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."
Joseph Smith: The First Mormon by Donna Hill
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Makes sense. I just assumed the only people with this view were liberals whose ultimate goal is to have Christianity slowly fade away.
Precisely correct.
My words were "I will never run out of answers, because the Bible is on my side".
Well, if the Bible is your Ally in the Foxhole, you will never run out of answers. You might be stumped (for lack of Biblical knowledge) for perhaps a day, or a week, or a month, but because you return to the Bible, you will never run out of Answers... because they are all in the Bible. All answers, wholly sufficient in all matters of faith and practice, just awaiting your discovery and employment thereof.
An Amen to that
That is the challenge: to find the writers who are objective, who do not ascribe baser motives (or whitewash) whenever they can to further their agenda.
I don't see how being baptized in behalf of those who have passed on conveys any credibility at all. Those who do not think we have authority from God to do that should just consider it a nice way to honor them, which they can accept in the spirit in which it is given, or ignore.
Mine also.
Impossible.
The Revelation of Scripture terminates at Revelation 22:21.
Any addition thereafter, is False Prophecy.
Whether by Mohammed, or anyone else.
That is irrelevant to our point. For someone who prides himself on his logic, logic has forsaken you.
But since you bring it up -- are you able to stop our sovereign God from doing whatsoever He will? Should He decide to give more guidance to His children, by true prophets, or true apostles, visitations of angels, bringing forth ancient records, could you stop Him? Of course not.
Suppose you said to Him, "You promised You would never do this to us again!" Forgetting for a moment how arrogant that would be, what would He reply? "You have not understood the Scriptures."
The sarcasm of my comment escaped you.
I don't see how being baptized in behalf of those who have passed on conveys any credibility at all. Those who do not think we have authority from God to do that should just consider it a nice way to honor them, which they can accept in the spirit in which it is given, or ignore.
As I mentioned to Ward, the Mormons baptized Wesley. Wesley was a Christian whose sins were paid for by Jesus Christ, he would not need your perverted idea of baptizism to be redeemed. I am actually offended that you think that God is limited; that He actually needs the Mormon church's help to save us.
And you don't see how it is a credibility ploy? Give me a break. You mean to tell me that you don't tell people that these people were "baptized" Mormons? I don't believe that at all. It is used to deceive.
It was the triumph of hope over experience. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt again.
>> Wesley was a Christian whose sins were paid for by Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ paid the price for the sins of all mankind, for everyone, on condition of repentance and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Baptism is an ordinance that is required for salvation (Mark 16:16), and throughout the New Testament it was always performed by one having authority to baptize -- John the Baptist, then Jesus and His apostles, and those they ordained.
When the apostles were taken from the earth, the keys of the kingdom -- the authority to direct the labors of the priesthood of God and regulate the affairs of the Kingdom of God on the earth -- went with them, and that included the authority to baptize.
You may ask, "How could the early Christians have apostatized to that extent?" Read your Bible again about apostasy in ancient days, think about the way you consider apostasy to be rampant in Christendom today, and consider what a tiny percentage of the billions of people here on Earth have received the Lord's Church and the modern-day apostles He has sent over the past 170 years. Today the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, while growing rapidly, is just one-half of one percent of the world's population.
Protestants think that Christianity went astray for 1500 years, until the "right" private interpretation of the Bible by the reformers, except that they sharply disagreed with one another, and to this day there is no agreement among Protestants on what the "right" interpretation should be, as we see here at FR. The wisdom of fallen man is simply not sufficient to return Christianity to the right way, even with the Bible as a guide.
The prayers of the reformers were answered in the Lord's own due time, and in His own way, and according to His own will. The Holy Apostleship, the Keys of the Kingdom, the authority to baptize, all was restored to the earth by Jesus Christ -- and now there are a lot of baptisms to do, as the early Church did in Paul's day (1 Corinthians 15:29), for none need suppose that those who have had no chance to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ in mortality must unavoidably go to an endless hell. The Gospel is preached to them in the spirit world (1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6) and they have the opportunity to accept it, and vicarious baptism, there.
It is wisdom in God that it be done this way, that the hearts of the children should turn to their fathers (Malachi 4:5-6). The worldwide interest in genealogy and family history work is heartwarming.
