Rod Bell on the Blood of Christ

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Chick Daniels, Apr 26, 2001.

  1. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    If any of you read Frontline magazine, the official publication of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, you may have noticed the series of articles by Rod Bell on the blood of Christ. He basically follows M.R. DeHaan, and proposes that the Adamic nature is carried literally through blood in the body. This is similar to how blood can carry viruses. With this premise in hand, he concluded naturally that Christ, being sinless, must never have had human blood, because this would have tainted him with the Adamic, sinful nature. Thus Christ had a special "divine" blood. He concludes his article by saying, "Thus, when the blood of Christ was shed, it did not congeal and disappear into the dust of the ground. It could not, for God's Word says it was incorruptable blood...the blood of Christ was raised by ... supernatural activity." [Frontline Magazine Mar/Apr 2001, page 5]

    I believe that his premise that the adamic nature is carried through human blood is a flawed one, and the resultant conclusions are thereby wrong, and in fact an afront to Biblical Christology.

    To truly be the second Adam, Christ needed to be fully man. If he had other than human blood, he is not fully man. Secondly there is no indication from Scripture that the adamic nature is carried through blood. Also, God is Spirit. Spirits have not a blood filled fleshly body. So where does spiritual blood come from? Furthermore, the notion that Christ's blood did not congeal is completely untenable! I checked with a scientist friend of mine about the nature of blood congealing, and basically, Bell would be arguing that Christ was an extreme hemophiliac! Blood begins to congeal the moment that it runs into foreign materials. In other words, in moments after the scourging (prior to the crucifixion) Jesus' blood would have begun to congeal. If not, Christ would have bled to death before ever making it to the cross! Blood congeals so that the injured person does not bleed to death. If the arguement is made that Christ must have bled slow enough to prevent this, you still have the picture of someone bleeding with the blood disappearing (rapturing) in front of their eyes if you follow Bell's position that it did not congeal. Furthermore, with as closely as people were observing the crucifixion, and as much about it that we have recorded in the NT, do you not think it odd that they would not have been bothered by blood disappearing off Christ's body instead of falling to the ground? They were concerned about darkness at midday, etc., why not about disappearing blood?

    Also, when Christ bled at the circumcision, had he not bled to death right there because his "incorruptible blood" would not congeal, he would have at least had problems with this wound throughout his life.

    IMHO there are two options to take, either:
    1) Bell is wrong and Christ's blood did congeal, or
    2) you must engage in "faith" arguments from silence that somehow God worked it all out so that Rod Bell can be right. [for instance: "Maybe God kept supplying Christ extra blood so that he didn't run out until he determined it was crucified long enough"]

    Furthermore, Bell has yet to prove the underlying point which led to the conclusions about congealing blood. No where do we have evidence that the adamic nature is transmitted through a particular physical property or fluid like blood. Assigning blood this role is Catholic-like in approach, and has no basis in Scripture.

    What think ye?

    Chick :D

    [ April 26, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]
     
  2. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with your critique Chick. Rod Bell has been hanging out with the Presbyterian Ian Paisley all these years and is a quasi-sacramentalist like Paisley. Salvation is by faith in Christ's once for all sacrifice. No manipulation of physical objects required!
     
  3. Danny

    Danny
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know about congealing blood, but I'm inclined to believe that the sin nature is passed on from generation to generation through the male seed. That is why Jesus was born of a virgin, so he would not have the sin nature. [​IMG]
     
  4. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had never heard this before, and frankly it is embarrasingly ridiculous!

    If Christ did nto have human blood, then he was not 100% human. This is akin to monophysite mysticism and other heresies which deny the total humanity of Christ.
     
  5. Hal Parker

    Hal Parker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Chick. If the sin nature was in the blood or in the seed as someone else suggested, then it would be possible to isolate the sin gene or genes by DNA sequencing. Therefore, it would be possible for man to remove the Curse by genetic engineering!! Eternal Life without Christ! That is not possible.

    The Curse affected ALL of Creation. Romans 8 says that the entire Creation groaneth and travaileth.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Had a seminary prof who believed exactly that - that not only the genetic code passed on the sin nature, but that God used the genetic code as the tool of ELECTION.

    He would retain His sovereignty, but in a sense be "blindfolded" as to how the code would end up in which human.

    Hence the need to wipe out the human race in the flood since fall spirit-beings had intermixed with the human genome. Except Noah and his kids.

    And cloning would now be possible to create the perfect sinless woman (no chance of it being male) and elect too! Can see the RC jumping on this to show Mary's perfection.

    Personally I think he, and Rod Bell from the article reported, are a few genes short of a Cyborg . . . Now where is Dolly?
     
  7. keylan

    keylan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2000
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me thinks Mr Bell has to much time on his hands. FYI you can increase the Pro time [clotting time] of blood very simply with Heparin or Coumadin, its done all the time if that was the problem with blood from the fall we could fix it - Vitamin K or plasma will make blood clot faster -done every day in hospitals -dont notice less sin in hospital patients. I think sometimes theologians need to get out in the real world more -share Christ with a sinner or two they would be less prone to these kinds of silly things. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Joy

    Joy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I was brought up in the Rod Bell crowd. Dr. Gary Jones of Farmingtion Avenue Baptist( my home church as a child) was a big-wig leader in the FBF crowd in New England and the Bob Jones crowd. We (my family) always referred to this "phenomenon" as the "magic-blood" theory, and never held to it. I also agree that this crowd is not very baptist, they are more protestant than anything.

