The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood

[The Biblicist]

It's just that I get weary of repeating the same thing I have posted elsewhere.

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...."?

You have not disproved my position. The very verse you started with proves my position, and so do the words of the OT prophets, and, as I mentioned, even the OT sacrificial system itself.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[convicted1]

Is someone denying the blood of Jesus Christ in it's salvific properties?

 

[The Biblicist]

Is someone denying the blood of Jesus Christ in it's salvific properties?

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.

 

[convicted1]

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.

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.

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[convicted1]

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.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

A bloodless atonement is heresy

 

[convicted1]

A bloodless atonement is heresy

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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

I don't know but they definitely deny a legitimate atonement.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

A bloodless atonement is heresy

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

Certainly not! And I don't "deny the blood", whatever that means.

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I don't know but they definitely deny a legitimate atonement.

Having trouble with God's arrangement, are you? I'll pray for you.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

I certainly did answer it and directly addressed it. Didn't you read what I said?

Post #31 and #32

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

It doesn't repudiate anything since that's not what the verse says.