The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by notofworks

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).

I'm not sure you can prove this.

I don't think the purpose of the cross was to die in the most cruel manner imaginable.

The purpose was to destroy the curse of sin. The cross was merely the preferred tool of the Romans.

I'm sure it could be argued that "the rack" was more painful, or being boiled alive, or baked in an oven.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Charnock

I'm not sure you can prove this.

I don't think the purpose of the cross was to die in the most cruel manner imaginable.

The purpose was to destroy the curse of sin. The cross was merely the preferred tool of the Romans.

I'm sure it could be argued that "the rack" was more painful, or being boiled alive, or baked in an oven.

Correct, I cannot. It's a matter of medical debate.

This information actually comes from an old UPC Adult Sunday School teaching curriculum....probably from the 80's. They published a doctor's medical report (Mayo Clinic, I think) of the detailed breakdown of the chain reaction in the human body when nailed to the cross as Jesus was. His conclusion was an implosion of the heart and he and several others that did the research determined it was the most horrific death one could ever experience.

[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]

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?"

[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.

[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.