A Case for Once Saved Always Saved

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvisman said:
Ummm, your immature and frightfully ignorant posts notwithstanding – I never said you had to wear a crucifix to be a Christian. More of your putting words into people’s mouths.

I was arguing your preposterous point that Catholics wear them because we are somehow “stuck” in Crucifixion mode and haven’t moved onto the Resurrection. On the contrary – It was the Catholic Church who told the world about the Resurrection in the *first *place.

We simply refuse deny the Crucifix by only dwelling on the Resurrection like you do.

By the way – the sacrifice of Jesus’ death is ETERNAL. – not a one-time-occurrence. He is ETERNALLY presented before the Father as propitiation for our sins. Rev. 13:8 tells us that he was slain before the foundations of the world.

Crack a Bible open once in a while . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If my posts are ignorant and immature, that means that you are a good teacher!
 
elvisman said:
Ummmm . . . you still don’t get it so let me explain one last time:
It simply means that we, who wear and/or display the crucifix preach Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23).
To the unbeliever - this must FIRST be understood and accepted before they can grasp the meaning of the Resurrection.

**You don’t **evangelize backwards. 🤷

Simply put - you cannot hide the fact of the Crucifixion. We boast in what the Lord has done for us. That is the ONLY thing we can boast about (I Cor 1: 31, Jer 9: 23-24).
Click to expand...
A quick lesson in Evangelism 101: It is possible to teach someone about crucifixion, without using a cross, with a corpus attached!:rolleyes:And, I understand that crucifixion came first, I mean I’m a Christian, for goodness sakes! You can wear it all day long, but you won’t convince most noncatholics that it is necessary! See, your biggest detractor is that if anybody disagrees with you, they are anticatholic! Even it was raining, and I said it was raining; and you said it was sunny, you would consider me anti catholic! And whether you admit it or not, elvisman, you are antiProtestant! Even if you have them in your family, it doesn’t mean you like them, or accept them; so that argument is a dead issue! God bless you, my brother in Christ!
 
fbl9 said:
Yet you still claim i keep Him on the cross by depicting Him crucified.
What is it, you can’t bear to look upon the one that you put there.
Click to expand...
Our pastor teaches crucifixion, and Resurrection, as did Paul! But until I met a catholic, I had no idea that people wore crosses with corpuses on them! As for me, I do not need to see Him still hanging on the Cross! Last I heard, he was seated at the right hand of God, His mission complete!
 
1beleevr said:
Our pastor teaches crucifixion, and Resurrection, as did Paul! But until I met a catholic, I had no idea that people wore crosses with corpuses on them! As for me, I do not need to see Him still hanging on the Cross! Last I heard, he was seated at the right hand of God, His mission complete!
Click to expand...
1beleevr in Christ,

I am not inclined to look at this issue in quite the same way as you and others have over the course of the discussion. I personally like the non-Catholic explanation of the empty cross. Catholics will look at an empty cross in the same way, and find difficulty with it only when that is the exclusive depiction. Catholics have the symbol of an empty cross among our many religious symbols, but we also have the crucifix.

The inclusion of the crucifix is, from the Catholic point of view, very important. As quoted by others, scripture clearly puts great emphasis on the crucifixion. There is one passage not yet quoted from scripture that lends a great deal of credibility to the Catholic inclusion of the crucifix as opposed to the non-Catholic Christian practice of exclusively using the empty cross.

In the book of Galatians Paul says the following:
Gal 3:1
O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting and curious passage and it is variously translated into English as follows:

– King James
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

– American Standard
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

– Living Bible
Galatians 3:1 Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has hypnotized you and cast an evil spell upon you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death as clearly as though I had waved a placard before you with a picture on it of Christ dying on the cross.

– Revised Standard
Galatians 3:1 O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

– Simple English
Galatians 3:1 You people in Galatia were told very clearly about the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, you were very foolish; you let someone trick you.

– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Galatians 3:1 You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?

– Darby’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom, as before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you?

– Weymouth’s New Testament
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Whose sophistry has bewitched you - you to whom Jesus Christ has been vividly portrayed as on the Cross?

– Webster’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

This portrayal of Jesus crucified is no small matter in Christianity and the Catholic practice of displaying the crucifix is well supported by scripture. I don’t think that we should frame an argument pitting an empty cross against the crucifix. My biggest concern would be excluding one in favor of the other, especially if it meant exclusive use of the empty cross. The crucifix is both a cross and the figure of our suffering savior. The empty cross is only a cross. Portraying Christ crucified is important to evangelizing non-believers and it is central to our faith.

