The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When the New Testament mentioned the CROSS in the epistles, as in Paul glorying in the cross, it was a microcosm of the entire work of salvation spanning death, burial and resurrection. It is the same with reference to the BLOOD or "In the name of Jesus". It is encapsulation of all the work of redemption in one small term. It's what the elders used to mean when they "claimed the blood". It would be more clear to say THE WORK OF THE CROSS.

This is your opinion, of course. I noticed you referenced the traditions of elders and not scripture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

This is your opinion, of course. I noticed you referenced the traditions of elders and not scripture.

I was not saying the elders formed my doctrine, but rather used them by way of example that others see the same thing in scripture, and use varying terms to describe it, much like Apprehended used the "cross". The cross is where we come into contact with Christ for the first time. That is why Paul stated in Romans 6 that we died with Christ. And such a death is inseparable from the following burial and resurrection, since that death is intended to lead to resurrection. That shows that the thought of the cross involves the burial and resurrection, for the death of the cross is nothing without those. We died with Him that we might live with him.

It's like putting blood on the doors of the Hebrews' homes. Why do it if one will not ENTER THAT DOOR.

This shows that the death was only the means to the end. With that in mind, anyone who mentions the cross automatically has burial and resurrection in mind, including Paul.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not saying the elders formed my doctrine, but rather used them by way of example that others see the same thing in scripture, and use varying terms to describe it, much like Apprehended used the "cross". The cross is where we come into contact with Christ for the first time. That is why Paul stated in Romans 6 that we died with Christ. And such a death is inseparable from the following burial and resurrection, since that death is intended to lead to resurrection. That shows that the thought of the cross involves the burial and resurrection, for the death of the cross is nothing without those. We died with Him that we might live with him.

It's like putting blood on the doors of the Hebrews' homes. Why do it if one will not ENTER THAT DOOR.

This shows that the death was only the means to the end. With that in mind, anyone who mentions the cross automatically has burial and resurrection in mind, including Paul.

A great post with good understanding in regards to the initial contact a believer has with the gospel. It is the cross of Christ.

[mfblume]

Sometimes the term CROSS in the bible refers to the literal gallows they used to "gibbet" a person, hanging by hands, not noose. At other times it means THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS, and in those cases, burial and resurrection are also implied without doubt.

Preaching of the cross is doctrine of the cross. (1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.) That doctrine teaches His sacrifice removed our sins. The epistles teach that resurrection proved His sacrifice was effective! So in those instances where preaching of the cross is mentioned in order for salvation, it is understood that burial and resurrection are noted. But not simply observational burial and physical resurrection in and of themselves, as though to say Paul ONLY MEANT someone's death. The resurrection physically occurred, but for the purpose of confirming that the death was efficacious and that Jesus conquered death.

It's like Heb 2:14-15. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to be able to die so He could destroy the devil who had the power of death, and deliver those who were in bondage. You could use the reference to Christ's death and isolate it from the resurrection just as people isolate the cross from the burial and resurrection. But you would miss the fact that the MANNER in which Christ's death destroyed the devil was due to Christ's conquest of that death in His resurrection!

The preaching of the cross means that if we believe in Him we shall be saved from sin. But just considering the outward activities of His heart that stopped beating due to DEATH would not allow for that in Paul's reference to the preaching of the cross. This proves that Paul often encapsulated entire teachings with one word, just as CROSS, for otherwise what would the preaching of a heart ceasing to beat causing death mean to anyone if that was all that was preached to heathens who never heard anything about the concept of atonement and vicarious sacrifice? Imagine if CROSS only meant DEATH in the strictest sense, and we preached THE CROSS in that manner to heathens alone. Nothing is said about WHY He had to die, since the term DEATH alone does not strictly concern itself with WHY, but means cessation of life.

"A man named Jesus died for you!" Period.

We know that is not what is meant by the preaching of the cross any more than the "cross" likewise not implying burial and resurrection.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sometimes the term CROSS in the bible refers to the literal gallows they used to "gibbet" a person, hanging by hands, not noose. At other times it means THE DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS, and in those cases, burial and resurrection are also implied without doubt.

