Featured Blood used metaphorically in Heb. 9:14???

BTW, this is how I learned my lesson many many years ago when I departed the folly of KJVO.

NEVER ever to attach my name again to another man.

Because the day would come when I would have to decide - disconnect or throw in the towel.

HankD

 

Bro Tom, that is not it at all.
I disagree as I pointed out from the piece MacArthur wrote concerning the QUALITY of His blood where John claimed I do not believe that there is...there was something in that blood itself that saves
people.

I can't get past that statement. I have seen his attempts at walking back the statement but it always comes back to THAT statement which he honestly confirms.

Yes he is a sincere brother in the Lord, but FWIW I disagree with his position.
I also disagree on his view of Lordship salvation.

No one is perfect

HankD

 

No, of course not. See my previous post. We cannot agree on everything being imperfect human beings.
I don't like to give the impression that I am condemning John MacArthur so I avoid controversial areas as much as is possible but this is one place where I wanted to voice an opposing view not one of condemnation.

HankD

 

Why must it be "I stand with Tom"?
Why not I agree with Tom?

HankD

 

Magic blood? Was the magic in the blood, or the sacrifice of Christ's life as a ransom for all? How did Christ become the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. By spilling His blood or dying on the cross? The wages of sin is death, and how is that price paid, to ransom us?

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

 

I don't remember putting a lot of thought in that post. Probably just what came to mind. Actually I have no idea. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

 

To "stand" with someone has the nuance of a condemnation partnership against someone else whereas to disagree is simply to disagree IMO.


HankD

 

You are welcome.

Help me out when I need it.

HankD

 

I can see that. Didn't think it at the time but I can see what you mean.

 

Ya, I've been known to be an overly precise stickler for the definition and verbal flavors of words

HankD

 

We all do it. Once in a while I'll come back to one of my old posts and wish I could rewrite or delete it.

HankD

 

This has been an exercise in semantic sword clashing.

As John MacArthur indicated we do not have to rewrite any hymns as we continue to sing hymns whose theme is centered around the blood of Christ.

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus

Yes and of course His whole sinless life culminated in His atoning death on the cross and the shedding of that precious blood.


I'm off to the Seattle airport to pick up an adult grandson.

HankD

 

“What Makes Jesus’ Temptation Innocent?
One common objection to the argument thus far is that this account of things confuses temptation with sinful desire. The objection goes something like this: “The Bible teaches that it is not a sin to be tempted", but you make even the temptation to lust a sin. Are you not saying that all temptation is sin? Wasn’t Jesus tempted like us yet without sin (Heb. 4:15)? How can you say that temptation equals sin?”
The short answer to these questions is that we do not believe that all temptation equals sin. Plainly, Jesus was tempted, but he never sinned (Matt. 4:1–11; Heb. 4:15). So unless we want to imply that Jesus was a sinner, we must affirm that not all temptation equals sin. But in saying this, we must be careful to define what we mean by temptation and precisely what our temptation has in common with the temptation that Jesus experienced. Too often we are guilty of projecting our own sinful experiences back onto Jesus. But this is precisely backward. We should not make our sinful experience of temptation the measure of Jesus’ sinless experience of temptation. On the contrary, Jesus’ sinless experience of temptation should be the measure of ours. There are both similarities and differences between Jesus’ experience of temptation and ours.
Yes, Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, but his experience of temptation was”“not identical to ours. This is the necessary corollary of Christ’s sinless perfection—which theologians sometimes call Christ’s impeccability—and it is anticipated in Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (nasb). There are at least two important observations to make about this text for our purposes.
First, the term for temptation (peirazō) in this text is likely a specific reference to the redemptive sufferings of Christ. In general, the verb peirazō”“means to put someone to the test.20 But the only other time Hebrews uses the term in connection with Jesus is in 2:18, which is a specific reference to his sufferings: “For since He Himself was tempted [peirastheis] in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted [peirazomenois]” (nasb). Many commentators, therefore, interpret the use of the term in 4:15 in light of its use in 2:18 and conclude that both are a reference to his suffering up to and including the cross.21 Thus, for Jesus to be tempted in every way as we are does not mean”“that he himself faced each and every individual trial that each and every human has ever faced. Such an interpretation would of course be absurd. It means that he experienced the ultimate trial and temptation “according to likeness”22—a possible allusion to the fact that Jesus suffered as a human. That means that Jesus experienced his sufferings while being subject to all the frailties and weaknesses of embodied life. That is why the New English Bible renders it as “One who, because of his likeness to us, has been tested every way, only without sin. “Second, the key thing to note about Jesus’ suffering and temptation is that it was “without sin.” There was no aspect of Jesus’ temptation that ever involved sin on his part. He had no desires that predisposed him to sin. His response to external pressures never resulted in an evil thought or attraction. And, of course, he never engaged in any sinful response to the suffering that he faced. From top to bottom, he was perfect, innocent, wholesome, and good in the face of every temptation. That means that Jesus’ experience of temptation was never internalized into any disposition toward evil. Ever. Jesus’ attractions—whatever they were—were never directed toward something that his Father had prohibited. Jesus’ impeccability means not merely that he never sinned but that it was not possible for him to sin. Thus we agree with Augustine, “God forbid that we should ever say that He is able to sin!”
This is not our experience of temptation. We experience a level of internalization that Jesus’ impeccability never allowed. Yes, he faced the same sorts of external pressures to sin. No, those pressures never had a landing pad in his heart. In the face of withering satanic attacks, he only always desired his Father’s will (Matt. 26:39; John 5:19). The words “without sin” indicate that, while Jesus faced temptations as we do, his experience of those temptations was quite different from ours in that his was always sinless.
Jesus’ impeccability in this regard has provoked some people to wonder whether his experience of temptation can ever be as intense as that of the sinners that he came to save. Can he really have known our weaknesses when he himself was not capable of sinning? This question points us to a glorious irony of Jesus’ sinless nature. It did not lessen his experience of temptation but only intensified it. Leon Morris has said it this way:

The man who yields to a particular temptation has not yet felt its full power. He has given in while the temptation has yet something in reserve. Only the man who does not yield to a temptation who, as regards that particular temptation, is sinless, knows the full extent of that temptation."





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There was a sin debt that had to be paid. "For the wages of sin is death" there had to be a death. Christ was the propitiation for our sins; he paid our sin debt.

Another important point to remember was he had to take upon Him the iniquity of us all. That's what was in that cup that he asked if there be another way Lee this cup pass from Me, but not my will thy will be done.

So he had to bear the sin of all mankind as if He committed them Himself and then he was able, and did pay the debt that sin required. Death. "for the wages of sin is death"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's quite a response harrell.

Indeed

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

HankD

 

I'm sorry if I seem to chase a rabbit. This was an excerpt from a book I read a while back. I wanted to keep it in context. Authors Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

The main point I was want to affirm was Christ impeccability. He was not ever able to sin. He did not have to gain that impeccable status through the trial of human life to make His blood pure. He had the blood of the father in His veins Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

To feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own Blood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk