Sorry, I can't drop it. Maybe it's important!

[LadyEagle]

Is Christ's blood divine? YES!

I was hoping this subject would be brought up. Not to cause division but I really want to know what other fundamentalists believe about this.

(Please, no tomatoes yet!)

I brought it up on another thread, but unfortunately, the thread was hijacked by those who embrace the RCC and other things.

I want to see proof on both sides, without fear of intimidation, berating, other doctrines, just the SCRIPTURES which is all I was asking for on the other thread.

I will not accept tomatoes for an answer. Why does this subject have to be dropped as suggested by someone else? Why can't we dig in what the Scriptures have to say?

If ya'll want to kick me off because I'm bringing this up, then I'll go, but why can't this be discussed?

My line of reasoning is this:

Perfect sacrifice for sin (spotless without blemish) in the Old Testament.

Christ is the Passover Lamb.

He was born of a virgin, thus could not have sinful blood of human passed on through by mankind.

His Blood was righteous enough to be acceptable on the Mercy Seat. How could human blood be an acceptable sacrifice for sin?

Where is this line of reasoning skewed?

To me, this is digging into the MEAT of the Scriptures.

Are we up to discussing this as adults with Scriptural Proof for our positions?

Or does everyone just wish I would go away and leave you to milk?

PS: If you throw tomatoes, please only throw ones that are not over ripe so I can eat them!

 

[Daniel David]

Give one Scriptural passage sheeagle. You only allude to some issues and include false reasoning.

Give one Scriptural passage that says that blood is sinful.

Christ was perfect.
Christ was the passover lamb.
Christ has to be 100% human to be the sacrifice for humanity.
1 John was written to counter those who did not embrace the full humanity of Christ.

If you want to dig into the meat, start by offering some passage that we can all expound upon.

 

[LadyEagle]

Good.

Romans 5[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
[20] Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
[21] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[DocCas]

Blood is neither human nor divine. Blood is blood. The historic doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ demands we acknowledge that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine. Contrary to a lot of silly opinions dating from the 19th century, sin is not passed down in the blood. Blood is not "sinful" or "perfect." Blood is blood. Christ was the perfect Man. Our Substitute. Our sin bearer. When we try to attribute some magic quality to his blood we dismiss the greater import of His substitutianary sacrifice on our behalf. I believe the blood of Christ is in heaven, on the mercy seat, and that it, like He, is perfect and precious, but to try to say more concerning the blood than the bible says, is to make His blood an idol.

 

[Bible-belted]

"I brought it up on another thread, but unfortunately, the thread was hijacked by those who embrace the RCC and other things."

If that refers to me, then it is a false characterisation. I do not embrace the RCC. Either clarify that this is not a refernce to me or retract it as it is not true.

"just the SCRIPTURES which is all I was asking for on the other thread."

Scriptural evidence that Jesus; body was like ours in every way WAS offered on the other thread, and more has been brought forward. You never bothered to deal with it then.

"Perfect sacrifice for sin (spotless without blemish) in the Old Testament."

Youneed to define what perfect means. Does it mean physical perfection wrt Christ only? Moral perfection? Both? Neither? Scriptural support please.

"Christ is the Passover Lamb."

A given.

"He was born of a virgin, thus could not have sinful blood of human passed on through by mankind."

This includes an assumptuion that there is such athing as "sinful blood". That would be false. The idea that matter is sinful is gnostic, not Christian.

"His Blood was righteous enough to be acceptable on the Mercy Seat. How could human blood be an acceptable sacrifice for sin?"

Becuase that is where the life is. God, as God, cannnot die. That is part and parcel of deity. If Christ died, and I beleive there is ample scriptural proof that He did, then it muyst be Christ in His humanity that died, not His deity.

Besides, he whole High Pristhood of Chriost is based on his being like us, sharing all our problems and imperfections. That would include the blood. like it or not, Jesus was like us in every aspect except that He did not sin.
Where is this line of reasoning skewed?

