The cross: A symbol, but of what?

AP via Providence Journal ^ | 3/16/02 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

[xzins]

ping to #53....I get acolades, right? I figured it out for myself that the topic of the article was different. I just reponded to a silly observation about Wesley/Arminianism BEFORE reading the article.

[Revelation 911]

ping for the Mormon perspective

[ThomasMore]

But a Catholic priest? What is he doing in the church?

He is not in the church IMHO. He is automatically excommunicated from the Church for teaching heresy. BTW, he wouldn't be the first priest to be found teaching heresy. Our history is loaded with them.

[tet68]

Hmmmmm,the cross? The symbol of the quartering of the universe into active and passive principles?

Ours is made out of Aluminum. Got any Aluminum?

Welcome to the Stinking Desert National Indian Monument
and Cobalt Nuclear Testing Range.

Courtesy of the Humbolt County Manifest Destiny Bureau, Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

[Bigg Red]

The most shocking phrase here is Roman Catholic leftist John Dominic Crossan... since this is AP actually identifying someone as a leftist. If we ignore clymers such as the anti-cross authors -- I'll bet they are lesbian liberation theologists -- they will go away.

[ThomasMore]

Brock, Parker, and Crossan are all semi-Pelagians or worse.

Thanks Doc, you took the word's right out of my mouth. But I would go a step further and call them Full Fledged Pelagians. They believe they are their own salvation and have no need of the saving grace that flowed from Christ's death on the cross!

[Bigg Red]

Yikes! What order do the so-called nuns belong to?

[Grig]

My religion chooses to focus on Christ's triumph over death, his resurection, rather than the crucifixion. Also, Christ suffered for our sins the night before he was put on the cross, when he bled from every pore, and THAT was a greater torment to him then the crucifixion was.

[Ff--150]

Jesus got on that cross on His own--He could have come down at any time He chose. He stayed as our Friend and Brother to conquer sin and death for you and I.
And He's coming back for you and I--and He doesn't have to, either--but He shall. And the wheat and tares are going to separate:) Praise the Lord!!!

[Bigg Red]

We do NOT use the cross as idolatry. We utilize crosses and statues as a means of keeping our minds on our prayers, a visual aid, if you will.

[Carry_Okie]

These people are apostate idiots. That said, I have my problems with display of the cross but for different reasons. Symbol or no, Christ is with me. Not only do I not need a "reminder," of his death for us, it is (to me) a distraction from a living relationship.

[4CJ]

"Jesus got on that cross on His own--He could have come down at any time He chose. He stayed as our Friend and Brother to conquer sin and death for you and I."

He died for us - we deserved death instead of love and mercy. Nails could not keep Him on that cross - love kept Him there.

[Ff--150]

God's love is great and that cross is His grand love for us. He's got the scars and His hands and feet, and in His side so I don't have to. So, that cross is real "liberal" Christians--not some myth. Buddha and Mohhamed are dust today. Jesus is sitting on a Throne.

[4CJ]

"Buddha and Mohhamed are dust today"

It really makes you wonder about them being a "god" doesn't it.

[Ff--150]

Uh! There are folks who felt no. 42 and her husband were gods--no kidding!

[constitutiongirl]

bttt

[RnMomof7]

So, objecting to the use of crosses is based on a serious concern about idolatry. This is not really what the article is talking about.

Rather like the snake lifted up in the desert..it became an idol.

[the_doc]

Since you posted your reply on this thread, I feel obliged to do likewise.

I maintain from 1 Corinthians 2:14 and numerous other Scriptures that regeneration (the new birth) necessarily precedes repentance unto life. In other words, I maintain that fallen man's spiritual depravity is so profound that an unregenerate sinner will NEVER embrace saving truth.

Notice that if this position is correct, then all of the other tenets of the predestinarian position follow from it.

Taking your lead from your denominational leader (Wesley), who professed to hate the God of predestination, you have evaded the implications of 1 Corinthians 2:14 and other such verses by postulating a universal prevenient grace which overrules the obvious sense of the verse. You maintain that a natural man (non-born-again sinner) can savingly receive the things of God. You maintain that God uses prevenient grace to make sure this is the case.

The problem is, your "helpful" qualification of 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes that verse completely trite. So, I say that 1 Corinthians 2:14 stands with me against your Wesleyan-Arminian position. You are being too shallow. You are, in fact, violating 1 Corinthians 3. You are refusing the teachings of apostle Paul, preferring Wesley's theories instead.

If you will go back and look at my argument in an openminded way, you will see that I was on target when I said that you have postulated a universal prevenient grace as neutralizing total depravity. Your claim that an unregenerate sinner can savingly embrace the gospel renders the doctrine of total depravity meaningless. It also renders the doctrine of election meaningless. It also renders Romans 9 meaningless. It also renders John 3:5 meaningless. It also renders John 6:44 meaningless. It also renders 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 meaningless.

All of these verses will start making sense to you for the first time in your life if you will forsake your party spirit.

[the_doc]

I was actually trying to be nice, so I used the phrase "or worse."

[Wagonmaster]

That says it for me.