The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Apprehended]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by notofworks

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

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.

Yes, the burial and resurrection were events that happened AFTER the cross. You can't possibly deny that.

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.

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.

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.

[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....

[Apprehended]

Even though I understand the point you're attempting to make (and not doing very well at it),

You seem to not be able to read very well.

[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

You seem to not be able to read very well.

These are the kinds of arrogant, condescending remarks that make your arguments worthless. You want to talk about the theology of The Cross and the great sacrifice of Christ and at the same time, attempt to insinuate that I'm illiterate.

No thanks.

[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.........

[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.....