Preaching of the cross is doctrine of the cross. (1 Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.) That doctrine teaches His sacrifice removed our sins. The epistles teach that resurrection proved His sacrifice was effective! So in those instances where preaching of the cross is mentioned in order for salvation, it is understood that burial and resurrection are noted. But not simply observational burial and physical resurrection in and of themselves, as though to say Paul ONLY MEANT someone's death. The resurrection physically occurred, but for the purpose of confirming that the death was efficacious and that Jesus conquered death.

It's like Heb 2:14-15. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to be able to die so He could destroy the devil who had the power of death, and deliver those who were in bondage. You could use the reference to Christ's death and isolate it from the resurrection just as people isolate the cross from the burial and resurrection. But you would miss the fact that the MANNER in which Christ's death destroyed the devil was due to Christ's conquest of that death in His resurrection!

The preaching of the cross means that if we believe in Him we shall be saved from sin. But just considering the outward activities of His heart that stopped beating due to DEATH would not allow for that in Paul's reference to the preaching of the cross. This proves that Paul often encapsulated entire teachings with one word, just as CROSS, for otherwise what would the preaching of a heart ceasing to beat causing death mean to anyone if that was all that was preached to heathens who never heard anything about the concept of atonement and vicarious sacrifice? Imagine if CROSS only meant DEATH in the strictest sense, and we preached THE CROSS in that manner to heathens alone. Nothing is said about WHY He had to die, since the term DEATH alone does not strictly concern itself with WHY, but means cessation of life.

"A man named Jesus died for you!" Period.

We know that is not what is meant by the preaching of the cross any more than the "cross" likewise not implying burial and resurrection.

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....

Amen. To be as strict as to refer to the death alone, that same principle would require a person to talk about two boards nailed together and not even death!

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. To be as strict as to refer to the death alone, that same principle would require a person to talk about two boards nailed together and not even death!

That's the way I see it. Certainly seems reasonable to me.

Death would be adding something to the "cross alone" theory.

Then to suggest that confession with the mouth and forsaking sin would surely blow all cross alone circuits to smithereens.

The blood of Jesus ALONE saves but that entails more than just a cross alone, and much more than just death alone. It entails the WHOLE of the Gospel preached, believed and...YIKES...obeyed.

Seems that I recall Paul speaking (II Thes. 1)of Christ being revealed from heaven with a flaming sword taking vengeance upon all who obey NOT the gospel who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God.

Goodness!

Don't sound like "cross alone," to me.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

True...

But in our friends case, he is advocating "cross alone," which is nothing more than two beams nailed together even without a death, much less a burial and a resurrection.

Then, perish the thought of having to MIX FAITH with the DBR, let alone a confession with the mouth or keeping God's commandments.

As far as he is concerned adding anything to the notion of two boards nailed together is anathema.

Some times I have to wonder....

When one uses the term, "The Cross", one calls into remembrance the most physically painful act that has ever been recorded in human history. And, it was done voluntarily for the atonement of our sins, as Jesus Christ took on Himself the sins of all mankind (I Peter 2:24).

Even though I understand the point you're attempting to make (and not doing very well at it), your repeated flippant reference to "Two boards nailed together" is incredibly disrespectful and reduces the greatest and most effective event in human history to a physical reference to wood. It's very difficult to read and discuss.

Now...your other post.........

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by notofworks

When one uses the term, "The Cross", one calls into remembrance the most physically painful act that has ever been recorded in human history. And, it was done voluntarily for the atonement of our sins, as Jesus Christ took on Himself the sins of all mankind (I Peter 2:24).

I'm not sure you can prove this.

I don't think the purpose of the cross was to die in the most cruel manner imaginable.

The purpose was to destroy the curse of sin. The cross was merely the preferred tool of the Romans.

I'm sure it could be argued that "the rack" was more painful, or being boiled alive, or baked in an oven.