It is crucial! The denial that the shedding of Christ's blood is a complete repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as there is no remission of sins without the shedding of Christ's blood.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
It is crucial! The denial that the shedding of Christ's blood is a complete repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as there is no remission of sins without the shedding of Christ's blood.
Let's set the stage again for this debate.
The verse in question is Hebrews 9:22 which says:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Thomas emphasizes the word "almost" and the first phrase and uses it to repudiate the necessity of the application of the second phrase to Jesus Christ and His sacrifice in this context.
Thomas says concerning Heb. 9:22
"The OT plainly shows that God did not and does not absolutely require blood spilling to forgive sins. The quoted verse that you use is a direct reference back to that OT sacrificial system, so it also directly disproves your position"
"In the OT, God remitted sins without shedding of blood, so clearly for remission of sins, God does not require that blood be spilled".
"And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST". Which makes the crucial point that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to forgive sins. This verse affirms that, and the verse is a direct reference also to the OT sacrificial system in which God forgave sins for offerings that were not blood sacrifices. Add to this the OT prophets' words on the matter, and it is crystal clear what God requires".
In Contrast to Thomas's responses, I have pointed out that IN CONTEXT the writer of hebrews applies the second half of this text to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the type of the High Priest entering once year on the day of atonement which could not occur with the shedding of blood as the High Preist would die if He did not enter the holiest with blood. Therefore, the writer of Hebews says unequivocally it was "necessary" for Christ's blood to be shed for the remission of sins thus completely repudiating everything Thomas has stated to the contrary:
Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
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.
Therefore, the shedding of Christ's blood was absollutely "necessary"
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
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.
The verse in question is Hebrews 9:22 which says:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Thomas emphasizes the word "almost" and the first phrase and uses it to repudiate the necessity of the application of the second phrase to Jesus Christ and His sacrifice in this context.
Thomas says concerning Heb. 9:22
"The OT plainly shows that God did not and does not absolutely require blood spilling to forgive sins. The quoted verse that you use is a direct reference back to that OT sacrificial system, so it also directly disproves your position"
"In the OT, God remitted sins without shedding of blood, so clearly for remission of sins, God does not require that blood be spilled".
"And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST". Which makes the crucial point that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to forgive sins. This verse affirms that, and the verse is a direct reference also to the OT sacrificial system in which God forgave sins for offerings that were not blood sacrifices. Add to this the OT prophets' words on the matter, and it is crystal clear what God requires".
In Contrast to Thomas's responses, I have pointed out that IN CONTEXT the writer of hebrews applies the second half of this text to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the type of the High Priest entering once year on the day of atonement which could not occur with the shedding of blood as the High Preist would die if He did not enter the holiest with blood. Therefore, the writer of Hebews says unequivocally it was "necessary" for Christ's blood to be shed for the remission of sins thus completely repudiating everything Thomas has stated to the contrary:
Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
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.
Therefore, the shedding of Christ's blood was absollutely "necessary"
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
People do not understand the difference between "atonement" and "remission".
The OT sacrifices (blood or no) were all for atonement- or covering- for sin. It was always temporary, and had to be repeated.
The bloody sacrifice of Christ was for the remission- or propitiation- of sin. It was a one-time act that removed our sin and satisfied once and for all the wrath of God.
The OT sacrifices (blood or no) were all for atonement- or covering- for sin. It was always temporary, and had to be repeated.
The bloody sacrifice of Christ was for the remission- or propitiation- of sin. It was a one-time act that removed our sin and satisfied once and for all the wrath of God.
In addition to a better sacrifice:
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The shed blood of Jesus Christ is the seal of the new testament.
HankD
The shed blood of Jesus Christ is the seal of the new testament.
HankD
The sacrificial types were a "covering" but the Old Testament saints did not trust in the sacrificial types (Heb. 10:1-4) but in the gospel of Christ and received "remission of sins" - Acts 10:43/Heb. 4:2 - just as we do. Justified by faith with remission of sins just as we are (Rom. 4:6-8). They simply did not receive the end of their salvation - the glorified body in a new heaven and earth but had to wait for us (Heb. 11:39-40).
True. But for Christ's sacrifice to provide remission and propitiation it had to be bloody.
Agreed!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
HankD
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Biblicist claims he has repudiated everything I said, and that I have not answered him.
Let's see who believes what the Bible clearly says and who does not; let's see who is really manipulating the text and who is not. Let's see who is truly representing God's requirements and who is not; let's see who is accurately representing God's character and laws and who is not.
Heb. 9:22 says almost all things are cleansed with blood -- the literal translation. This verse refers back to Leviticus 5:11 where God accepted flour for a sin offering. Therefore, it is an irrefutable Biblical fact, also confirmed by the OT prophets, that God did not and does not require blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Twist and dance all you want, this is what the scriptures affirm.
