Featured Is Your Preaching Stained With Blood?

I typically discount much of what the "Church" believed regarding the atonement from around the mid-5th century to the Reformation because of the dominance of the papacy. It is true that penal substitution was not fully developed until the Reformation period, but even "Calvinism" was muted for a 1000 years, or since Augustine. But as with all doctrine I must go backb to Scripture which, I believe, makes a convincing case for penal substitution and a blood atonement.

 

Yes. You see yourself above many, but many more see you below.

You love confrontation. Why betray your persona and track record with a falsity?

I've already 'brought it on'.

 

Bottom line in this is that we have a modern christianity that has no Cross, so no salvation!

 

Then forget about that time period. Go back to the earliest churches, church history, and the fathers before the mid-fifth century. You will find no trace of penal substitution because those Christians did not see it in scripture.

 

You are really good..... at lying. But then you have nothing else.

 

What some of you apparently don't understand is that those who don't hold to penal substitution and the other legalist theories do not deny what happened to Jesus. The differences consist in the meaning of what happened to Him.

 

:thumbsup: Dr. Moore always does a fine job.

 

That is only a partially accurate statement. The atonement occupied a very low priority during the patristic age. On the other hand baptism was a huge issue. The early church and patristic fathers were chiefly concerned with the purity of the church. Baptism was a litmus test of that concern. The continued battle with Gnosticism and later Arianism were hills on which church fathers were willing to die on. Atonement theories were secondary debates (see "Early Christian Doctrine" by J.N.D. Kelly and "Baptism in the Early Church" by Standard and Louw). The Reformers studied atonement theory as a natural refutation of their separation from Rome.

 

Many of us who do not hold to legalist theories (penal substitution not being "legalist") agree that meaning is everything.

 

Amen! A bloodless Christianity in no Christianity at all!

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; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: I Peter 1:18,19

 

Atonement theories were certainly not secondary debates. I can tell you that emphatically, as one of my specializations was early church history and theology.

As I have mentioned, were it not for the beliefs of these early Christians, I could not be a Christian.

 

I beg to differ with you. I recommend a well respected work that covers the most popular Christian doctrines during the patristic and early church age: Early Church Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. While Kelly is not the only word on the patristic and early church age he is one the most recognized scholars about that age and appeals to Reformed and non-Reformed theologians.

As far as your personal experience, that is anecdotal.

 

You can differ, but that doesn't make you right.

BTW, where did I cite personal experience as authority? My studies encompassed more than one source. The atonement was a central doctrine in the early church. The Eastern fathers were responsible for formulating early church doctrines. The atonement views expressed by them held sway for a thousand years. I don't trust or hold to anything from Anselm on, as all of them are a departure from the early church and a perversion of scripture.

 

Well, we certainly agree with each other on this point. Note the careful wording by a man writing under INSPIRATION:

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

He does not demand that "all things" are purged with blood. Thus we can find bloodless sacrifices. However, he does demand "without the shedding of blood their is no remission" regardless what UNINSPIRED men may say after the writing of Scripture. NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN.

Furthermore, this is stated clearly in a context that directly applies it to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

"It was therefore necessary" NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN but there are other reasons it was necessary according to INSPIRED writers - WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Because -

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

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:


Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

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,



Why should the "blood" of Christ be regarded as "precious" if it was unnecessary to be literally shed?

1 Pe 1:18 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:


Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Notice, I have not attacked any person. I have said nothing personal about anyone. I have attacked a POSITION. I have simply stated scriptures that deal directly with the "blood" of Christ as an offering on the cross and scriptures that explicitly state why the blood was shed and what that "blood" obtained. These are all writngs by INSPIRED men not UNINSPIRED later traditions of men.

 

What I have said is totally on topic. Mind your own business or stop posting.

 

The "blood" of Christ is given emphasis by INSPIRED writers and yet those who embrace non-blood atonement theories do not give the same emphasis to His "blood" as INSPIRED writers do. There is a reason why! They do not hold the same veiws of atonement.

 

If you don't preach the blood, you've just chopped the legs off of Jesus' work, imo.

 

The thread has to do with the atonement. And it is not my history, it is history, period.

You cannot prohibit me from posting here. You are not a dictator. Atonement is particularly relevant to this thread; thus, my posts are not off topic.