Thomas,
You keep saying this... but for those of us without the advantage of your learning, could you please post some evidence that the early church, Anabaptists, and GB denied that the shedding of blood was necessary for our salvation?
Thank you.
-
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
Thomas,
You keep saying this... but for those of us without the advantage of your learning, could you please post some evidence that the early church, Anabaptists, and GB denied that the shedding of blood was necessary for our salvation?
Thank you.
Well, that makes a big difference between us. I thank God for the Holy Spirit and His Word, without which I could not be a Christian. Also, were it not for the Lord's true churches I would not be a Baptist.
But you are denying the very thing that is necessary for the remission of sins, which without there is none for you or for anyone else.
Did you address these scriptures I quoted in this thread? If so, please give the post numbers or if not please do so now as a debate rebuttal.
Thanks
HankD
Thomas Helwys
New Member
That's not quite the point. The first point is what the scriptures say, and the second point is what the death of Jesus means.
The early church's views of the atonement were very different than what developed after the first thousand years. I prefer the early church's views because they were closest to the source -- the apostles who wrote the scriptures. They recognized and formed the canon, and yet their reading of the scriptures did not convey to them any meaning of the atonement such as was developed by the medieval Roman church or the Reformed wing of Magisterial Protestantism.
I just wish people would study the views of Christ's work and God's nature held by the early church. It is eye-opening and different from medieval Roman Catholicism and Magisterial Protestantism. And so are the views of the Anabaptists, who influenced the General Baptists. Now some Anabaptists held views similar to the RCC and Protestants, but most held views in accord with the early church.
This ties into the issue of what was necessary for our salvation. No atonement view denies that Jesus shed His blood, but there is a great difference in what the death of Jesus meant, what was necessary for our salvation, and what God required.
The West tends to isolate the atonement from the rest of Jesus' life and work; it takes a legalistic, atomistic view which was not present in the early church. This is the inheritance from medieval Romanism and Magisterial protestantism, especially the Reformed wing.
It seems for some that Jesus' death was not enough to provide a reconciliation; for these, it had to have come by the shedding of His blood. I do not find the Bible to support that, based on the scriptures I have referenced, especially the OT prophets.
To me, it is enough that Jesus lived and died as one of us, for us, and for me. If He had not shed one drop of blood, He would still have reconciled me to God by His Incarnation, life, death, and bodily Resurrection.
I enjoy discussing things when we can have a respectful exchange. Thank you.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Hank, could you please search my posts for my scripture references? I don't mean to be dismissive, but I have posted these repeatedly.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
I don't know if you meant it as an insult, but let me clarify to you that it is to the HS and the Word that the early church attests, and that is why I am thankful for the early church; they were faithful to the Spirit and Word in a way that the later church was not.
My sins are remitted because I have faith in the entire life of Jesus, from His birth to His Resurrection.
oh my word! I am sorry but this shows you have no true understanding of what provided salvation.
Thomas Helwys
New Member
My views are the views of the early church which was closest to the source: Christ, the apostles, and the Bible.
Your view comes from legalistic Reformed Protestantism, unknown for the first 1500 years of the church.
Many Evangelical Protestants seem unaware that the Bible wasn't written in 1500, because their views are all taken from that time period.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK but I am trying to be objective and give you a fair hearing.
Also, I have access to the ECF.
Just one reference (the earliest one) would be appreciated to give me a baseline for the ECF.
For what it's worth I believe you are a Christian, just mistaken about this matter. To this point I am not convinced of your proposition.
My feeling is that using this line of reasoning one could say (for instance) that it was not necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin for His death to be effectual for the human race for salvation which, in effect, would negate the concept of the inheritance of the propensity of sinfulness passed on down to the human race from Adam.
This is how the speculating of early-on neo-orthodoxy began - gathering momentum and unbelief until the entire lump was leavened.
I am not saying this is true of you, I am just making an observation of past trends and their danger.
Also I give you credit where credit is due for being honest.
HankD
Last edited:
- Status