Posted on 03/16/2002 6:42:19 AM PST by LarryLied
It's the most familiar symbol you can imagine, but ponder for a moment how odd it is that Christians display an "emblem of suffering and shame," as the hymn says.
The cross reminds us that Jesus was executed as a common criminal, hardly the upbeat message a publicist might choose.
Yet two decades after Calvary, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14). Under this mysterious emblem, the early Christians vanquished the empire that had crucified Jesus.
The symbol holds 21st-century power. Two days after the World Trade Center attack, a rescue worker wept as he discovered a 20-foot cross -- two fused metal beams buried in the rubble. This cross provided comfort to impromptu worshippers amid the mourning.
Yet the cross is spurned by Christian liberals Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. They find belief in Jesus' saving death repellent, saying this sanctifies violence and submission to evil.
"To say that Jesus' executioners did what was historically necessary for salvation is to say that state terrorism is a good thing, that torture and murder are the will of God," they say in their book Proverbs of Ashes (Beacon).
Brock, a Harvard Divinity researcher, has chaired the joint global ministries board of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ, and was a theology speaker at the Disciples's national assembly last year. Parker is a United Methodist Church minister and president of the Unitarian Universalist seminary in Berkeley, Calif.
Roman Catholic leftist John Dominic Crossan has joined in, hailing the authors' attack upon what he considers "the most unfortunately successful idea in the history of Christian thought." And the current Unitarian Universalist magazine features Brock and Parker in a cover story headlined "Violence and Doctrine: How Christianity Twists the Meaning of Jesus' Death."
"Perfect . . . sacrifice"
By contrast, another current author joins Paul in glorying in the cross. Fleming Rutledge, a traveling Episcopal preacher who lives in Port Chester, N.Y., embraces the Book of Common Prayer's Communion affirmation that Jesus Christ made "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
Rutledge has collected seasonal meditations in her book The Undoing of Death (Eerdmans). Though sermons often fall flat on the printed page, this book is unusually readable devotional fare.
She believes the cross is misunderstood if we forget that Jesus the Son is equally God along with the Father (which liberal Christians and Unitarians deny). And some conservatives portray "a wrathful Father piling condemnation on an innocent, victimized Son. This mistake must be strenuously resisted," she writes.
The heart of the atoning sacrifice on the cross, Rutledge insists, is "the fact that the Father's will and the Son's will are one. This is an action that the Father and the Son are taking together." They are "accomplishing our redemption together," acting in united love for humanity.
However, her Good Friday sermons worry less about such liberal or conservative theories than about people's inclination to pretend their sins aren't all that bad so they have no need of a Savior.
"We do not like to believe that we deserve condemnation," she says.
Some seek to justify themselves by the kind of people they like to think they are -- more moral, sensitive, loving, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic, fashionable or socially aware than others. Then there's the opposite, people who tell themselves they're more misunderstood, long-suffering and deserving than anyone else.
But Christianity says we're all sinners in the light of God's holiness. Despite sin, Rutledge believes, when Christ looks at someone "he sees a person that he loves more than life, more than glory, more than power, more than riches, more than divinity itself."
She also contends that the cross shows us Christianity is true. The reason? Mere human imagination or wishful thinking would never have concocted "a despised and rejected Messiah."
Once again, though I have attempted to address this on several occasions via freepmail, you distort what I said. Let me once again explain what I meant when I said, "When I saw him face to face, I put the hammer down."
1 John 1:7-10
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Yes Jean, I nailed Him there, but His priceless blood covered my sins and He remembers them no more. I surrendered my will to Him. I put the hammer down.
To me that would seem to be a very Calvinistic comment.
P stands for perseverance of the saints. A better name might be "the perseverance of God with the saints," but both ideas are actually involved. God perseveres with us, keeping us from falling away, as we would certainly do if He were not with us. But because He perseveres we also persevere. In fact, perseverance is the ultimate proof of election. We persevere because God preserves us from full and final falling away from Him.
Grace Online Library
Seems to me "falling away from Him" would involve hanging onto the hammer or picking it up again. Unless of course you mean that once the elect are regenerated and repent they intend to keep on sinning and nailing Jesus to the cross all over again.