"To me, this is digging into the MEAT of the Scriptures."

Maybe, but it is also going over ground that was discussed and debated ad nauseum from the Scriptures over 1000 years ago. A litle knowledge of history, and historical theology goes a long way towards avoiding the process of re-inventing the theological wheel, and the spinning off into various heresies that inevitably result. Ignorance of the errors of the past dooms us to repeating them. That doesn't mean that all that has been said is all that CAN be said, mind you, but it does mean that there are issues that fall into the "been there, done that, category. We can benefit from that experience.

"Are we up to discussing this as adults with Scriptural Proof for our positions?"

Well, once you respond to this post, we'll certainly be in a better position to answer that question.

Or does everyone just wish I would go away and leave you to milk? [[Eek!]]

See above.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by DocCas:
Blood is neither human nor divine. Blood is blood. The historic doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ demands we acknowledge that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine. Contrary to a lot of silly opinions dating from the 19th century, sin is not passed down in the blood. Blood is not "sinful" or "perfect." Blood is blood. Christ was the perfect Man. Our Substitute. Our sin bearer. When we try to attribute some magic quality to his blood we dismiss the greater import of His substitutianary sacrifice on our behalf. I believe the blood of Christ is in heaven, on the mercy seat, and that it, like He, is perfect and precious, but to try to say more concerning the blood than the bible says, is to make His blood an idol.

Careful Doc, if SheEagle does a google search and finds that the hypostatic union comes from a "Catholic" council she'll say you embrace the RCC!

 

[LadyEagle]

Latriea, I knew that one would bring you back down to this forum! LOL!

You missed the point of my other post, the one that inflamed me so much about the Calcedon Council (or whatever it was). When you threw that RCC thing up, that pushed this old Baptist gal's buttons!

That, being said, I trust what Doc posted because he DIDN'T bring up the RCC & I trust him to not steer me wrong!

Plus, he has never been demeaning in his responses; I don't recall him calling someone a heretic, for instance (and there are plenty of people who could have deserved that label on here from time to time).

But I forgive you.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Wasn't it Jesus Christ's lack of sin that made him the acceptable sacrifice for all sin?

 

[russell55]

[ September 04, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

Wasn't it Jesus Christ's lack of sin that made him the acceptable sacrifice for all sin?

That is certainly part of it, for if Christ had sinned his death would have been for His own sins, and no one elses.

But He also needed to be like us in order to represent us. See Hebrews 2:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death.... Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful hight priest in all thing pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

This is the particular scripture I would like to see those pushing for divine blood interact with. Doesn't it mean Jesus blood was the same as ours? And that if it He wasn't like us in this way, then we are all in big trouble?

[ September 04, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Bible-belted]

SheEagle:

You realise that the hypostatic union which Doc referred to comes from, and was defined in, the Council of Chalcedon I hope. He didn't get it out of thin air! So he brought up exactly what I did (what you call incorrectly "that RCC thing"). How will you deal with that fact I wonder?

And please get it straight. Catholic Chalcedon was. Roman Catholic? No. The heretical teachings that define specifically Roman Catholicism were not developed until much later. Remeber that at the time of Chalcedon there was only 1 denomination, 1 church. It was the universal faith, and hence "catholic" (which literally means "universal"). But that does not make it Roman Catholic. Ironically, in speaking as you do, you condede historical turf to RCs that is not theirs by right.

But again, a little knowledge of history would help in avoiding these kinds of misunderstandings.

And I did not call you a heretic. I said, I blieve, that to hold the position that Christ's blood was divine placed one on the side of heresy. I was letting youknow the stakes. I was not calling you a heretic.

Wisdom Seeker,

Yes it was. That does not require "divine blood".

