The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

[QUOTE=Apprehended;1006308]

FTR, I do not slither. I don't know how to slither. I've never slithered. So don't use that metaphor associated with me. Slithering calls to mind the mannerisms of a snake.

I will use the word "squirm" and plead with you to quit it and start answering some questions...unless of course you are adamant in your (two boards nailed together) "cross alone" doctrine. If you are THAT adamant, I will concede nothing but will just shake my head in amazement and walk away to wonder at one of the several marvels that post here on an "Apostolic" forum.



It is plain from the writings in the N.T. that the Cross of Jesus is more than two planks nailed together as in the idea of "cross alone." The cross of Jesus is the Gospel. Too many references in the NT to miss the obvious.



I am very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God. YES, he did say that!

I'll quote it for you in his own words to prove the obvious...which has no need of proving.

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.

See if you can get the connection from this 18th verse above:

1. Preaching
2. Cross
3. Saved
4. Power of God

See any connection with the gospel in these words?

To begin with we see that the power to save is resident in the PREACHING of the cross...NOT THE CROSS ALONE.

Also, in the "duh" category: The cross of Jesus is inextricably the gospel which cannot be divided and set apart from the gospel. It becomes the gospel (the good news) when it is preached. Also, in the "duh" category, it is well known that both Luther and Calvin acknowledged the obvious which you seem unwilling to do.

It is becoming more and more plain that you are advocating for "another" gospel that does not involve the burial and resurrection of Jesus. The DEATH of Jesus alone, carries no good news. That seems to be what you are contending for. If so, that indeed is ANOTHER gospel. Luther and Calvin would be gravely disappointed. At least they believed in MIXING FAITH alone with the gospel. But of course, that would be adding to the cross ALONE theory wouldn't it?

So, let's see what the preaching of the (cross) Gospel of Jesus Christ involves:

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

What might a normal level-headed student of the Word deduce from the writing in the first verse here?

a. Paul preached the gospel. (1st on the to do list)
b. The Corinthians received the gospel. (2nd on the to do list)
c. They STAND in the gospel. (3rd on the to do list)

Right of the bat we have dispensed with the foolish notion of "cross alone" theory.

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

"By which also ye are saved...?"

Say it ain't so Joe!

Preaching of the gospel?

Lest we need to be reminded, Paul had earlier said that the preaching of the CROSS was SAVING power, only 14 chapters earlier. But, alas, alas, he adds to the to do list connected to the two boards nailed together "...IF YOU KEEP IN MEMORY..."

The "to do" list is growing as we add to the cross alone...which is no longer "ALONE."

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul seems to be unable to give it up. He is now saying that a part of the gospel is the death of Jesus.

4 And that he was buried,

Now, he incorporates the burial of Jesus with the work of the cross as integral to the cross. After all, every dead body must be buried lest it stinks. No good news or a gospel that involves a dead rotting corpse unburied lest what you preach becomes a noisome abomination. "Cross only" that you advocate equates to "death only," even less...just two boards nailed together without the death.

and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Now here we are receiving the "good news," which is to say the "gospel," the preaching of the cross.

Anyone with at least one level brain cell can quickly deduce that...

a death without a burial is NOTHING.

a burial without a resurrection is NOTHING.

A RESURRECTION from the grave after the deathand burial is THE GOOD NEWS...i.e., THE GOSPEL.

So, YES, Paul DID say it.

Only you deny it.

This is truly sad.

I'm not a fan of your posting style, from the initial entrance you made with your Mario Brothers analogy, to your "I hate sinners" nonsense on another thread, to your controlling dialogue mannerisms.

First, don't tell me the terms I can use and the terms I can't use. That's not for you to decide. While you question my knowledge of the bible, I'll tell you that I certainly am a student of psychology, and your style of attempting to control the environment of the dialogue is one to which I don't react very well and makes me feel as if I'm at a really sleazy used car lot, and your insistence on making me answer your questions so that you can use my answers as a gateway to your point isn't going to be fruitful. I haven't participated yet and I won't now.

