she’s an “enemy of the cross”

Dear Sister,

When I first stumbled on this phrase… “ENEMIES OF THE CROSS”… I was awestruck… puzzled.. shocked…
Why not “enemies of the Temple”?
Why not “enemies of God”?
Why not “enemies of the law and good works”?
What, pray tell, could this mean?
Was Brother Paul referring to the wicked or the law-keepers?
Could it be said that Peter, James and John were “enemies of the cross”? They hardly mention the cross in their writings. They were definitely “friends” of good works. But were they “friends of the cross”?
The cross, after all, is a bloody mess. Not something one would be “proud” of.
How can there be any thing there to boast in? Blood? Guts? Grave site? Naked before the crowd? Skin ripped to shreds? Nothing to be proud of, right?
And yet Paul won’t shut up about the matter.
The cross, the cross, the cross…
It’s as if something was accomplished there. Something big.
Could it be that the religious are “enemies of the cross”?
Could the self-righteous be “enemies of the cross”?
Could the teaching of “freewill” and “endless hell” (which seem to go together) be “enemies of the cross”?
The teaching of freewill clearly exalts man. And limits God.
But what was achieved in the cross of Christ?
A possibility? An opportunity? Something subjective or was it an objective achievement?
If all Christ achieved on the cross… was to make salvation “possible”… wasn’t salvation “possible” long ago for Moses and Israel? Why the cross? What is different now?
Did Christ’s death give us an “opportunity” that we didn’t have before?
Didn’t Joseph, and Noah, have that “opportunity” before the cross?
What exactly did God achieve in Christ’s cross?
Did He died to save all??? Or, did he die to just give them an opportunity?
If the achievements of the cross, are limited just to those who do the right thing with their “freewill” choices, then we MUST say, the achievements of Christ’s cross are limited in scope.
If they are limited, why “boast” in the cross?
Why not boast in your own freewill decisions? There seems to be just as much importance in your own “freewill” as in what Christ did on the cross, if all is as you say.
How crazy is this? That our salvation would be all wrapped up in this shameful scene of the Son of God, splayed on the cross.
What exactly did God do here?
“Well,” you might say, “God saved you if you believe God saved you” (on the cross).
That dear friend, is subjective nonsense.
Like saying “the moon is made of cheese if you believe it is made of cheese.”
Something MUST BE OBJECTIVELY TRUE before our “belief” in the thing holds any meaning really.
If the moon really is made of cheese, then BELIEVING it’s made of cheese has meaning.
If the moon is not made of cheese, then BELIEVING it’s made of cheese is subjective B.S.
What exactly was achieved on the cross?
Were we saved? Or were we just “given a chance”?
If we were actually saved by Christ on the cross, then our belief in such has meaning.
If we are actually saved by our belief, then indeed, let’s downplay the cross, and put new emphasis on our FREEWILL DECISION AND BELIEF.
You are a teacher of “FREEWILL”… I don’t think anyone would accuse you of “boasting in the cross”. The two are in competition for the wreath of achievement and bragging rights.
As I understand your message, the cross’ achievements must wait upon the activation of the human will. Until the human will gives the cross meaning, it has no meaning or accomplishments.
I’ll take my chances boasting in the cross.
Yours
Jones