1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 17, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    That is the nature of this kind of forum and the various multitudes of threads. I find myself often repeating myself but isn't that Biblical - "line upon line, here a little there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept...."?

    Remember, I said my statements were specific. Are you looking at the specific comment I made on hebrew 12:21? If you had, I don't think you would have said, "the very verse you started with proves my position" because I carefully pointed out how it does not prove your position.


    The writer admits that not all sacrifices were blood sacrfices but he demanded that shedding of blood must occur in the sacrifice of Christ or else there is no remission of sins. That does not prove your position but repudiates your position and invalidates your whole argument about bloodless sacrifices. Here are his words again:

    And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. -Heb. 9:22

    He admits that not all things are purged by blood. There are bloodless sacrifices. However, he denies remission of sins can be had without shedding of blood and this is preceded and followed by direct application to Christ and his sacrifice and that is the very specific your position denies.
     
    #21 The Biblicist, Jul 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2013
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Not only does Hebrew 9:22 demand there is no remission of sins apart from the literal shedding of the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice in the context of Hebrews chapter nine but other scriptures also echo the same thing:

    Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

    Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

    The shedding of Christ's blood is necessry for all the following as well:

    Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

    Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

    Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

    Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross,

    Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

    Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
     
  3. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Is someone denying the blood of Jesus Christ in it's salvific properties?
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Our friend Thomas Hewly denies the literal blood of Christ must have been shed for the remission of sins.

    If you don't approach his system of atonement from this angle, he will dance all around the subject. Look at the first few posts and you will see what I mean. Hebrews 12:22 repudiates his view completely and thoroughly.
     
  5. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Well, he did say it was through His death, burial, and resurrection. So, if they had hung Him, choked Him to death, or drowned Him, then what would have happened? All of these are examples of death w/o loss of blood.
     
  6. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I think that is the point of the OP.

    ..."if they had hung Him, choked Him to death, or drowned Him" there would be NO redemption.

    It was not just the death of Christ, it was the blood sacrifice that is the key and which Scriptures support as was necessary.
     
  7. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A bloodless atonement is heresy
     
  9. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28

    If anyone denies the blood, don't they, by default, deny the cross, too?
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know but they definitely deny a legitimate atonement.
     
  11. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are pitting the second part of the verse against the first part, and there is no ground for that. In the OT, God remitted sins without shedding of blood, so clearly for remission of sins, God does not require that blood be spilled.
     
  12. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't dance. I am very awkward on the dance floor.

    I have stated my views explicitly and will continue to do so.

    Neither Hebrews nor the OT repudiates my views. God did not and does not require blood-spilling in order for Him to forgive sins. The OT Jewish sacrificial system proves it, and the Book of Hebrews does, also. I know that little word "almost" is a thorn in the flesh for some, but God put it there, didn't He?

    It might be instructive to study the source of animal as well as human blood sacrifice. And also the words of the OT prophets.
     
  13. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that's not good enough or sufficient for some. The complete identification of Jesus with humanity, even unto death, is not seen as enough.
     
  14. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'd better state that directly to God. He evidently disagrees, and the record is in the OT.

    Call me a heretic all you want; I'd be disappointed in you if you didn't. Calling God a heretic is dangerous ground.
     
  15. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly not! And I don't "deny the blood", whatever that means.

    Some of you act like "the blood" is some magic talisman.
     
  16. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having trouble with God's arrangement, are you? I'll pray for you.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You never answered the post above. Please don't dance around this post but directly address it. There is no ambiguity in the term "shedding" of blood so please do attempt to make it ambiguous. It means the same thing as when used of animal sacrfices. BTW the Sin offering and the TRESPASS offering were both bloody sacrifices and directly connected symbolically with "remission of sins" as proven by the multitude of New Testament references I have already provided.
     
    #37 The Biblicist, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  18. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly did answer it and directly addressed it. Didn't you read what I said?

    Post #31 and #32
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Why do you say that??? I did no such thing. There is no contradiction between these two aspects. They address two different things. The first part admits there are bloodless sacrifices - no contradiction here.

    The second part denies there can be remission of sins without the shedding of blood by Jesus Christ. That completely repudiates your theory. true
     
  20. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't repudiate anything since that's not what the verse says.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...