Second, I am also a student of vocabulary and the word "Slither" is not inherently applicable to a snake. "Slithering" is a movement made by a snake and the word is no more automatically linked to a snake, than running is automatically linked to a cheetah. So in the future, if I desire to say that you are attempting to slither out of a discussion, I will do so. If you don't like that, you don't have to respond and are welcome to take your controlling dialogue tactics to another poster.

So yes, you actually DO slither in the way you attempt to deflect the questions I asked and return to your own questions.

Third, speaking to me you proclaimed that you are "very near concluding that you are not a student of the Word of God." Such pompous, condescending, doctrinally, and theologically arrogant remarks are not anything I'm interested hearing and gives me a clear indication of where this conversation is going to go. There are 140+ pages of dialogue in which I posted several dozen times. If you wish to know my thoughts, you're welcome to go read. If you're interested in learning anything....and considering your pompous remark about my not being a "Student of the Word", you're probably not....I would highly recommend the postings of "Jeffrey" and "Pelathais".

As for me, I'll move on. I have no desire to discuss this any further with you. Blessings.....

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm not a fan of your posting style, from the initial entrance you made with your Mario Brothers analogy, to your "I hate sinners" nonsense on another thread, to your controlling dialogue mannerisms.

Never said, "I hate sinners."

Can't you see? You just confirmed that I am right about your reading ability. I will say it again. You do not read very well.

Now. Go back and copy and paste what I said about not loving sinners and how it equates to loving their sin along with their good.

First, don't tell me the terms I can use and the terms I can't use. That's not for you to decide. While you question my knowledge of the bible, I'll tell you that I certainly am a student of psychology, and your style of attempting to control the environment of the dialogue is one to which I don't react very well and makes me feel as if I'm at a really sleazy used car lot, and your insistence on making me answer your questions so that you can use my answers as a gateway to your point isn't going to be fruitful. I haven't participated yet and I won't now.

You sure are being persecuted, aren't you?

Why not address my points from I Cor. 15? After all, you asked me to make my point. I do, time after time but you clam up and will not address them.

Second, I am also a student of vocabulary and the word "Slither" is not inherently applicable to a snake. "Slithering" is a movement made by a snake and the word is no more automatically linked to a snake, than running is automatically linked to a cheetah.

Amazing!

So in the future, if I desire to say that you are attempting to slither out of a discussion, I will do so. If you don't like that, you don't have to respond and are welcome to take your controlling dialogue tactics to another poster

.

Thanks for this sound bit of advice.

I think I am insulting my own intelligence by continuing this absurd conversation.

So yes, you actually DO slither in the way you attempt to deflect the questions I asked and return to your own questions.

Speaking of slithering...why not just answer the point which you asked me to make? Start with addressing the scripture in I Cor. 1:18 and then I Cor. 15:1-4. You asked me to make my point. I did. Then it is you that slithers away and will not answer by clamming up.

Personality, benevolence and even friendship could be greatly enhanced without snake metaphors. Kind of a turn off.

There are 140+ pages of dialogue in which I posted several dozen times. If you wish to know my thoughts, you're welcome to go read. If you're interested in learning anything....and considering your pompous remark about my not being a "Student of the Word", you're probably not....I would highly recommend the postings of "Jeffrey" and "Pelathais".

If Jeffrey and Pelathais agree with your "cross alone" theory, I would be surprised. But, I would be happy to discuss it with them too so long as they will not degrade the conversation to the charges of me slithering.

As for me, I'll move on. I have no desire to discuss this any further with you. Blessings.....

Good idea.

As a side note, I would be very interested in discovering just how many posters here who claim to be Apostolic actually believe the "cross alone" theory. There is not a Greek lexicon on this side of the constellation Orion that would read the way your doctrine is presented by you...as I said, not even Luther or Calvin.

[Sarah]

[QUOTE=Apprehended;1006466]

Never said, "I hate sinners."

Can't you see? You just confirmed that I am right about your reading ability. I will say it again. You do not read very well.

Now. Go back and copy and paste what I said about not loving sinners and how it equates to loving their sin along with their good.


You sure are being persecuted, aren't you?