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by DocCas:
Blood is neither human nor divine. Blood is blood. The historic doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ demands we acknowledge that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine. Contrary to a lot of silly opinions dating from the 19th century, sin is not passed down in the blood. Blood is not "sinful" or "perfect." Blood is blood. Christ was the perfect Man. Our Substitute. Our sin bearer. When we try to attribute some magic quality to his blood we dismiss the greater import of His substitutianary sacrifice on our behalf. I believe the blood of Christ is in heaven, on the mercy seat, and that it, like He, is perfect and precious, but to try to say more concerning the blood than the bible says, is to make His blood an idol.

I am very much surprised and disappointed at your answer. You said ,"sin is not passed down in the blood." That is an untrue and unbiblical statement. Babies get their blood from their father. This is a medical fact. Romans 5:12 tell us that sin and death came from Adam. Because we are born with our father's blood we are sinners. In Adam all were made sinners and in Adam we all die. If sin is not passed down in the blood then why was the virgin birth necessary? It sounds to me like you have listening too much to John MacArthur.

 

[LadyEagle]

But again, a little knowledge of history would help in avoiding these kinds of misunderstandings.

Then I defer to Doc Cas, the knowledgeable historian. He will explain EVERYTHING!

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
I am very much surprised and disappointed at your answer. You said ,"sin is not passed down in the blood." That is an untrue and unbiblical statement. Babies get their blood from their father. This is a medical fact.

No, it is neither a biblical nor a medical fact. My father had blood type AB-, my mother has o+, and I have o+ blood type! Your "facts" are not facts at all, but silly superstitions. Call your doctor and ask him.

Romans 5:12 tell us that sin and death came from Adam. Because we are born with our father's blood we are sinners.

Except Romans 5:12 doesn't mention blood. Nor does it say we get our blood from our fathers. We don't. If what you say is true then I was born sinless for I got my blood type from my mother!

In Adam all were made sinners and in Adam we all die. If sin is not passed down in the blood then why was the virgin birth necessary?

The virgin birth was necessary to break the federal/seminal headship of Adam. It had nothing to do with blood.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
Babies get their blood from their father. This is a medical fact.

Really? Which medical textbooks teach that sperm contain blood?

 

[DocCas]

Chalcedon occured in 451 AD and is usually refered to as the 4th Ecumenical Council. Roman Catholicism has its roots in the falling away of the mid 3rd century (250 AD), was greatly assisted by the unholy marriage of church and state under Constantine at the 1st Ecumenical Council held at Nice, Bithynia, called by Emporer Constantine in 325 AD. Roman Catholicism reached its present form around the time of Leo I (Leo the Great) who was Bishop from 457-474.

 

[LadyEagle]

Thanks, Doc!

Now, somebody hash this out (I posted this above, but it was ignored).

--------------------------------------------------

The whole emphasis of the Bible is on Redemption by the shedding of the Saviour's blood. From the shedding of blood in Eden's garden for the clothing of our fallen first parents, to the great throng of the Apocalypse who sing of the Blood of the Lamb, the Bible is a book of blood. The crimson from Immanuel's veins tinges every verse, every chapter and every book. With the indelible writing of God in the crimson letters of the blood of redemption, God's eternal law stands written across the whole volume. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." --Hebrews 9:22.

Where, however, among the sons of men can blood be found rich enough to pay the tremendous debt of sin, precious enough to satisfy divine justice, strong enough to cancel sin's appalling guilt, pure enough to usher in the reign of righteousness, overcoming enough to crush the devil and divine enough to redeem the elect of God?

God has made of one blood, we read, all the nations of the earth. By God's creation men's blood is one in composition. By sin's ruination, [sinful] men's blood is one in pollution. Through the veins of [sinning] humanity flows a poisoned bloodstream The life of the flesh is in the blood. The life of [sinning] man is totally depraved, therefore his blood is but human depravity in solution. Such blood calls for judgment rather than appeasement. its shedding can only bring God's wrath and not God's mercy.

Although this is true, yet wonder of wonders amongst the race of sinners and in the house of David, a house as much cursed with sin as that of any other human family, there has been opened up a fountain for sin and for all uncleanness.
His Blood is justifying Blood as opposed to the blood of judgment. "Being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." --Romans 5:9.

