Is Your Preaching Stained With Blood?

[Herald]

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.

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

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'.

 

[Yeshua1]

... Some of this is the result of the lingering sting of liberal Christian hostility toward a “slaughterhouse religion.” Some of it is the result of an age that fears blood, but doesn’t know why. Some of it is the result of our ignorance, as we think that “blood” is just another metaphor, one we can easily replace.

And yet, bloodless Christianity leaves a void. Could it be that the lack of emphasis on blood in evangelical Protestant churches at least partially explains why Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals who otherwise would have little to do with Roman Catholic imagery found themselves openly weeping in movie theaters as they viewed The Passion of the Christ? Did they need to remember that “with his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5)?

Our embarrassment over the bloodiness of Christianity often results in blood atonement being presented in our catechism and discipleship of believers in an attenuated, abstract sort of way. Less and less often do ordinary believers hum to themselves songs about the blood of Jesus. Less and less often do small children memorize Scripture passages about the blood of Christ.

We assume that we first convince unbelievers to follow Jesus—and then we explicate the meaning of his blood, when we think they’re ready for this specialized theological knowledge. But how do we address consciences indicted by the ancient Accuser of Eden—some of them tortured by the knowledge that they have shed innocent blood themselves—without pointing them to the only means of conquering him, “the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 12:10–11)?

We assume that we teach young Christians how to live, to abstain from sexual immorality and greed and pugilism, before we move to something as seemingly arcane as blood sacrifice. And yet, Scripture assumes that personal morality is built on the knowledge that we were bought “with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

We assume that we build “community” in our churches before we address something as raw and potentially alienating as the shedding of blood. And yet, the community we share—bearing with all of one another’s faults and transcending our petty ethnic and cultural prejudices—comes only through the recognition that we share a common condemnation as sinners, but, as we will still confess to our Christ in the heavenly places, “you were slain, and with your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Shared life is based on shared blood.

Even the vampires in our popular fiction know that. That’s what makes our bloodless Christianity all the more ironic. We believe we’re more in tune with unbelievers around us, but they’re talking constantly about blood, from pharmaceutical advertisements to horror films, from vampire romance novels to AIDS and DNA testing.

The nineteenth- and twentieth-century revivalist tradition gave the Church a valued psalter of “blood medleys.” Some of them could be done better musically and lyrically, and some even theologically. But let us never be embarrassed by our emphasis—in song, in public prayer, in evangelism, in discipleship and in preaching—on the blood of Jesus.

There is power—wonder-working power—in the blood. Our culture already sees that. They’re simply looking in the wrong veins.

Russell Moore


http://www.sermoncentral.com/pastor...n=scnewsletter&utm_content=SC+Update+20130629

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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'.

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

 

[TadQueasy]

Good stuff. Glad Moore is the SBC's new ERLC head!

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

 

[Herald]

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.

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.

 

[Herald]

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.

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

 

[Robert Snow]

The idea that blood atonement for sin is not necessary is complete heresy.

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[Herald]

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

You have drug this thread off topic. Please get back on topic or stop posting.

 

[The Biblicist]

... Some of this is the result of the lingering sting of liberal Christian hostility toward a “slaughterhouse religion.” Some of it is the result of an age that fears blood, but doesn’t know why. Some of it is the result of our ignorance, as we think that “blood” is just another metaphor, one we can easily replace.

And yet, bloodless Christianity leaves a void. Could it be that the lack of emphasis on blood in evangelical Protestant churches at least partially explains why Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals who otherwise would have little to do with Roman Catholic imagery found themselves openly weeping in movie theaters as they viewed The Passion of the Christ? Did they need to remember that “with his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5)?

Our embarrassment over the bloodiness of Christianity often results in blood atonement being presented in our catechism and discipleship of believers in an attenuated, abstract sort of way. Less and less often do ordinary believers hum to themselves songs about the blood of Jesus. Less and less often do small children memorize Scripture passages about the blood of Christ.

We assume that we first convince unbelievers to follow Jesus—and then we explicate the meaning of his blood, when we think they’re ready for this specialized theological knowledge. But how do we address consciences indicted by the ancient Accuser of Eden—some of them tortured by the knowledge that they have shed innocent blood themselves—without pointing them to the only means of conquering him, “the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 12:10–11)?

We assume that we teach young Christians how to live, to abstain from sexual immorality and greed and pugilism, before we move to something as seemingly arcane as blood sacrifice. And yet, Scripture assumes that personal morality is built on the knowledge that we were bought “with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

We assume that we build “community” in our churches before we address something as raw and potentially alienating as the shedding of blood. And yet, the community we share—bearing with all of one another’s faults and transcending our petty ethnic and cultural prejudices—comes only through the recognition that we share a common condemnation as sinners, but, as we will still confess to our Christ in the heavenly places, “you were slain, and with your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Shared life is based on shared blood.

Even the vampires in our popular fiction know that. That’s what makes our bloodless Christianity all the more ironic. We believe we’re more in tune with unbelievers around us, but they’re talking constantly about blood, from pharmaceutical advertisements to horror films, from vampire romance novels to AIDS and DNA testing.

The nineteenth- and twentieth-century revivalist tradition gave the Church a valued psalter of “blood medleys.” Some of them could be done better musically and lyrically, and some even theologically. But let us never be embarrassed by our emphasis—in song, in public prayer, in evangelism, in discipleship and in preaching—on the blood of Jesus.

There is power—wonder-working power—in the blood. Our culture already sees that. They’re simply looking in the wrong veins.

Russell Moore


http://www.sermoncentral.com/pastor...n=scnewsletter&utm_content=SC+Update+20130629

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You have drug this thread off topic. Please get back on topic or stop posting.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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

First no its not. You need to go back and read the op. This thread is about the blood being preached not about your false history. Second it is my thread, what goes on in this thread is my business. Take your off topic agenda somewhere else. Start your won thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

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 CHRIST'S BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SINS

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.

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.

 

[convicted1]

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

First no its not. You need to go back and read the op. This thread is about the blood being preached not about your false history. Second it is my thread, what goes on in this thread is my business. Take your off topic agenda somewhere else. Start your won thread.

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.