Why bothers you so much about the PST position, as that is consistent with what was printed here!
-
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!
Baptists and doctrine/eschatology
- Thread starter Rebel1
- Start date
The PST position as related on the BB inevitably resorts to the "wrath of God" being poured out at the crucifixion, and some manner of God abandoning - deserting, turning His back, - on the Son.
But as to why I posted that from the "IFCA" is to show that even those who embrace the "Doctrines of Grace" can and do hold to Christ died for all men, irregardless. That the blood was for all humanity, irregardless.
That redemption is by the grace of God in the gift (endowment) of faith (belief) specifically to those whom the Father has chosen as He purposes.
It is unfortunate that many have chased after what is in error:
The view of some that the blood is sufficient / efficient is not found in Scriptures.
The view of some that the blood was shed only for a few of the many is not found in Scriptures.
The view that the blood shed brings automatic salvation to a few or to many is not found in Scriptures.
The view of some that the blood was shed only for a few of the many is not found in Scriptures.
The view that the blood shed brings automatic salvation to a few or to many is not found in Scriptures.
Salvation is in one word - belief.
Blood was shed for all that forgiveness is for all, BUT that does not mean that all are saved!
Those that believe are saved, those that do not believe are condemned.
Did God intend to save all sinners by the death of Christ for sins, or just the elect of God?
God never intended to "save all sinners by the death of Christ for sins." The thinking that links blood to limit the salvation is not secure in the Scriptures.
The blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sins (excluding none and no one), for all sins for all humanity.
God of His own choosing appoints those He purposes to save, by that reconciliation secured in the death and resurrection of Christ.
In review:
Blood loss was NOT the cause of death on the Cross.
Blood loss was that required for forgiveness of all sin from Adam to eternity.
Christ "laid down His life" of His own authority, and took it up by that same authority.
God alone appoints salvation to those in whom He purposes to save.
The security of such salvation is bound in the death and resurrection.
Blood loss was that required for forgiveness of all sin from Adam to eternity.
Christ "laid down His life" of His own authority, and took it up by that same authority.
God alone appoints salvation to those in whom He purposes to save.
The security of such salvation is bound in the death and resurrection.
The death of Christ was intended to just save the elct of God, so the blood that was shed for remission of sins only applicable and propitiated the wrath of God towards those Jesus saved
The blood had to be shed, as Jesus had to die upon the Cross, as Him falling over dead from heart attack would not have covered our sins.
rebel - to be shy about nasty arguments is understandable, been there done that, been burned, burned others
but your remarks in the o/p invite "debate" IOW you initiated the discussion,
please follow through then with a venue of debate, not argumentation - big difference.
You shouldn't make a challenge and then run away from its defense.
What 'incontrovertible evidence"?
Just saying bro.
Thanks
HankD
Ok,
Working backward through the post.
1) I totally agree that blood had to be shed. There is NO forgiveness without shed blood. That is supported in Scriptures.
And I have made no argument against such a contention.
God chose that as the remedy, validated it by type and prophecy, and fulfilled in Christ.
God could have chosen another method, but He didn't.
2) Blood limited supply for only the elect.
Scripture support??????
not found.
That which you consider is totally of human invention.
If the blood of Jesus was shared equally for all sinners, than God cannot judge any sinners any more, and they have Propitiation by His blood, correct?
If you are equating blood shed as that which guarantees heaven, then no, the blood shed does not guarantee heaven for anyone.
The Scriptures use "Propitiation" in two manners. One as pertaining to the official and the furniture. That is the high priest entering the place of the mercy seat and the action that took place there.
The other is that which was the actual catalyst of forgiveness sprinkled by the high priest.
Both are sufficient to cover all the sins of all the people of the land God gave to Israel. It was not based upon whether a person believed or not, propitiation took place.
Because God owns the world, when Christ died, true to the type shown, the propitiation was for all in the land, all the world humanity.
Some might then attempt to proclaim, that "God does not judge sinners anymore."
Not true. One stands in the penalty box as a result of sin and sinfulness, even though they are forgiven.
Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of behavior, anymore than if a widow is broken, forgiveness extended does not repair the window. The wages of sin is still death.
Though all the world be forgiven, not all are redeemed.
For those redeemed are as not condemned - though the wages of sin may still pay death, there is no penalty, no condemnation.
Propitiation must be accompanied by redemption.
Redemption (three words in the Greek) is that exchange made to make a slave of this world to that of the adopted son.
Not all are adopted as sons.
Actually, there were several possible causes of Christ's death on the cross, including blood loss (He lost a huge amount), but also asphyxiation, shock, and the hematidrosis He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. All of these probably contributed. However, in the end, what actually happened is that Jesus Himself "gave up the ghost," (John 19:30). My translation: "He released His spirit." In other words, He voluntarily died.
I agree that the blood loss was far more than just that of the cross.
None of the tortuous expressions humanity performed would rob our Lord of life. Nothing could take His life from Him.
That is also true for every believer.
As "new creatures" there is nothing that can take our life from us but what God does not appoint as good.
Death has no power, no authority, and no determination other than that given by God.
Where, before, God had to instruct Satan not to take a life (Job, Cain), now such authority is taken from the realms of darkness.
Christ now holds all power and authority.
Last edited:
I believe that's pretty much what I said.
the blood of Jesus being shed for our remission of sins is all important, for without his shed blood, no atonement for our sins!
This certainly is true.
However, was that the “only” necessary when it comes to the OT atonement? No, the blood was one of many steps in the atonement.
The NT clearly states that the blood was for forgiveness of all sins, but the OT atonement was far more then collecting blood and putting it on the mercy seat.
Just as Christ shed blood from the Garden to the cross that sins of all are forgiven, more had to be accomplished to redeem those adopted.
The limit of redemption isn’t from blood deficiency or supply amount, but that purposed choice of God in adopting.
If Jesus did not shed that blood while upon the Cross, no remission for sins!
Read carefully, the statement both of OT and NT.
Shed blood was NOT only for the mercy seat.
With out the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness.
But do not make the error of assuming that only the blood shed on the cross was what constitutes that important to forgiveness.
Blood was shed from the garden to the cross. Every bit was important in the work of forgiveness.
Isaiah 53 does not mention a cross.
The Cross is all the way thru Isaiah though, and the shed blood of Jesus was what Peter stated redeemed us!
No argument. Though the "cross" as the Roman's used it was not prevalent, the early forms of the crucifixion were part of even the Persian empire.
But do not limit WHERE the blood was shed. Just as the blood was spread at different areas for the whole of atonement, so too was that of our Lord.
Also, forensic evidence is that the Romans did not want blood loss at a crucifixion to prolong the struggle and tortuousness of the matter. The placement of the nails and the scaffolding itself allowed for a prolonged and sustained incremental succumbing to death. The blood loss on the cross generally would come from reopening the wounds of the whipping each time the body was raised to exhale.
The blood of the lamb of God had to be shed in order to accomplish remittance of sins!
In the atonement sacrifice of the OT, was where the blood was taken more the focus or the purpose and use of the blood?