I realize that I am casting my pearls before swine, knowing the contempt with which you will receive this, but it is time I laid it out. Other readers will be wiser.
>> [regarding the ordinance of baptism] you think that God is limited
No, Limited Atonement is a Calvinist idea, and is incorrect. We have discussed that at length.
We think that when God gives commandments to His ancient and modern-day apostles, His commandments should be obeyed.
I find it incredible that you guys set the commandments of God at naught (in this case the requirement of baptism), reasoning that to obey them would be to limit God's sovereignty, or the scope and reach of His atonement, as though you had the power to do that.
>> You mean to tell me that you don't tell people that these people were "baptized" Mormons?
No, we don't. They must (of their own God-given free will) do their part and accept the ordinance in the spirit world before it would take effect, and here in mortality we don't know who has, or who will.
I never read a request from John Calvin.
If you read the life of Joseph Smith. You would know that from the age of 16 when he was told of the Plate of brass Book of Mormon by the angel Moroni, at the age of 20 he was allowed to received them and translated them, and had to raise money to publish the Book and from that time on his life was one trail after another for, he was beaten on many occasion and arrested on any trump charges the opposition could find. His beating was by mobs, tarred and feathered, little money; many times food was Johnnycake, and vegetables. Driven from one place to another homes burn, family killed, driven out their home in winter time chased by thugs who burned down homes, barns, stole cattle, and personal belongings, killed women and children, those who were able to escaped many died in the cold of winter trying to cross the country.The Lord's prophet had a life of blood, sweat and tears, and murdered in the end, with his brother Hyrum.Even the Prophet Brigham Young died before the complection of the Salt Lake Temple.It was faith that keep the other keeping on.
I can't began to do justice on these thread to tell not only Joseph, but many gave their all to preserve the Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and still today the persecution continues. It was the blood and faith of others in Jesus Christ, that have helped the Church to be a strong foundation today.
Joseph lived a humble life, and died poor, but rich beyond any things this world had to offer, for he was able fulfill the his calling in setting up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and much of other things the Lord needed done.
And his seer stone was quite useful. Ever wonder if that voice that talked to him was not God, but maybe, Satan??
"Church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be so called "faith promoting" history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past and present....A policy of changing, retelling, or withholding information, is willful manipulation of my ongoing right to an informed choice."
That quote is by Francis Nelson Henderson, a former Mormon, who left the church over this issue.
I could give more examples, but I suggest you read the book, One Nation Under Gods by Richard Abanes yourself. You may have your eyes opened.
No, but I suspect there exist a legion of lessor fallen angels who might have stooped even lower to the task.
What the Church needs now is a nice big public excommunication ceremony, hymns, candles being snuffed out symbolizing the spiritual death of the (many) excommunicants, the works. Put it on the Catholic Cable network. Include the pedophile priests, the 'Catholics' connected with abortion supporting groups, the 'Castholic' politicians who are not pro-life. I doubt that we would need to do it publicly to more than 10,000 of them, they would get the idea.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH!!
I recall while The Lord Jesus Christ was on the cross, one of the thieves adjacent to Him, responded to another pointing out that they deserved death and their penalties, but He had done nothing to deserve His. It seems apparant to me that when that thief was told by Christ that he would join Him that day in paradise, that the thief didn't know much volume of Scripture, but the faith and the Sacrifice were sufficient for salvation.
Considering the 4 gospels confirm one another and provide direct quotes of Jesus Christ Himself, I suspect faith in that Word is indeed sufficient for personal salvation and outstanding if not perfect guidance for the body of believers who simply seek a relationship with Him and to remain in that fellowship.
I have always observed a very simple test regarding Scripture which so many false doctrines fail and become exposed. Even those with IQs less than 30 and those above 200 have an opportunity to come to Him. Language is no barrier to that relationship, nor culture, although one's surroundings might increase temptation and incline one towards various evil devises which take more time to overcome.
Considering the basis of the Bible, more accurately Scripture, is devoted to the direct evidence of Him and His Word, I find the judgment that the Bible is insufficient even as a guide to be a grossly inaccurate and false statement.
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.