Christ's Blood could only have these great attributes if He was Virgin-born... The supernatural blood necessitates the supernatural birth.

It is an established physiological fact that the mother's blood is neither the source nor supply of the blood in the unborn infant's veins. It is the contribution of the male which leads to the development of the blood. Without that vital contribution no blood could be produced because the female of herself does not produce the elements essential for the production of this new blood. Gray's Anatomy, a recognised medical authority, states: "The fetal and maternal blood currents do not intermingle, being separated from each other by the delicate walls of the villi."

Woman was so constructed that in the production of her child none of her blood would enter the veins of her offspring. This brings us back to Genesis and there we read: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." --Genesis 2:21-22. The word used in verse 22 for the making of the woman is literally "builded." God builded, or constructed, woman and she was constructed in such a manner that when she was producing a child, that child's blood would be a new creation and not formed by the mother's bloodstream. Why did God so build, or construct, the woman? Simply because He was anticipating the Virgin Birth and making ready the woman for the great incarnation of God in human flesh.

Satan used the woman as the instrument to ruin the race, but God who is always ahead of the devil, forestalled him and had already constructed the woman so that she would be the instrument to produce the Redeemer of the race. If the woman had not been constructed in this manner and the production of blood in the unborn infant not so ordered, than Christ's blood would have been common with the whole race and valueless to redeem. The Virgin Birth of Christ, which took place with no male contribution which would originate the infant's blood in the usual way, but by a supernatural act of God thus originating supernatural blood, is absolutely essential to the work of redemption. By such a birth and by such a birth alone could blood be produced-- precious, incorruptible, supernatural and divine, to redeem the fallen sons of Adam's accursed race.

As I view the almighty wisdom of God in the production of such blood the words of the angelic announcement of the Virgin Birth come with fresh authority to my heart. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." --Luke 1:37.

Dr. De Haan of the Radio Bible Class, in his great message "The Chemistry of the Blood" commenting on this tremendous truth, states:
"Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam's blood. In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception."
I therefore believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because His supernatural Blood necessitates His supernatural birth. ---------------------------

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Stories/The.Virgin.Birth.html

Isn't Dr. DeHaan considered a fundamentalist?

Comments on the above?

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by DocCas:
Chalcedon occured in 451 AD and is usually refered to as the 4th Ecumenical Council. Roman Catholicism has its roots in the falling away of the mid 3rd century (250 AD), was greatly assisted by the unholy marriage of church and state under Constantine at the 1st Ecumenical Council held at Nice, Bithynia, called by Emporer Constantine in 325 AD. Roman Catholicism reached its present form around the time of Leo I (Leo the Great) who was Bishop from 457-474.

For the mst part I would agree with this assessment with the exception that I don't think that the current form of the RCC can be dated so early. The Eastern and Western wings of the Church continued to disagree over the jurisdiction of the the Bishop of Rome for some time thereafter. I would not date the specifically Roman brand of Catholicism until after the Great Schism of 1054, though I would not question that the Bishop of Rome fiuctioned much as he does now in the West well before that.

Oh, and SheEagle: So DocCas says it and its ok? He can bring up Chalcedonian theology and he doesn't embrace Rome, but I bring it up and I do? He mentions the hypostatic union, and its not RCC but if I do it, it is?

Something smells.

 

[LadyEagle]

Something smells.

It's called a nose! LOL!

I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open....

(Now I'll REALLY be on your list! )

 

[foundsheep01]

The old testament sacrfice asked for the best among the herds, along with the fristfruits.
Ther is some belief a bloodsacrifice, was nessary because it was not able to be taken back.
But it still had to be done repeatdly because
the things of the earth were still not as good as those in heaven, so a perfect sacrifice had to be of Heaven, not just earth. My lord is that sacrifice, perfect and spotless, acceptence of this is nessary. For we all I think know Jesus
is the Son of God and perfect
In Christ with love.