Featured Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans 5:1

The Prince of Peace.

 

Now THAT is the way to preach the Gospel message of the Cross, and he understood PST !

 

Grief upon grief. As if the op really expressed the actual presentation of either the blood or the wrath of God!


Either one must embrace that John 3 and 1 John 2 are lies, or twist the Scriptures into some human scheme of limited blood, insufficient blood, or partial particular blood, or one must embraces the fullness of the teaching of the blood, and recognizes that wrath is removed by faith in which God places into the redeemed hearts yet such wrath remains upon the unbeliever for they remain unreconciled (John 3:36).

Those who embrace “limited atonement” have limited their own understanding in order to conform to a system that is correct except in this single area of the Scriptures distinguished use of blood and wrath.

There is no lack of blood atonement shed once for all sin.

There is a chasm difference between blood and wrath. They are not joined, but two separate issues as Peter shows declaring, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;...”

Blood for all, but not all does He bring to God.

If John and Peter declares it true, why is there such foolish human invention to deny that truth?

Why could Paul declare the message of reconciliation to ALL? Because Christ shed the blood once FOR ALL sin. The sin issue is no longer the chasm between ?God and humankind. Yet, not all are given the “right to become the sons of God.” It isn’t the lack of atonement blood, not being reconciled is the lack of the God given capacity to believe.

God chooses from all who are already condemned those in whom He delights to redeem.

Blood did NOT remove wrath. Throughout Scripture blood was shed as to open the door to reconciliation. Christ IS the door. Through Him is reconciliation. The blood was not the door. He is the door.

I could go on for days pointing out Scripture principles given throughout the pictures and statements of the Old and New Testament.

Wouldn’t make a difference because some cling to the lie of human invention rather than looking at that beautiful mercy and truth of Scripture.

 

Did God intend the death of Jesus to save all, or to save some?

 

Christ’s death and resurrection never intended to “save all.”

There is a difference between blood shed and dead of crucifixion.

I am assuming you think the shedding of blood resulted in Christ’s death and therefore salvation is limited to only those for which God shed His blood.

That is no place taught in the Scriptures.

Most criminals who were crucified were also beaten, shedding blood, but that shed blood was not that of the pure spotless lamb.

Christ’s blood was shed for the sin just as Scripture states. There would have been no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood.

Criminals crucified died not from blood loss, but asphyxiation - by being no longer capable of exhaling (hence the breaking of legs).

The blood was shed for all. The death and resurrection were for redemption authority.

There is no “sin barrier” but that lack of reconciliation because of human obstinance abides in the unbeliever.

God must “add to the church those who were to be saved” (Acts 2) or none would be redeemed. “God gives them the right to be His children” not by blood, but by adoption.

One who does not believe is “condemned already” not from a lack of sufficient blood, but the inability to believe - to have that faith God gives.

“Christ died for the ungodly” cannot be separated from “while we were yet sinners”. Which came first the shedding of blood or the death for sinners?

The shedding of blood was for the sin issue, and the death and resurrection for sinners’ redemption

 

Perhaps you would be correct if “propitiation” was not limited to specifically the blood as John uses it and the furniture as Paul uses the word.

Because the blood is distinctly for all creation, as shown by Peter, John and Paul, yet redemption is limited (as your post of Scriptures demonstrates), then it remains that redemption is certainly limited to those given to believe and not by blood shedd

Are not the Scriptures clear in separating the work of blood from the work of redemption?

“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin”

Yet, forgiveness of sin does not oblige eternal redemption. For the issue of sin and obstinacy both had to be addressed

Such redemption is the removing the obstinacy of unbelief found in being reconciled to God as you present Scriptures; and showing such redemption is totally of the gift of God, not of human attainment, achievement, status, fleshly desire ...

It is redemption that is limited, not the blood.

That gives the writers the freedom to allow “all” to be most certainly “for us and the whole world” and also allow the writers to state clearly “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

 

None of the above is disagreement. It is sound in the presentation.

Certainly, I totally agree that the blood is not limited. It is for the "Whole World" as John pointed out. Again 1 John 2:2 clearly distinguishes between the believer and the rest of the world and states that the Blood of Christ was the propitiation for all. "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

John was not given to exaggeration, and "the whole world" (in any language) is all inclusive. It is NOT limited to a subset of the whole. I am thankful that you agree.

