The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

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

I would venture to say that it must be preached...

but that would be taking away from the "cross alone" theory.

What do you think?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

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.

Are you going to slither away from answering the question? Paul preached "The cross." What does that mean?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Are you going to slither away from answering the question? Paul preached "The cross." What does that mean?

Slither?

As in the progression of a snake?

Lovely personality you are.

According to you, preaching of the cross is preaching two board nailed together.

My position is that of Paul when he explained what the gospel is. It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:1-4)

It is not two beams nailed together as in "cross alone" theory. It involves events involving the Cross of Christ

Am I wrong about that?

Help me out here. You have completely clammed up.

Does it have to be preached?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Slither?

As in the progression of a snake?

Lovely personality you are.

According to you, preaching of the cross is preaching two board nailed together.

My position is that of Paul when he explained what the gospel is. It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:1-4)

It is not two beams nailed together as in "cross alone" theory. It involves events involving the Cross of Christ

Am I wrong about that?

Help me out here. You have completely clammed up.

Does it have to be preached?

"Lovely personality you are." Ah, the first personal remark in the discussion.

So the cross is, "The death, burial, and resurrection"? So you're saying that the burial and resurrection are part of "The cross"? Wouldn't those be events after the cross?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by notofworks

"Lovely personality you are." Ah, the first personal remark in the discussion.

So the cross is, "The death, burial, and resurrection"? So you're saying that the burial and resurrection are part of "The cross"? Wouldn't those be events after the cross?

Let's dispense with the snake reference, ok? I don't slither too well. I'm too old for that. Besides, I look more like a rumpled back alligator.

Burial and resurrection after the cross? Of course not.

Remember, the cross is more than just two boards nailed together as in the "cross alone" theory. According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4

So, once again I ask....

Does the cross have to be preached?

Don't continue to clam up. Talk to me. I earnestly want to get to the bottom of the "cross alone" doctrine you get from your beloved translation.

[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.

[Apprehended]

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 correct.

Our friend needs to understand that.

[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.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Let's dispense with the snake reference, ok? I don't slither too well. I'm too old for that. Besides, I look more like a rumpled back alligator.

Burial and resurrection after the cross? Of course not.

Remember, the cross is more than just two boards nailed together as in the "cross alone" theory. According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4

So, once again I ask....

Does the cross have to be preached?

Don't continue to clam up. Talk to me. I earnestly want to get to the bottom of the "cross alone" doctrine you get from your beloved translation.

There was no snake reference so there's no need to get touchy in the middle of our friendly conversation about The Cross.

Yes, the burial and resurrection were events that happened AFTER the cross. You can't possibly deny that. Furthermore, you make a completely erroneous statement when you say, "According to Paul, the cross is the gospel which he preached and defined in I Cor. 15:1-4." He didn't say that.

[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.