What is the salvific effect of the Cross?

1Thess521

Well-known member
Um, you didn't answer the question. And here you go again with wrath. I have to give it to you Protestants--you sure love wrath. If you people love wrath so much, why do you hate crucifixes? I would think you would LOVE them!

You seem to think that the Cross event is the exact and precise moment where we are saved. You keep obsessing over the point that there has to be an exact and precise moment in time when we are saved.
nope: we are saved when we believe
If it was just a matter of shedding blood---why was anything else in the life of Christ even necessary? Why not just sacrifice Jesus as a child and be done with it? Heck---he could have been sacrificed along with the infants when Herod slaughtered the infants under 2. Blood would have been shed, redemption done with.
Because that is not when God poured out His wrath on Christ:
 

balshan

Well-known member
The nCCs are not man's interpretation of scripture?
No we are not told to follow this view or that. We can follow God's word. God's word is simple in the bulk of scripture to understand, God is clear it is the light under our feet, it is not over the seas or up in the skies, it is truth. God has made His word accessible for all to understand.

Ps 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Matt 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

isa 55:11

So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

We have been given the mind of Christ if we are saved.

1 Cor 216
“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ

Deut 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

RCs prefer to rely on their false teachers rather than the mind of Christ that God has given true believers. That is such a shame. They fail to defend their beliefs as Peter told us all to do.
 

balshan

Well-known member
You know, my point was simply that we cannot pin down the precise moment or event when redemption happened----becasue---redemption is not linear.

Everything in Christ and His life is redemptive.
No that was not clear in your repetitive posts putting down others. Redemption is clearly linear - it is a straight line from genesis to the resurrection and Jesus is still saving souls. But without the cross which is in the line, you would have nothing at all. Without the once for all time sin sacrifice of the spotless lamb you have nothing at all.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Except that Jesus said the contents of the cup was his blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Symbolically, please show us where Jesus cut Himself and poured His blood into that cup, please show the evidence of the wine changing into blood, the taste did not change. Whenever there is a physical change there is evidence at the Last Supper nothing, no evidence. Also Jesus would not allow His disciples to break the commandment not to consume blood which was clearly reiterated at the Jerusalem council. Following your logic where did Jesus say He was speaking literally in these verses.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Symbolically, please show us where Jesus cut Himself and poured His blood into that cup, please show the evidence of the wine changing into blood, the taste did not change. Whenever there is a physical change there is evidence at the Last Supper nothing, no evidence. Also Jesus would not allow His disciples to break the commandment not to consume blood which was clearly reiterated at the Jerusalem council. Following your logic where did Jesus say He was speaking literally in these verses.
Jesus didn't cut his finger and pour his blood into the cup becasue the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is SACRAMENTAL--that is---it is Christ---the one and the same Christ---just not presented in a bloody or fleshy manner.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
See, you attempt to pigeonhole redemption to one singular event--and I simply do not think that can be done. For starters, if redemption was all about the Cross and nothing more---was everything that happened before that even superfluous? In other words---the life of Christ was only about getting to the Cross?

I believe the circle analogy is most correct. The Gospel of John in particular often presents redemption as an already, and not yet reality--at one and the same time. Scripture scholars use a fancy word for this: "Proleptic." In other words--the New Covenant is a reality that is already present, but is also not yet present.

The entirety of the earthly life of Christ redeems and inaugurates the new Covenant, not just the cross. The Cross is the most important singular event in salvation history, sure. That I would agree with. But it does not follow that redemption can be pigeonholed to the Cross.

But I can understand why you are so obsessed with wanting redemption to be reduced to one singular event on the Cross. You need it to be that way---so you can continue to dismiss the Last Supper as merely symbolic.

Correct; but it does not follow Christ ceased to be the offering.
Except He offered Himself ONCE for all time. He died on the cross ONCE for all time. He is not continually on the cross.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Jesus didn't cut his finger and pour his blood into the cup becasue the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is SACRAMENTAL--that is---it is Christ---the one and the same Christ---just not presented in a bloody or fleshy manner.
No evidence of Christ being in the communion at all. No evidence of said change. Sccripture clearly showed evidence when there are changes. You have nothing at all.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Right: so everything that came before and after the cross is irrelevant. All that matters is the cross when God poured out His "wrath" on the Son.
you can stop your mischaracterizations:
Propitiation ONLY happened on the Cross with the death of Christ
The NC went into effect ONLY on the Cross with the death of Christ
The penalty of sin was paid ONLY on the Cross with the death of Christ
 

bluedog1us

Well-known member
Right: so everything that came before and after the cross is irrelevant. All that matters is the cross when God poured out His "wrath" on the Son.
For redemption, YES! By His death provided salvation for His people, forgave sins of His people, and a propitiation for His people. NONE of these happened before the cross. The cross is the focal point of the scarlet thread of redemption. It is the focal point for all mankind, from Adam to the last person on earth!
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
you can stop your mischaracterizations:
Propitiation ONLY happened on the Cross with the death of Christ
The NC went into effect ONLY on the Cross with the death of Christ
The penalty of sin was paid ONLY on the Cross with the death of Christ
Why isn't everyone saved then?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Why isn't everyone saved then?
BECAUSE even though Christ's death was sufficient for all it was only effective for the Elect
AKA specific atonement:

If propitiation means to appease God's wrath,
and if people who end up in Hell are under God's wrath;
then propitiation was not made for those who will end up in Hell

or just claim it is because of man's free will and never think about it again
 
Last edited:
Top