Why not address my points from I Cor. 15? After all, you asked me to make my point. I do, time after time but you clam up and will not address them.



Amazing!

.

Thanks for this sound bit of advice.

I think I am insulting my own intelligence by continuing this absurd conversation.



Speaking of slithering...why not just answer the point which you asked me to make? Start with addressing the scripture in I Cor. 1:18 and then I Cor. 15:1-4. You asked me to make my point. I did. Then it is you that slithers away and will not answer by clamming up.


If Jeffrey and Pelathais agree with your "cross alone" theory, I would be surprised. But, I would be happy to discuss it with them too so long as they will not degrade the conversation to the charges of me slithering.


Good idea.

As a side note, I would be very interested in discovering just how many posters here who claim to be Apostolic actually believe the "cross alone" theory. There is not a Greek lexicon on this side of the constellation Orion that would read the way your doctrine is presented by you...as I said, not even Luther or Calvin.

At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

[El Predicador]

[QUOTE=Sarah;1006564]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

Yes it takes blood and water and spirit

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE=El Predicador;1006578]

Originally Posted by Sarah

Yes it takes blood and water and spirit

Blood, water and spirit. They agree in one plan of salvation. It worked for me.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Yes it takes blood and water and spirit

IOW, appropriation.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Sarah

At this point in time, Apprehended, I think there are quite a few on this 'Apostolic' board who believe in the 'cross alone' theory.

I've never understood why some people are willing to leave Jesus 'hanging on a cross', when it comes to the gospel.

You all need to listen to Apprehended and Bro Blume!

If there are such here, they in no wise can call themselves Apostolic. None of the Apostles preached a "cross alone" message.

They all preached believing, forsaking sin, and become identified with Jesus in the Death, Burial and Resurrection through obedience. This is true Apostolic doctrine.

If "cross alone" was truth then my neighbors Guido, Luigi, Pasquale and Rosa would be saved. They are not. Rosa especially is meaner than a nest of rattlesnakes. Cross alone has not worked for them. The cross did it's work in my life but I found that I had to become obedient to the gospel message preached to me.

No wonder Jesus said "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." The "cross alone" gospel is a wide gate and a broad way by which there is no demand for obedience or that of forsaking sin and/or keeping God's commandments. It is the way of death and destruction.

"If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?"

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

If there are such here, they in no wise can call themselves Apostolic. None of the Apostles preached a "cross alone" message.

They all preached believing, forsaking sin, and become identified with Jesus in the Death, Burial and Resurrection through obedience. This is true Apostolic doctrine.

If "cross alone" was truth then my neighbors Guido, Luigi, Pasquale and Rosa would be saved. They are not. Rosa especially is meaner than a nest of rattlesnakes. Cross alone has not worked for them. The cross did it's work in my life but I found that I had to become obedient to the gospel message preached to me.

No wonder Jesus said "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." The "cross alone" gospel is a wide gate and a broad way by which there is no demand for obedience or that of forsaking sin and/or keeping God's commandments. It is the way of death and destruction.

"If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?"

I've never been interested in calling myself an apostolic so your removing of that label from me is pointless. But I would be a "Cross alone" person. Maybe you should do a poll here and see what you find out. There could be quite a few of us who are as stupid as you seem to think we are.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I've never been interested in calling myself an apostolic so your removing of that label from me is pointless. But I would be a "Cross alone" person. Maybe you should do a poll here and see what you find out. There could be quite a few of us who are as stupid as you seem to think we are.

Interesting!

So tell me, why do you believe the cross alone theory?

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Interesting!

So tell me, why do you believe the cross alone theory?

Well, I would need to explain it scripturally. However, you've already eliminated versions that go against your theology. We all know that any version that doesn't agree with our personal theology must be flawed. So, since you've limited the playing field, is there a version of the bible from which I have your permission to quote? Please make sure and give me the version of the bible that is absolutely, perfectly translated and that is completely unquestioned by any bible scholars. That will probably need to be something different than the King James Version since we know that Adam Clarke repeatedly questioned it...unless, of course, you're more qualified and knowledgeable than Mr. Clarke.