Featured Is Your Preaching Stained With Blood?

In the interest of accuracy: Even in the OT sacrificial system, this was not true.

 

maybe he was saying an atonement without the shedding of blood was not an atonement for the remission of sins ?

 

And that's not true, either. Study the OT sacrificial system presented in the OT.

 

Oh, look; I can quote scripture, too:

Leviticus 5:11-12

"If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering."

 

Tom H. was looking for a snack and is getting a meal.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I keep forgetting that this is the BB, where precision counts (not a dig at you. Just a truism for this board).

The atonement for sin that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross required the shedding of His blood. For some odd reason the ransom theory, prevalent during the patristic age, is gaining a niche in some evangelical circles. In this poster's opinion the ransom theory, or any other theory that negates the blood of Christ, fails the test of Scripture (Heb. 9:11-28).

 

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission........If what Jesus went through was seen in it's entirety as He was literally beaten, whipped, the beard ripped off His sweet face, 99% of the world's population couldn't stand to watch it, imo. They didn't take Him straight from the garden to the cross. Neither did they take Him up Golgotha's hill, and play "patty-cake" with Him either. They mutilated Him BEFORE nailing Him to the cross. Without Him going through this, and raising again, we'd be without hope, forever lost.

 

Amen.

This is exactly right.

 

Sorry for their behavior Tom, you bring up a good point... something even the author of Hebrews noted in the verse already mentioned.

God provided an exception based on the poverty of the individual... so no one was excluded. It is curious that Joseph and Mary fell into this class when they went to the Temple with Jesus early in his life.

Rob

 

The flour offering was the exception rather than the rule.

 

Look, junior, I am able to more than hold my own against anyone here. Just because I don't like confrontation doesn't mean I am incapable of handling it. So, if that's what you desire, bring it on.

 

The ransom theory/Christus Victor was not prevalent just during the patristic age. It was the theory held for the first thousand years of the church. Why? Because it was what those Christians saw in scripture. Satisfaction was not "discovered" until Anselm and penal substitution until Calvin.

 

Rev, I probably agree with you more often than not, but this type of response is why I don't like you and would not care for your company, here or hereafter.

 

Yes, isn't it funny how those who are supposed to be literalists resort to all kinds of attacks when they are given scripture they don't like.

 

For all of you who get your theology from the 16th century and think that's when Biblical doctrine came into being, it would serve you well to actually study the history and doctrine of atonement, so here are some articles to start with. Read all of them all the way through. Theories developed after the first millennium, which are all legalistic in one way or another, are all johnny-come-lately theories unknown in the earliest churches and for the first thousand years. Were it not for my study of the earliest churches and the views of atonement found there, I could not be a Christian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral...Common_criticisms_of_the_moral_influence_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory_of_atonement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement