "perfect" anyhow???

... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christ did it all for us at Calvary!!! Add Michael the Disciple to the list of "Warriors for Grace!"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.

That is a difficult thing to grapple with. I have managed to avoid most of the difficulty by being old enough that my UPC card came with the decoder ring for the "old instructions."

"One Steppers" used to have been a part of a merger with the "Three Steppers." I read John Dearing's writings as a requirement for admission to the club. Nowadays? The merger's been destroyed and Dearing's lessons burned at the stake.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How did the church get to be "perfect" anyhow???

... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christ did it all for us at Calvary!!! Add Michael the Disciple to the list of "Warriors for Grace!"

Looking from this perspective we see an overlooked aspect of the grace of YAH.

12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:12-13

God is working in us and through us. Yet we are working! The overcomer has been "joined to the Lord" and they are one spirit.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by DAII

You didn't get the secret decoder ring, NOW? Despite having no witness in the Gospels or apostolic epistles or throughout Church history the revelation of 3 steps to be saved is clear as mud. It doesn't matter if their is no instruction or examples of a doctrine of a properly administered and invoked baptism, the bottom line is the paradigm excludes those who simply can't be saved because if they are, we have been wrong.

I once had the decoder ring but I've misplaced it. You know, there was a time when I could argue the heck out of all that stuff. But now? Confession time: Some time back I created a silly ID and tried to argue the "Old ways". I got pounded. That didn't go so well. I got pounded nearly as bad as MBlume, Pressing-On, and Michael the Disciple are here in this thread!

Seriously, I'd like to hear from any of the "Stepper-dudes" (or dudettes), just how important this is. Is adherence to the specific three things (repentance, Jesus' name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling evidence with tongues) the ONLY way to heaven?

I'd really like a firm "Yes" or "No" to that. And if it's a "Yes", where does that put people like me? Ultimately, doesn't it come down to this? Either it's a must or it's not, right? And if it's a must, I need one of you to tell me whether or not I'm going to hell. Interested?

I've repented (turned), I've been baptized, but I haven't spoken in tongues. So where will I spend eternity, and don't do the "God is the judge" thing on me. Either your way is a "must" it's not.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I once had the decoder ring but I've misplaced it. You know, there was a time when I could argue the heck out of all that stuff. But now? Confession time: Some time back I created a silly ID and tried to argue the "Old ways". I got pounded. That didn't go so well. I got pounded nearly as bad as MBlume, Pressing-On, and Michael the Disciple are here in this thread!

Seriously, I'd like to hear from any of the "Stepper-dudes" (or dudettes), just how important this is. Is adherence to the specific three things (repentance, Jesus' name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling evidence with tongues) the ONLY way to heaven?

I'd really like a firm "Yes" or "No" to that. And if it's a "Yes", where does that put people like me? Ultimately, doesn't it come down to this? Either it's a must or it's not, right? And if it's a must, I need one of you to tell me whether or not I'm going to hell. Interested?

I've repented (turned), I've been baptized, but I haven't spoken in tongues. So where will I spend eternity, and don't do the "God is the judge" thing on me. Either your way is a "must" it's not.

A true three stepper must believe that you are going to hell. There is no way around it. Happily I don't think there will be too many true three steppers stand up.