Featured Magic Blood Theory

I will apologise if that is how it went down.
I thought you were blending Isaiah 53 wrongly, then tried to switch to me denying 1 pet 2:24.

 

This is a good point and it is why I think that while it is fair on your part to expect a concept to be supported by scripture it is also allowed to take various truths and keep one in mind as you look at another. This is necessary not just allowed, otherwise you end up with a lot of folks claiming direct authorizations to do and believe various things because they have a verse.

In the case above, there is much scripture explaining how Jesus by virtue of prophecy, lineage, his sinless life, his miracles, his claims to be one with the Father, his submission to things like a humble earthy life, baptism (which identifies him with humanity); all this shows you by scripture that he was in a unique and once in history position to appease God. It is also clearly stated that the OT sacrifices were representations but not truly effective in themselves. Then you have Hebrews showing the connection. All these scriptures you are dismissing because they don't state in 1 place what you want it too. You have danced around this for 900 posts but you do not clearly state 2 things.
1. What exactly is you view of the atonement. (and here I ask you to stop the doubletalk and give your explanation without using anything that we use in penal substitution. Don't say he bore our sins and then say but I hereby declare that that has nothing to to with penal substitution.)
2. You still have not, unless I missed it, answered my concern that your ideas are only found by you. If that is the case, fine, but that means something to most of us who are laymen and are comparing your views to all the Calvinists theologians and all the regular Baptists theologians also.

 

Are you kidding? With only 1 ally you have taken on the whole board on 5 or 6 different threads and over 900 posts. You do quite well and are the best verbal judoka I have ever seen. I would rather debate James White than you. I would rather box Mike Tyson than debate you. Well, maybe not that.

 

It wreaks of what most Baptist Churches teach....the Bible. UGH! No wonder so many people are turned off by "Christianity"...the constant use of "labels" to try and pigeonhole people to make themselves feel good about their position. Go figure.

 

JonC,

[Let's stop beating around the bush, talking about theories and what some belueve Scripture teaches and get right to the meat of things - to "what is written" and what is written again. To God's Word.]

On the other thread I started....I am walking through the issue.
Rather than what you call "beating around the bush"....we are examining key verses but more importantly....key words....their primary biblical
Meanings which inform us as to why PSA is what is consistently taught in scripture.
It is not a shallow show me one verse look here approach.
By being thorough we do not miss biblical truth.
I have learned this from puritans and teachers who have a greater gift than you or i.
I do not despise these teachers.
I find in scripture what I see as truth then I look and see if others have seen the same thing.
Many times they saw what I did but added more to it and a clarity I lack.
I am leery when someone tells me...I used to believe but now God showed me things everyone missed

 

I have watched the dying die. No matter the cause - death is usually a welcome relief. The exception is those who are unsaved more often die in desperation for another moment or some have died in awareness of the fate that awaits them.

The "sting" of death is the judgement that awaits. To the believer there is no condemnation of judgement.

So, your thinking of "pains of death" is misdirected, imo.

However, that does not diminish the pain prior to death. To witness one in such pain is disconcerting. Watching one burn alive, another one consumed by the poisons as the body organs fail, one deleterious as their endorphins no longer respond, all are images that haunt.

What pains did our Lord face. As I pressed the issue before, other before and after have tasted of His cup, as He said would happen. The suffering and agony was purposed by God through the prophets. His former manliness crushed into being so weak He stumbled on the road and had to have another help. What a mystery of awe that the very creator and sustainer of all things had to have help by the creation.

Certainly, death was welcome, for with it brought the finish, the end of the mission, the purpose for which He came.

However, do not consider that the "pains of death" had anything to do with the Wrath of God.

There is no Scriptures that support such thinking.

Rather, just as in the OT sacrificial system, wrath was removed by the purity of both the priest and the blood. The Hebrews tell of the Lord's sacrifice was far greater and eternal compared to all the OT sacrificial offerings. If no wrath was directed toward them, how much less would appear at our Lord's?

 

My friend, there was and is no wrath for the believer nor for the Christ. Which believer in the OT list found in Hebrews 11 suffered the wrath of God?

What sacrifice of the OT was displaying the wrath of God upon the Christ?

For your view to be correct, one must actually insert into the text of Scriptures a mindset that is contrary to the presentation.

Do you not think that had God's wrath been a major part of the crucifixion it would have been written in bold headline print in the pages of prophecy?

Yet, it was not.

It pleased God, does not mean that God had to do anything to be pleased.

Besides, you have yet to address the philosophical issue of how the trinity actually punishes a full member of the trinity?
And, How does one member of the trinity become unholy to deserve that treatment and then again become holy - for does not all who are unclean need the clean to make the unclean clean?

We who are unclean are cleaned by the Redeemer, but if the redeemer became unclean, there remained no redemption for nothing clean can clean an unclean God. Humankind was made for redemption, not God.

So, even from a philosophical standpoint, the PSA is error.

It is doubly wrong. Wrong by scripture, wrong by logic.

 

Again, Christ being fully human does not equate Him having holy and pure blood. If most Baptist churches teach that, then they are in grave error.

 

I have looked back at the posts.

The false doctrine is that which contains God’s wrath was poured out upon Christ.


You, of course don’t recognize it as false, but it is nevertheless false.

 

Was Christ imputed His ppl’s sins?

 

So you think God dumping His wrath upon the Son is some manner less paganism?

Why not discard the PSA presentation in favor of clear presentation in Scripture, which God is not seen as recipient of some pagan blood ritual, but as one reconciled totally by His own work and nothing from humankind other then being the tool?

 

Are you presenting His blood was less then pure and holy? That the “fullness of God” would be found in less then pure and holy?