Category Archives: The Cross

Good Friday Round Up

Posted on by
1

(1) I am not at all sure about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin but it was certainly interesting to but its still worth getting the gist of – the bottom line is that its more than ok to use the term “Easter” and we are not worshipping pagan gods when we do so.

(3) If you would like to watch something online, but obviously still relevant regarding the evidence for the resurrection of Christ:

(4) The resources in this week’s Friday Ligonier $5 sale are very well worth considering, found here.

I am praying that this is the most blessed Easter weekend in your life so far!

The Unity of the Trinity in the Work of Redemption

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Barrett and Thomas Nettles, authors of the book, “Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy” respond to a question about four point Calvinism (those who reject the “L” of Limited Atonement in the acrostic TULIP):

What about the death of Christ have convictional “four-point Calvinists” perhaps failed to adequately consider?

At least two things: (1) the priestly role of Christ and (2) the Trinitarian unity in redemption planned, accomplished, and applied. First, as Stephen Wellum recently argued in his SBTS faculty address and as David Schrock contends in chapter 4, Christ is the great high priest of the new covenant and therefore acts as a representative, substitute, and intercessor on behalf of God’s people. In doing so he not only pays the penalty for their sin, but purchases everything necessary (including the work of the Spirit) to bring them to salvation. Universal atonement advocates fail to situate Christ’s priestly work in its covenantal context.

Second, to affirm an individual, unconditional, and particular election by the Father and an effectual, unconditional, and particular calling by the Spirit—but then to affirm a universal, provisional, and general atonement by the Son—creates confusion in the mission of the Trinity. Robert Reymond captures what such inconsistency would sound like as Jesus prays in the garden: “I recognize, Father, that your election and your salvific intentions terminate on only a portion of mankind, but because my love is more inclusive and expansive than yours, I’m not satisfied to die only for those you’ve elected. I’m going to die for everyone.” Therefore, as Robert Letham argues, universal atonement “threatens to tear apart the Holy Trinity,” for it means the Father and Spirit have different goals than the Son. But as the Reformed slogan opera trinitatis indivisa sunt reminds us, the works of the Trinity are indivisible. The Father plans redemption, the Son accomplishes redemption, and the Spirit applies redemption, and all three persons of the Trinity are simultaneously and actively involved in each other’s salvific work on behalf of the elect.

The Cross and the Electric Chair

Posted on by
Reply

In an article entitled “FactChecker: The Cross an Electric Chair?” found Glen T. Stanton writes:

Have you ever heard a Christian writer, teacher, or pastor say something like the following?

“When Jesus told those who would follow him that they must ‘take up his cross daily’ this was like telling people today to take up their electric chairs and follow him.”

or

“For Christians to wear crosses around their necks is like us wearing a symbol of an electric chair.”

The analogy between the cross and an electric chair is intended to show that, while the cross has become a common and even sentimental symbol of Christianity today, in Christ’s day it was a harsh symbol of execution. Like an electric chair is today.

It is an important truth that Christians of every age remember about the cross. But the electric chair analogy actually deludes the point.

This comparison between the cross and old sparky was first made by an important theologian of the 1960s: Lenny Bruce. In a series of articles he serialized in Playboy, later published in his 1967 posthumous book, How to Talk Dirty and Influence People, Bruce observed,

If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.

Cue the laughter. But the truth is, an electric chair and a cross are similar in only one way: each is designed to kill criminals. Otherwise, they are nothing alike.

The electric chair was created by the Edison Company in the late 1800s as a means to execute a prisoner faster and more humanely. Typically, the process—leading up to, during, and following our executions today—is carefully scripted and implemented to ensure the criminal dies with some dignity and as little suffering as possible.
Continue reading →