Certainly, He laid down HIS LIFE for His sheep. That is what you are missing. He laid His life down, a totally separate issue from the blood shed.

Martin, the cross was NOT designed to shed blood. Forensic science teaches that the Roman execution on a cross was designed in such a manner as to preserve the life that the torturousness could continue until the person could no longer lift themselves to exhale.

The blood was shed in the garden, the temple, the halls of justice, the streets. The blood was shed for all. But the death was not from blood loss. It was Christ laying down His life for His own as you also agree in your next paragraph.

By your own admission, you design the scriptures in such a manner as to attempt to limit the blood to a subset. But, the original language has no such limit even hinted, but does in fact carry the fullest expression of the whole creation.

Why then does the whole creation remain "condemned already" - because it and they are not given to believe (faith).

At the final judgment the old creation passes away because it has no capacity to believe. The fallen angels are cast into eternal flames for they have no capacity to believe. Those who are not are cast into eternal flames because they are not recorded as having been given life. The final judgment is NOT about blood, it is about life given because of the death of Christ - believers have passed from death unto life because of Christ's victory, not because of blood shed for sins.

look at this Hebrews passage to help understand how you and I differ: Hebrews 10:

8When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.​

The single blood sacrifice took place at the crucifixion. It was slathered from the Garden to the tomb (for while still hanging dead, the guard pierced His side). Yet, does not the those "who are being sanctified" indicate an ongoing work? His death and resurrection providing the completed work of perfection for all time those redeemed?

The writer of Hebrews continues, and careful reading shows the consistency of what I am presenting as the blood for all, the death and resurrection for the redeemed.

It is because of Christ's blood that the veil is torn (no more a partition) and access to the thrown of God is now available (that is the offer of reconciliation can be made by the preaching of Scriptures). However, it is "by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, that "We" (the redeemed) have a great high priest.

The distinguishing factor is not the blood, but that Christ remains the door, the access, that was gained by His death and resurrection.

We can agree. Yet, the symbolism is not the total atonement picture as you well know.

Is obstinacy always a sin? Cannot the believer be obstinate in contending for the faith, and in living by principle?

 

Jesus had to die upon that Cross, and shed His blood there, as that was prophecied in the OT concerning the Suffering Servant of Yahweh, so his manner of death and that His blood would be poured out on that Cross had to be met... Jesus death by heart attack, being ran over and trampled by horses would not have qualified!

 

For prophecy to be fulfilled, Jesus MUST die upon that Cross, and MUST have his blood shed for atonement for sin!

 

Can you state were in the OT that it states that the shed blood of Christ had to be on the cross?

Or even that Christ had to suffer and die on a cross, and not just on anything that lifted him up?

The suffering stated in the OT was not limited to the cross, nor was the blood. For even the atonement lamb in which the blood was collected bled on out on the ground before the population of Israel.

So, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the blood of Christ were all different aspects portrayed and in prophecies of the OT.

For example: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.

Was the snake on an actual cross? No. But the snake was lifted up, and so was the Christ.

Do not diminish the impact of the blood, nor the portrayal of the blood splattered from the garden, through the halls of the temple, through the halls of justice, and even before the people on the road to Calvary. The blood was shed for all, not just Adam and Eve, but to those who would rely upon religion, to those seeking to justify themselves, to the social structures of society, and finally upon the cross as a mixture of water and blood showing that death had already occurred.

 

Jesus HAD to die just as he did for God to accept His sacrifice!

 

That is not in dispute.
The crucifixion of Christ is not in dispute.

What I pointed out was the elemental aspects of the crucifixion resolve various basic issues.

Issues in which some (as on this thread have shown) lump all together causing a confusion with the Scripture presentation.

 

If somehow Jesus blood stayed in his veins, would not have worked!

 

I'm not certain what you are attempting to refute that I have posted.

Did I post that The Lord did not bleed?

Have I not clearly stated that most certainly the Lord shed His blood?

Just not certain what you are attempting to present, or are you in agreement with what I have presented?