What is the salvific effect of the Cross?

Stella1000

Well-known member
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
Can you cite a doctrine that gives this statement some meaning? What does it mean that Christs death was sufficient for the non 'elect'?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Yes, this is nothing if not classic Protestant soteriology. The cross event is about appeasing an angry, bloodthirsty, vengeful God, and Jesus redirecting God's wrath away from us and on to him. You Protestants, especially the fundamentalists absolutely LOVE the wrath of God.

It is true that the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom with the death of Jesus, but it does not follow from this that our redemption boils down to one singular event. If redemption boils down solely to the cross---was everything in the life of Christ that came before and after superfluous?
Your first paragraph is untrue. You don't really know truly what we believe, do you? Jesus bore our sins on the cross:

1 Peter 2: 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

and

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

So Jesus paid our sin debt on the cross. Why? "Because God SO LOVED THE WORLD, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

So, we do not "love" the wrath of God; that is totally false. But we DO recognize it and that His wrath is holy and just. But Jesus paid for all our sins on the cross, being the propitiation for our sins.
Jesus didn't cut his finger and pour his blood into the cup because 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.
Jesus Himself demonstrated the dual nature of the Elements, when He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine" right after He called it the "New covenant in My blood". Right there, we have both natures and by extension, the bread also is both Jesus' body while still being bread. Our God-given senses are also proof of that.
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
Your first paragraph is untrue. You don't really know truly what we believe, do you?J

Jesus Himself demonstrated the dual nature of the Elements, when He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine" right after He called it the "New covenant in My blood". Right there, we have both natures and by extension, the bread also is both Jesus' body while still being bread. Our God-given senses are also proof of that.
excellent point.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Can you cite a doctrine that gives this statement some meaning? What does it mean that Christs death was sufficient for the non 'elect'?
really? is there any limited to the number of people Jesus' sacrifice can save?
Of course not: There is no limit,
If all 8,000,000,000 on earth accepted the God given gift of faith : Jesus' sacrificial death on the Cross would cover it
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Jesus Himself demonstrated the dual nature of the Elements, when He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine" right after He called it the "New covenant in My blood". Right there, we have both natures and by extension, the bread also is both Jesus' body while still being bread. Our God-given senses are also proof of that.
Ya know, I love the Protestants who "liked" this post. Why? Because------the Protestants who "liked" this post--would disagree that the elements have dual natures. In other words--the Protestants who "liked" this post believe that the bread and wine are mere symbols of Christ. They do not believe there is a presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Lutherans see it. That is--they would not accept that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a Sacramental Union (analogous to the incarnation) of the flesh and blood of Christ with the elements of bread and wine. They would not agree with Luther's analogy of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as analogous to the presence of heat in an iron. They would not agree that the elements of bread and wine are in any way connected with the presence of Christ beyond a mere representation.

So I guess the enemy of their enemy becomes their friend on these boards right? For the purposes of these discussions, they don't care they they reject Lutheran theology of the Eucharist as a lie from the pit of Hell--and that your belief as far as they are concerned is just as much hocus pocus magic as anything that is Catholic! But hey--you do not believe what Catholics believe, and on these boards--that makes you their friend.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
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!
What is the purpose of everything that came after?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Can you cite a doctrine that gives this statement some meaning? What does it mean that Christs death was sufficient for the non 'elect'?
The poster is a Five Pointer. I think what he means to say is that----if God had not directly willed the damnation of the non-elect, the death of Christ would save them too. The reason the death of Christ does not save the non-elect is not becasue it isn't sufficient to save them, but simply becasue God does not will their salvation.

Let's see if I am right.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
really? is there any limited to the number of people Jesus' sacrifice can save?
Of course not: There is no limit,
If all 8,000,000,000 on earth accepted the God given gift of faith : Jesus' sacrificial death on the Cross would cover it
Aren't you a Five Pointer?

Thus, if someone does not accept the God given gift of Faith, it is becasue God has willed that they not come to Him, correct? In other words--the person does not even have the ability to accept the God given gift of Faith becasue God has not willed that they do so.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member

romishpopishorganist

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
Maybe I could accept this--that is--that propitiation happened on the Cross.

But propitiation is only one element of redemption. Again, the entirely of the life of Christ was redemptive. Everything he did was redemptive.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Maybe I could accept this--that is--that propitiation happened on the Cross.

But propitiation is only one element of redemption. Again, the entirely of the life of Christ was redemptive. Everything he did was redemptive.
and that is what i am focusing : that one aspect
did proportion take place at the Last Supper:?
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Ya know, I love the Protestants who "liked" this post. Why? Because------the Protestants who "liked" this post--would disagree that the elements have dual natures. In other words--the Protestants who "liked" this post believe that the bread and wine are mere symbols of Christ. They do not believe there is a presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Lutherans see it. That is--they would not accept that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a Sacramental Union (analogous to the incarnation) of the flesh and blood of Christ with the elements of bread and wine. They would not agree with Luther's analogy of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as analogous to the presence of heat in an iron. They would not agree that the elements of bread and wine are in any way connected with the presence of Christ beyond a mere representation.

So I guess the enemy of their enemy becomes their friend on these boards right? For the purposes of these discussions, they don't care they they reject Lutheran theology of the Eucharist as a lie from the pit of Hell--and that your belief as far as they are concerned is just as much hocus pocus magic as anything that is Catholic! But hey--you do not believe what Catholics believe, and on these boards--that makes you their friend.
One of the few things they have in common is their distain of the CC.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The poster is a Five Pointer. I think what he means to say is that----if God had not directly willed the damnation of the non-elect, the death of Christ would save them too. The reason the death of Christ does not save the non-elect is not becasue it isn't sufficient to save them, but simply becasue God does not will their salvation.

Let's see if I am right.
"The reason the death of Christ does not save the non-elect is not because it isn't sufficient to save them, but simply becasue God does not will their salvation."

God's will is not required for what I said to be true:
it is still true for the synergism/free will crowd

God in His perfect omniscience infallibly knows who will and who will not accept His gift of faith.
God's wrath was not appeased for those who will end up in Hell under God's wrath.

Therefore propitiation is not made for those God is 100 % certain will not come to faith
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
and that is what i am focusing : that one aspect
did proportion take place at the Last Supper:?
Yes---by virtue of the cross and resurrection.

God is the author of time. All time belongs to God. From the perspective of eternity, the cross and resurrection, and in fact everything had already happened, was happening, and will happen. In other words--it is all present to God in the eternal now.

The Last Supper and by extension the Mass is the propitiation presented in Sacramental Form. In other words--at the Last Supper, the reality of the propitiation was already present----sacramentally.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Yes---by virtue of the cross and resurrection.

God is the author of time. All time belongs to God. From the perspective of eternity, the cross and resurrection, and in fact everything had already happened, was happening, and will happen. In other words--it is all present to God in the eternal now.

The Last Supper and by extension the Mass is the propitiation presented in Sacramental Form. In other words--at the Last Supper, the reality of the propitiation was already present----sacramentally.
the resurrection was after the crucifixion: correct?
The Last Supper was before the crucifixion; correct?
 
Top