The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Jeffrey]

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

His death paid for my sin, without His resurrection there would be no new birth.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

His death paid for my sin, without His resurrection there would be no new birth.

That is true, may I also add that a pardon is of none effect until accepted.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

That is true, may I also add that a pardon is of none effect until accepted.

Exactly! It's in the "acceptance" that we find disagreement except for universalists who don't believe acceptance is required.

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

I'm perplexed by that charge. Surely, you must have some reason to think that. The truth is, I have been neither argumentative with you or disingenuous.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

I can't find that scripture in my bible anywhere. However, it is true that he died. It is also true that we can live. But, there must be some connection between, cross, died, and live. You didn't make that connection here. Would you please explain a little further?

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

Please tell that "someone" that they need to read their bible since they do not know it too well.

Hbr 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

First: "Them" heard the gospel preached.

Secondly: It did not profit "them."

Thirdly: Faith was not mixed in "them."

Conclusion from this scripture in Hebrews: Both unto US and "them" heard the gospel preached. "Us," mixed our faith with the preached gospel which included the story of the cross. "Them" were not profited by the preaching of the cross not having MIXED their faith with the power to save.

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation.

I disagree.

Actually, I don't care too much for semantics. However, I would like to stay with the Word of God.

When you say that the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation, surely you can't mean that one who continues living like the devil is free from guilt and condemnation? However, I am aware that there are some that believe that continuing on in sin while claiming the cross and the blood of Jesus as their justification. This concept is nothing less than profaning the Word of God and counting the blood of Jesus as worthless, treading it under foot. No sir, the cross alone neither satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Neither is there a substitute for the cross to cleanse sin in those who come to it, receiving its message of Death, Burial and Resurrection, who mixes their faith with its power to save.

Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

No one has ever suggested that there is anything that can substitute the power of the cross to cleanse sin. However, any casual reader of the bible quickly understands that without the cooperation of the will of man, the cross is worthless on his behalf.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You are being disingenuous, argumentative for the sake of argument, or both.

The preaching of the cross is that because He died, we can live.

We don't add our faith. We just respond to the Story, and can even only do that by his help (the Spirit). When someone says "the cross is enough" they are saying "his sacrifice is enough."

To argue out semantics of how exhaustive the Gospel story is misses the point of what is meant. Fact is, we can go deeper into those semantics and theology of the cross if you'd like. But that's not really the point here. What was done on the cross satisfies our guilt and condemnation. Nothing else does, and anything else intended to satisfy that guilt is foolishness and mockery of His suffering -- not to mention something bringing the affectionate analogy of a menstrual cloth.

Are you a universalist?

We all believe that his sacrifice is enough to bring remittance of sin and righteousness. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Are you a universalist?

We all believe that his sacrifice is enough to bring remittance of sin and righteousness. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.

If you've read this entire thread and come away that I'm a universalist, then you've greatly misunderstood me.