That's not what you meant, is it? I didn't think so.
Finally! Ward admits that he, as well, nailed Christ to the cross! Why you failed to mention this before, Ward, I do not know!
Now I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps, if you too would give Mom and OP a chance to explain their context of their statements regarding 'Christ Haters' and the like, then you, too, can understand their positions as I now understand yours!
And if they have, already, then you should be gracious enough to admit you, too, were wrong in understanding their statements!
Nevertheless, it was Christ who took the hammer out of your hand and threw it away! How wonderful is this gospel of grace!
Jean
To the contrary Jean, I have mentioned it on numerous occasions.
No disrespect meant but the "context" is fully explained and readily apparent in the tenor of OP's posts to me here - merely for giving the thread an Arminian bump for later read as I was genuinely interested in reading a well reasoned perspective. I'll take Ward's cue from now on and keep my distance.
So, when you say "You have overstepped the bounds and become self righteous, arrogant and heretical in insistance that you were not responsible for putting Christ on the cross -that you put that hammer down." you are either purposefully lying OR grossly mistaken. I have admitted many times that it was my sin that put Him there.
The closest I've seen you come is: "I was there too and have admitted that multiple times on this thread.
But when I met Him face to face, I put the hammer down.
616 posted on 2/22/02 12:37 PM Eastern by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That's not quite the same thing as saying you, too, nailed him to the cross. But, if I am wrong on this, I'm sure you will find your comments and post them here.
Jean
Lot's of people know their sins put him there. The way most people view it, though, it was a passive thing. "Christ was nailed to the cross to potentially save us from our sins. It's up to me to make that effective by believing on him." So where did you say, specifically, that you were active in nailing him to the cross????
Jean
Once again, I've explained what I meant above. Accept it or not. God knows what I meant. Whether or not you do is irrelevant.
We were told that the day would come when that restriction would be lifted, and we eagerly awaited that day. We greatly rejoiced and were absolutely delighted when it came.
One word, WhiteMountain: L I A R!
Is this just sour grapes for not being able to counter OP's argument with FACTS? I recall your last discussion, you ended up not being able to defend your position with facts. You attempted to change the subject by pointing out seemingly anti-semetic comments of Calvin. And then when OP showed you conclusive proof that Wesley made similar statements, you then proceeded to tell OP he Idolizes Calvin, When OP, called you to task on this, you then ended with you berating him and then calling the argument a 'pissing match'. All the while you were putting down the character of OP.
This, my friend, for all the world to see, is quite juvenile arguing tactics. Obviously, you had not the FACTS to counter OP's statements regarding the intentional Jesuit deception on which Arminianism is based, so you resorted to name calling. How profound. It seems to me, that you have demonstrated you willingness to uses any attempt to change the subject of a discussion which is not going the way you wish it to go. I must, therefore, conclude that you have also intentionally misrepresented Mom's and OP's comments when you know full well, they have been explained in context.
If you find the need to continue to argue, perhaps you should try and use sound reasoning based on FACTS and not inuendo.
Jean
Im noting your reluctance to address the post & OP's tenor - perhaps this calrifies.
Thanks for the link...will it tell who requested the baptism?In other words will it say requested by " Joe Jones" if it was a proxy baptism?
And what is the only sin that Christ said was unforgivable?
I see youir point...but there is a major difference..Isaiah never errored in his prophesies....Joseph Smith did...there have been changes made along the way...
I know you believe Joseph Smith...and you know I believe you are deceived..if all of your eternity did not depend on this Rich I would shrug and walk away..I fear your your eternity so if I seem argumentative know it is because I do care ...
BTW I visited that link..I saw names but I must have done something wrong cause I didn't see the baptisimal dates???
White Mountain..you have just described purgatory..:>)))
Rabbi only means teacher or master ..it was not an "ordained ""offical " position...no requirements for the honor of being called Rabbi..
I guess I can see why your religion would almost neeed to have him married ...sex is like a sacrament ..it is how new souls are created..and the more wives the better (in your original tradition)....but there is no historic record of any wives Rich and you know that
How many gods met in counsel to make the decision to make the earth WM? You can not have it both ways...say the trinity is a council of gods and there is only one god..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.