Likewise, for Catholics the crucifix is placed on or above our altars to make a visual connection between Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the cross, and its re-presentation at mass with the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Savior. This is our food for the journey and it is the food that gives us eternal life per Jesus own words in John 6. For those that do not believe in the Eucharist the crucifix has less meaning. For those that do, it is an important symbol associated with our faith.

God bless.
 
Pax, that was so eloquently said and displayed. Yeah I know, my being a Catholic help me understand what you were getting at very well, but still, this was a great post!

👍
 
Pax said:
1beleevr in Christ,

I am not inclined to look at this issue in quite the same way as you and others have over the course of the discussion. I personally like the non-Catholic explanation of the empty cross. Catholics will look at an empty cross in the same way, and find difficulty with it only when that is the exclusive depiction. Catholics have the symbol of an empty cross among our many religious symbols, but we also have the crucifix.

The inclusion of the crucifix is, from the Catholic point of view, very important. As quoted by others, scripture clearly puts great emphasis on the crucifixion. There is one passage not yet quoted from scripture that lends a great deal of credibility to the Catholic inclusion of the crucifix as opposed to the non-Catholic Christian practice of exclusively using the empty cross.

In the book of Galatians Paul says the following:

This is an interesting and curious passage and it is variously translated into English as follows:

– King James
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

– American Standard
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

– Living Bible
Galatians 3:1 Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has hypnotized you and cast an evil spell upon you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death as clearly as though I had waved a placard before you with a picture on it of Christ dying on the cross.

– Revised Standard
Galatians 3:1 O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

– Simple English
Galatians 3:1 You people in Galatia were told very clearly about the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, you were very foolish; you let someone trick you.

– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Galatians 3:1 You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?

– Darby’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom, as before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you?

– Weymouth’s New Testament
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Whose sophistry has bewitched you - you to whom Jesus Christ has been vividly portrayed as on the Cross?

– Webster’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

This portrayal of Jesus crucified is no small matter in Christianity and the Catholic practice of displaying the crucifix is well supported by scripture. I don’t think that we should frame an argument pitting an empty cross against the crucifix. My biggest concern would be excluding one in favor of the other, especially if it meant exclusive use of the empty cross. The crucifix is both a cross and the figure of our suffering savior. The empty cross is only a cross. Portraying Christ crucified is important to evangelizing non-believers and it is central to our faith.

Likewise, for Catholics the crucifix is placed on or above our altars to make a visual connection between Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the cross, and its re-presentation at mass with the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Savior. This is our food for the journey and it is the food that gives us eternal life per Jesus own words in John 6. For those that do not believe in the Eucharist the crucifix has less meaning. For those that do, it is an important symbol associated with our faith.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do believe they can be exclusive of each other! And Paul may have been recounting the actual crucifixion; even though he wasn’t present! Believe it or not, the empty Cross sends a powerful message, and radiates His love!
 
1beleevr said:
Actually, I do believe they can be exclusive of each other! And Paul may have been recounting the actual crucifixion; even though he wasn’t present! Believe it or not, the empty Cross sends a powerful message, and radiates His love!
Click to expand...
1beleevr in Christ,

When I speak of “exclusive”, I am referring to the practice of having only one of these symbols in the inventory of religious symbols as opposed to both. I am not saying that they need to be displayed side by side or anything like that.

Are we talking about the same thing or not?..I’m a little confused.

God bless.
 
Pax said:
1beleevr in Christ,

When I speak of “exclusive”, I am referring to the practice of having only one of these symbols in the inventory of religious symbols as opposed to both. I am not saying that they need to be displayed side by side or anything like that.

Are we talking about the same thing or not?..I’m a little confused.

God bless.
Click to expand...
I mean, I do not own a crucifix, but I do wear an empty Cross; professing my appreciation for His sacrifice! And it is okay if you only have one! Don’t need the crucifix to teach crucifixion, or remember that day!
 
Pax said:
1beleevr in Christ,

I am not inclined to look at this issue in quite the same way as you and others have over the course of the discussion. I personally like the non-Catholic explanation of the empty cross. Catholics will look at an empty cross in the same way, and find difficulty with it only when that is the exclusive depiction. Catholics have the symbol of an empty cross among our many religious symbols, but we also have the crucifix.

