The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Let's begin...

What is your definition of the cross?

Like I said, make your point...if you wish.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Like I said, make your point...if you wish.

Your point was that the "cross alone" saves.

My point is that there is no magic in two boards nailed together.

If that is your idea of "the cross alone," I will bow out of the discussion and concede to your greater revelation of what constitutes "the cross alone."

Hey, I'm easy. Try me.

If you have another idea of what constitutes the cross alone, I need to hear it for a basis of discussion.

Here is what one lexicon gives as definitions of the cross.

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

What affect would you say that the preaching of a pointed "stake" would have upon anyone? Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners?

Just looking for a basis of discussion.

So far I find no sense in the statement that the cross alone saves.

Help me here.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Your point was that the "cross alone" saves.

My point is that there is no magic in two boards nailed together.

If that is your idea of "the cross alone," I will bow out of the discussion and concede to your greater revelation of what constitutes "the cross alone."

Hey, I'm easy. Try me.

If you have another idea of what constitutes the cross alone, I need to hear it for a basis of discussion.

Here is what one lexicon gives as definitions of the cross.

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

What affect would you say that the preaching of a pointed "stake" would have upon anyone? Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners?

Just looking for a basis of discussion.

So far I find no sense in the statement that the cross alone saves.

Help me here.

I'd rather you just make your point. It's really no different than what's already been posted here in this thread. But I'm guessing you didn't read all 140+ pages of it.

So you tell me.....what saves us in addition to the cross?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'd rather you just make your point. It's really no different than what's already been posted here in this thread. But I'm guessing you didn't read all 140+ pages of it.

So you tell me.....what saves us in addition to the cross?

I am very disappointed that anyone in the whole wide world would think that two beams nailed together can save anyone. Not far from here several years ago, the KKK burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, it didn't save them at all. It caused them to move away...sadly.

So, if that is your premise, I have to wonder about the sanity of that conclusion...regardless what your beloved version has to say.

If Jesus would have died by stoning, the preaching of the stoning would have had the effect of saving if heard by someone who in turn placed their faith in the stoning. But, never mind that, hearing and placing faith in the stoning, like the preaching of the cross would be adding something to the cross alone.

So, there we are on the slippery slope of adding to the cross alone. Now we have hearing, believing and the addition of faith in the hearts of the hearers. Never mind adding confession with the mouth. The list goes on.

No sir, the cross alone saves no one. If it did Rosa would be saved as millions of others She aint. She meaner than a mama wolverine in a honey log. Jesus does not love Rosa less than he does me or you. In fact, the cross alone did not save me...or you...if indeed you are truly saved.

So, you must have some idea what is meant by the cross alone. You must have some idea what is meant by the "cross." Surely, your mind did not just go blank? But then, maybe it did.

To say that the cross alone saves then have no idea what is meant by the cross is sort of...

well, it's sort of spaced out...like maybe on mars, for instance.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

I am very disappointed that anyone in the whole wide world would think that two beams nailed together can save anyone. Not far from here several years ago, the KKK burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, it didn't save them at all. It caused them to move away...sadly.

So, if that is your premise, I have to wonder about the sanity of that conclusion...regardless what your beloved version has to say.

If Jesus would have died by stoning, the preaching of the stoning would have had the effect of saving if heard by someone who in turn placed their faith in the stoning. But, never mind that, hearing and placing faith in the stoning, like the preaching of the cross would be adding something to the cross alone.

So, there we are on the slippery slope of adding to the cross alone. Now we have hearing, believing and the addition of faith in the hearts of the hearers. Never mind adding confession with the mouth. The list goes on.

No sir, the cross alone saves no one. If it did Rosa would be saved as millions of others She aint. She meaner than a mama wolverine in a honey log. Jesus does not love Rosa less than he does me or you. In fact, the cross alone did not save me...or you...if indeed you are truly saved.

So, you must have some idea what is meant by the cross alone. You must have some idea what is meant by the "cross." Surely, your mind did not just go blank? But then, maybe it did.

To say that the cross alone saves then have no idea what is meant by the cross is sort of...

well, it's sort of spaced out...like maybe on mars, for instance.

When someone says, "Only the cross can save", you know perfectly well what they mean and your act of being bewildered by the meaning of that is getting rather stale. You're a sharp cookie. I did a little digging and read some of your writings...you're capable of doing the math, so go ahead and can the act.

Like I said, I know your position, can recite it well and I'm not going to play the game with you of answering your questions so that you can finally get to the point that it's the application of the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us and exactly what constitutes said application.

I know, and others reading know, that you believe that the sacrifice of Calvary means nothing if one doesn't repent, be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, and then filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in other tongues and only then is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross applied to their lives.

So go ahead....get on with it.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

When someone says, "Only the cross can save", you know perfectly well what they mean and your act of being bewildered by the meaning of that is getting rather stale. You're a sharp cookie. I did a little digging and read some of your writings...you're capable of doing the math, so go ahead and can the act.

Like I said, I know your position, can recite it well and I'm not going to play the game with you of answering your questions so that you can finally get to the point that it's the application of the sacrifice of Calvary that saves us and exactly what constitutes said application.

I know, and others reading know, that you believe that the sacrifice of Calvary means nothing if one doesn't repent, be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, and then filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in other tongues and only then is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross applied to their lives.

So go ahead....get on with it.

Ok, So if you are going to clam up and not talk, there is not much that can be said and not much understanding can come of it.

But, I would ask this one question. See if you can help me out...

Does the cross (whatever that means to you) have to be preached to the unsaved?

Thanks for your response.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Ok, So if you are going to clam up and not talk, there is not much that can be said and not much understanding can come of it.

But, I would ask this one question. See if you can help me out...

Does the cross (whatever that means to you) have to be preached to the unsaved?

Thanks for your response.

So when Paul said, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness", what did he mean by, "The preaching of the cross"?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

So when Paul said, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness", what did he mean by, "The preaching of the cross"?

Evidently Paul preached the cross. But why?

Do you think that preaching of the cross was really necessary in the "cross alone" theory?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Evidently Paul preached the cross. But why?

Do you think that preaching of the cross was really necessary in the "cross alone" theory?

Paul "preached the cross"? So he preached two boards nailed together? What does that mean?

If "The cross alone" is only a "theory", what is it in addition to the cross that we need?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Paul "preached the cross"? So he preached two boards nailed together? What does that mean?

If "The cross alone" is only a "theory", what is it in addition to the cross that we need?

The cross alone is your position. It isn't mine.

The cross alone are two planks nailed together. The Greek calls it a "Stake." I gave you the definition above.

Never thought that there was a lot of magic in two boards nailed together. Evidently you and your version of the bible seems to think so.

Seems kind of weird to me.

Anyway, I'm still looking for why two beams nailed together never did Luigi, Guido, Pasquale and mama Rosa any good whatsoever.