The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1) what is the "grace" of God in v8?
2) What is not of my own doing?
3) v9 not a result of works.... ok what is not a result of works?

Answer 1) christ atonement was the favor shown for salvation and is the grace manifested.
Answer 2) the Grace or "source" of salvation. Notice he is talking about the source of atonement that can BRING or OFFER salvation. THAT IS NOT OF MY DOING!
Answer 3) the source or possibility of atonement/salvation is not of my own doing but Christ' perfect sacrifice is. My works are not the source!

How is the salvation realized FROM it's SOURCE! FAITH which is a conintous sense and is based upon knowledge of what is required or Word given which DEFINES IT! Faith is a simple word used FOR a BROAD CONTEXT of application!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1) what is the "grace" of God in v8?
2) What is not of my own doing?
3) v9 not a result of works.... ok what is not a result of works?

Answer 1) christ atonement was the favor shown for salvation and is the grace manifested.
Answer 2) the Grace or "source" of salvation. Notice he is talking about the source of atonement that can BRING or OFFER salvation. THAT IS NOT OF MY DOING!
Answer 3) the source or possibility of atonement/salvation is not of my own doing but Christ' perfect sacrifice is. My works are not the source!

How is the salvation realized FROM it's SOURCE! FAITH which is a conintous sense and is based upon knowledge of what is required or Word given which DEFINES IT! Faith is a simple word used FOR a BROAD CONTEXT of application!

You know, I agree 100% with what I think you've said, however could you restate that last part (bolded above)?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You know, I agree 100% with what I think you've said, however could you restate that last part (bolded above)?

Saying we are saved by faith simply is a short form for a lot larger context.

Am I simply saved by mental assent? No!
Am I saved by simply being baptized? No!
Am I saved by speaking in tongues? No!
Am I saved by trusting in him? Yes!

Why does the answer change expecially between "mental assent" and "trust"?

Because trust observes and controls a much larger view of what is needed. Thus Faith which is trust does the same thing. God says he that believes will never die! Yes, this is true but the context is not mental assent but a continous aspect of knowing the will of God and doing. What is the initial aspect and context of faith. JEsus died and rose again! Does that save me? No! Knowing and simply believing and agreeing that happened does not do ONE THING for salvation. It does not bring me into covenant nor is his blood realized toward me. Faith is contextual and based on the Word known UNTO receive something. How do we receive by faith. Repent(turn) and be baptized(be united) everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins... Remission is not simply not just about forgiveness but the cutting away of that which we are attached. (old man of death) As we now are made anew by coming for unto a new purpose or in this case new covenant and servanthood. I place my trust in God's working BY FAITH at baptism to be united in covenant. That is teh context of faith UNTO covenant.

Now does baptism in itself save me completely? NO! Why? Faith is a broader context than initial entry INTO covenant. It's about doing the will of God and abiding by the terms of the covenant to obtain. Thus he is the source/mediator/author/administrator of the covenant/salvation to those who obey. Thus to abide in covenant is to be in agreement with the contract. Soem would say at peace with it or on good terms which is realized by faith.


Note added... Abraham "belief" in Gen 15:6 is not about simply mental assent or he is saying ok God great. Abraham had ALREADY MOVED IN TRUST which was RISK! simply abraham believing that this is true is the very essence of mental assent. IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY! Which is James point of "fulfilled" was realized in Gen 15:6 concerning Abraham "believed" at the offering of Isaac. Thus "faith" in Gen 15:6 is a broad context not just the moment in time. Paul is still correct but smaller in scope and point concerning circumcision and is pointing to the fact of believed as being realized before Gen 17. Which is true read the following verses after Gen 15:6 God goes into covenant with Abraham as he asks what must I do to obtain his land promise. Thus the outlook of "believed" in Gen 15:6 includes the proceding verses all the way to Gen 22. Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE Gen 15:6 even.

gotta go sorry... will discuss later. Have a good one!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But at any rate, chats like this always get away from the issue and become personally oriented. Don't let that happen. It's not a competition thing. The issue if passive aggression was tongue in cheek to begin with, as well. Let the personal side go, bro.

Mike, I'd be happy to do that. But inevitably, you throw in either personal accusations, like the original personality disorder thing your threw at me, or here where you're flaunting your knowledge and insinuating that I'm not a capable teacher, or the repeated (and at one point I listed them) barbs that I wasn't able to understand what you're saying or wasn't reading anything you wrote.

So I'm more than happy to leave out the personal digs. But so far, I've never had an in-depth conversation without you throwing them.

You throw them, I answer, and then you say, "Hey, let's not make it personal." Mike, you can't have it both ways. So yeah, please, drop this silly stuff. I'd love that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.

Faith is a work, Jesus said. But not a work from "salvation by works." that is how I would agree with your words.

[mfblume]

Pel and n.o.w.,

How can I believe in salvation by works if I claimed this?

If a person repented and agreed to be baptized, having the faith that works, and died before getting baptized, THEY ARE SAVED. If the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pel and n.o.w.,
...
And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.[/indent]

I think (not sure) the Roman Catholics call that the "baptism of desire." In other words that person would get baptized if he knew about it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

I think (not sure) the Roman Catholics call that the "baptism of desire." In other words that person would get baptized if he knew about it.

Interesting. Never heard that one before.

After research I found this from a catholic site:

What does it mean to belong to the Church by desire’ or ‘longing’?

St. Thomas Aquinas states that" a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shall you be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." [11] He also states "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. Moreover, such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that works by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." [12]

It seems they strongly lean towards personal suffering to take the place of baptism. Which is error.

Funny that this ties in with futurism. I heard this in many dispensationalistic circles, though. They teach that during the future tribulation since the church is gone due to the rapture souls are saved by shedding THEIR OWN BLOOD. Heinous, I think! THAT is salvation by work. But then again, some futurists believe seven years of law were never paid for by the cross, and hence the reason for a seven year tribulation where law of Moses is once again in effect. Progressive dispensationalism is getting away from that thought, though.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pel and n.o.w.,

How can I believe in salvation by works if I claimed this?

If a person repented and agreed to be baptized, having the faith that works, and died before getting baptized, THEY ARE SAVED. If the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.

Like I said Mike, I really haven't "hung a tag on you." Like DKB, you back up and take a run at the topic of salvation making certain to touch bases at the cross. I respect that.

There are others however, who just jump right in with a list of "you gotta do's" and who make granny's knickers a matter of salvation. They are the ones who at least appear to have forgotten about the cross. And when the cross and salvation by grace through faith is brought up they have the predictable knee jerk reactions.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Like I said Mike, I really haven't "hung a tag on you." Like DKB, you back up and take a run at the topic of salvation making certain to touch bases at the cross. I respect that.

There are others however, who just jump right in with a list of "you gotta do's" and who make granny's knickers a matter of salvation. They are the ones who at least appear to have forgotten about the cross. And when the cross and salvation by grace through faith is brought up they have the predictable knee jerk reactions.

... case in point: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...693#post897693

If you don't follow the dress code it will "cost you your soul." It's folks like this who appear to have forgotten about the cross.