The inclusion of the crucifix is, from the Catholic point of view, very important. As quoted by others, scripture clearly puts great emphasis on the crucifixion. There is one passage not yet quoted from scripture that lends a great deal of credibility to the Catholic inclusion of the crucifix as opposed to the non-Catholic Christian practice of exclusively using the empty cross.

In the book of Galatians Paul says the following:

This is an interesting and curious passage and it is variously translated into English as follows:

– King James
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

– American Standard
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

– Living Bible
Galatians 3:1 Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has hypnotized you and cast an evil spell upon you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death as clearly as though I had waved a placard before you with a picture on it of Christ dying on the cross.

– Revised Standard
Galatians 3:1 O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

– Simple English
Galatians 3:1 You people in Galatia were told very clearly about the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, you were very foolish; you let someone trick you.

– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Galatians 3:1 You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?

– Darby’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom, as before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you?

– Weymouth’s New Testament
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Whose sophistry has bewitched you - you to whom Jesus Christ has been vividly portrayed as on the Cross?

– Webster’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

This portrayal of Jesus crucified is no small matter in Christianity and the Catholic practice of displaying the crucifix is well supported by scripture. I don’t think that we should frame an argument pitting an empty cross against the crucifix. My biggest concern would be excluding one in favor of the other, especially if it meant exclusive use of the empty cross. The crucifix is both a cross and the figure of our suffering savior. The empty cross is only a cross. Portraying Christ crucified is important to evangelizing non-believers and it is central to our faith.

Likewise, for Catholics the crucifix is placed on or above our altars to make a visual connection between Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the cross, and its re-presentation at mass with the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Savior. This is our food for the journey and it is the food that gives us eternal life per Jesus own words in John 6. For those that do not believe in the Eucharist the crucifix has less meaning. For those that do, it is an important symbol associated with our faith.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Are there scriptures about the wearing of crucifixes, or accounts of people during that time, displaying Christ on the Cross?
 
1beleevr said:
I mean, I do not own a crucifix, but I do wear an empty Cross; professing my appreciation for His sacrifice! And it is okay if you only have one! Don’t need the crucifix to teach crucifixion, or remember that day!
Click to expand...
1beleevr in Christ,

I have no argument with what you’re saying. Your personal practice here is not my concern. A Catholic is** not** required to wear either a cross or a crucifix, and a Catholic is free to choose to wear either one. My issue is with a practice or belief that is part of a Christian congregation where the cross is the exclusive symbol. Teaching on the crucifixion may not require the use of a crucifix, but it is visually more powerful than teaching without it.

God bless.
 
1beleevr said:
Are there scriptures about the wearing of crucifixes, or accounts of people during that time, displaying Christ on the Cross?
Click to expand...
Scripture does not speak of people wearing either crosses or crucifixes. I would have to do some research to see if there are any non-biblical accounts that describe either practice in the early church. My guess would be that neither is probably discussed because IMHO there wouldn’t be any controversy associated with it.

God bless.
 
I did remember this much:

There is very early historical evidence of Christians making the “sign of the cross” on their bodies as Catholics still do today. That much I do remember.
 
Pax said:
A Catholic is required to wear either a cross or a crucifix, and a Catholic is free to choose to wear either one.
Click to expand...
That’s news to me ! That never came up in RCIA … or have I come across this in 3 years here at CAF.

It’s probably covered in the ‘long version’ of the Catechism. 😊
 
brb3 in Christ,

Please read the post again. I edited it before you made your post. I inserted a correction using the word “not” in bold with underline. I had committed a typo, but made the fix. Sorry about the confusion.

God bless.
 
brb3 said:
That’s news to me ! That never came up in RCIA … or have I come across this in 3 years here at CAF.

It’s probably covered in the ‘long version’ of the Catechism. 😊
Click to expand...
Actually I think that’s an oops on Pax’s part. There’s no requirement, it’s a choice we make to wear one.

I like to wear a crucifix but my husband doesn’t wear jewelry.
 
Pax said:
Please read the post again. I edited it before you made your post. I inserted a correction using the word “not” in bold with underline. I had committed a typo, but made the fix. .
Click to expand...
Glad you brought this issue up. Actually, I do appreciate seeing a cross around the neck. These days, unlike in the past, fewer #’'s of Catholics wear them.

I think we should encourage all Catholics to start wearing the cross again … it would help promote conversation from Protestants and those w/o faith, and allow us to discuss Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top