Nobody denies what happened to Jesus, but to claim that if He had died any other way the atonement would not have happened is a direct contradiction of the scriptures and indeed an insult to God. Lots of people want to play God, and lots want to say that if you don't believe in the johnny-come-lately atonement theories like Satisfaction and Penal Substitution that you are a heretic. But since these theories didn't appear until after the first millennium, this charge is entirely bogus. I say thank God for the early church!
What we have here is a replay of the ancient conflict between priest and prophet. In fact, the OT prophets repudiate the Jewish sacrificial system with its bloody sacrifices and the idea that it takes blood spilling to appease an angry and vengeful God.
Let me ask Biblicist and all other supposed "biblicists" this: Do you believe that if Jesus had been hanged instead of crucified that the atonement or reconciliation would not have happened? What if he had died any other way? Do you not think it would have been enough that Jesus came here and lived and died as one of us? Was any death not enough? If He had died another way, would He have not been resurrected?
My faith is in the Incarnation, life, death, and Bodily Resurrection of the Risen Christ, not in His blood as if it was some kind of magical talisman.
If I am banned for stating what I believe, so be it. But nobody can say that I am not a Christian and be speaking the truth. I know where I stand with my Savior.
Let's see who believes what the Bible clearly says and who does not; let's see who is really manipulating the text and who is not. Let's see who is truly representing God's requirements and who is not; let's see who is accurately representing God's character and laws and who is not.
Heb. 9:22 says almost all things are cleansed with blood -- the literal translation. This verse refers back to Leviticus 5:11 where God accepted flour for a sin offering. Therefore, it is an irrefutable Biblical fact, also confirmed by the OT prophets, that God did not and does not require blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Twist and dance all you want, this is what the scriptures affirm.
Nobody denies what happened to Jesus, but to claim that if He had died any other way the atonement would not have happened is a direct contradiction of the scriptures and indeed an insult to God. Lots of people want to play God, and lots want to say that if you don't believe in the johnny-come-lately atonement theories like Satisfaction and Penal Substitution that you are a heretic. But since these theories didn't appear until after the first millennium, this charge is entirely bogus. I say thank God for the early church!
What we have here is a replay of the ancient conflict between priest and prophet. In fact, the OT prophets repudiate the Jewish sacrificial system with its bloody sacrifices and the idea that it takes blood spilling to appease an angry and vengeful God.
Let me ask Biblicist and all other supposed "biblicists" this: Do you believe that if Jesus had been hanged instead of crucified that the atonement or reconciliation would not have happened? What if he had died any other way? Do you not think it would have been enough that Jesus came here and lived and died as one of us? Was any death not enough? If He had died another way, would He have not been resurrected?
My faith is in the Incarnation, life, death, and Bodily Resurrection of the Risen Christ, not in His blood as if it was some kind of magical talisman.
If I am banned for stating what I believe, so be it. But nobody can say that I am not a Christian and be speaking the truth. I know where I stand with my Savior.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting thought process.
Oh my word, very sad. :tear:
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Only to those who limit God to a RCC or Magisterial Protestant legalistic Avenger who only could or does forgive one way.
It might help you to study the early church -- you know, the ones who by consensus recognized and formed the canon of scripture.
It's amazing to me that people can see what even the OT said in places such as Leviticus that I referenced, and the OT prophets, and still have this idea that the death of Jesus in another way would not have accomplished our reconciliation with God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Thank you for your non-condemnatory post.
But the onslaught will come, and I am ready for it and expecting it.
Good grief you are not a victim here. No one is forcing you to post.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
What I said is based on past experience. I don't expect that to change -- all those loving Christians, you know.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
HankD
Thomas Helwys
New Member
That does not negate anything that I have posted, including the scriptures that I have referenced.
You are making the RARE exception (Lev. 5:11) to be the rule when Hebrews 9:22 is claiming that the rule rather than the exception is what applies to Christ in Hebrews 9-10.
Hebrews 9-10 does NOT apply Leviticus 5:11 to Christ but Hebrews 9-10 applies Leviticus 16 and the day of Atonement to Christ's sacrifice which DEMANDS the shedding of His blood for the remission of sins.
Everyone on this forum can easily see this but you.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
This conversation brings to mind something I said previously: I thank God for the early church; were it not for the views held there, I could not be a Christian.
Also, were it not for the views of the Anabaptists and General Baptists, I could not be a Baptist.
Also, were it not for the views of the Anabaptists and General Baptists, I could not be a Baptist.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
See part I bolded and then responded in blue under that.
Hebrews 9:22 refers back to Leviticus 5:11. That is a fact.
- Status