    [ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Joy2 ]
     
  9. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keylan:
    I think sometimes theologians need to get out in the real world more -share Christ with a sinner or two they would be less prone to these kinds of silly things. :rolleyes:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neither Rod Bell or Dr. Dehaan could be correctly called a "theologian." Rob Bell is a graduate of Bob Jones University with only a BA, I believe, and Dr. DeHaan was, of course, a Medical Doctor prior to the present level of knowledge concerning hematology. It is amazing what passes for "science" in one century and is classed as "nonsense" and "fiction" in the next. [​IMG]
     
  10. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,

    Thank you for your input here. Indeed this calls to mind one of the long lost threads on the old board that I felt was extrememly valuable--testimonies of those who felt that seminary training is essential in preparation for leadership.

    Chick
     
  11. Hal Parker

    Hal Parker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    The magic blood theory is a good description of this teaching. I wouldn't refer to it as Protestant though. It sounds more Catholic too me. Think about it. This position is just one step away from the Quest for the Holy Grail.
     
  12. Rob't K. Fall

    Rob't K. Fall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2000
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would beseech this forum to pause for a moment before it goes any further in slicing and dicing Brother Bell. Let us look at the position he has set forth and not treat his person as so much fodder for a good stir fry. Remembering that when we all get to Heaven we all will find out that we misinterpreted, misapplied, and thereby mislead our listeners in certain Truths. I trust that this may be minimal for all of us but it is worth keeping in mind in discussing the topic at hand .

    So, what are the questions Brother Bell is dealing with? In no particular order, I believe they are<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> How did Our Lord not inherit a sin nature?<LI>Since a crucial factor in the doctrine of Soteriology is the Blood Atonement, was/is it necessary for all of the Blood shed by Our Lord during His beatings and Crucifixion to be presently in Heaven?[/list]And there are problably other questions that were not obvious to me.

    These questions are worthy of our attention anything else is for the moment only so much Sunday afternoon roast preacher.
    Rob't Fall
     
  13. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that Rod Bell's views are incorrect, and goes into an extremist area that borders on unorthodoxy, but on the other is not the blood in our veins and arteries corrupted by sin? Certaintly Adam before the fall could not have gotten cancer, diabetes, etc... but we can because sin has corrupted human nature completely. Since we are descendants of Adam that would naturaly mean that our sin nature is inherited from him and does deal with the corrupted Adamic bloodline.
    In Adam all die which does imply that our sin nature comes through the bloodline of our parents. I am not accusing anyone here of not believing in original sin or Total Hereditary Depravity (Since I know we have a good number of Calvinists here) but would caution that the other extreme of Rod Bell is Pelagianism which teaches that sin is a learned behavior and not something we inherit through our Adamic nature.
     
  14. Joy

    Joy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are certain mysteries that God has chosen not to reveal to us in his Word. I think we need to be careful about trying to solve them on our own, because that is where we get into trouble with our doctrine. God wants us to accept His Word by faith. Attempting to explain what has not been revealed to us yet, is a lack of faith. It causes heresies, strife and division amoung believers.

    As I mentioned, I grew up in those circles, so I am not roasting anyone. I loved Dr. Bell as a child-still do, but when a brother strays in doctrine, I think it is important to address the issue, so that our doctrine will remain sound.

    On this particular issue, perhaps it seems a little catholic, but by in large, the FBF and BJU, which are connected, are protestant-like, and not very baptistic in some areas, though they are in others.
     
  15. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I try not to make personal attacks on the BB but I might have cut it close with my earlier comments on Rod Bell. Kind'of ironic that he along with BJU's magazine were the first to jump up and yell "heresy" about John MacArthur's view on the blood. Yet when he prints his own view it turns out to be heresy or at least questionable. I guess we baptists do reserve the right to disagree with one another. I think that I can say with confidence that many who are involved with FBF do not agree with Rod Bell's editorial. I'll be interested to see the letters to the editor in the next issue.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have taken umbrage with several Protestant leanings of the old FBF since it is tied like a millstone to BJU and its historic non-baptist position.

    Never had a letter to the editor printed. But I dropped my life-time association with the FBF some years back because of the BJU connection . . and they know it! But I love most of the FBF'ers and they are still my crowd.

    Now, if they were all calvinists I'd think about reenlisting . . . [​IMG]
     
  17. keylan

    keylan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2000
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why does it seem such a hard concept to grasp - that it was who Christ was and not the chemical makeup in His blood that kept Him from sin? This is a no brainer to me and Im no scholar.
     
  18. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a thought.(what a miracle! :eek: ) I've been told that a child inherits his blood type from the father, is this true? This leads me to ask that since Jesus has no human biological father, what kind of blood did He have? I'm just honestly wondering! Help! ;) :confused:
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    &gt;&gt;what kind of blood did He have? &gt;&gt;

    I Peter 1:18-19
    18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
    19 But with the precious blood
    of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    HankD
     
  20. Hal Parker

    Hal Parker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    It takes two genes to determine the blood type of an individual. One gene from the mother and one from the father.
     

Share This Page

Loading...