• 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!

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

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I agree that Jesus had to die but He had to die shedding that precious blood WHERE the power to save was located - in the blood itself in opposition to his statement above "I do not believe that there is...there was something in that blood itself that saves people".
How is the power to save vested in the red, liquid blood which ran down the cross into the dust and dirt of the ground? Was the power to saved also vested in His perfect, sinless life? Or in his sacrificial death?

Was Paul (or the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words) confused when he (or He) said:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

It seems odd to me that if, as you say, salvific grace is vested solely in the blood, why didn't Paul say so?

On the other hand if "the shed blood" is a way of saying "all of the above" then Paul (and the Holy Spirit) would be right in saying it is the death of Christ, of which the shed blood is proof, and the resurrection, which the eye witnesses are proof, that saves us.

Salvation is vested in all of His sacrifice. If we say it is vested solely, or even primarily, in the blood, we do great violence to not only His sacrifice, but to the scriptures themselves, as the above verses clearly show.

Please, don't fall for the self-serving rhetoric of an Arminian Methodist who made up the whole issue so he could throw rocks at a man who left BJU to attend Los Angeles Pacific College (Now Azusa Pacific University) a regionally accredited school.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
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
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that believing in the full and complete sacrifice of Christ is somehow attaching my name to the name of a man? I agree with you on a lot of things, does that mean I have attached my name to yours? Or does that mean we have both read the scriptures with understanding and came to the same conclusion?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How is the power to save vested in the red, liquid blood which ran down the cross into the dust and dirt of the ground. Was the power to saved also vested in His perfect, sinless life? Or in his sacrificial death?

Was Paul (or the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words) confused when he (or He) said:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

It seems odd to me that if, as you say, salvific grace is vested solely in the blood, why didn't Paul say so?

On the other hand if "the shed blood" is a way of saying "all of the above" then Paul (and the Holy Spirit) would be right in saying it is the death of Christ, of which the shed blood is proof, and the resurrection, which the eye witnesses are proof, that saves us.

Salvation is vested in all of His sacrifice. If we say it is vested solely, or even primarily, in the blood, we do great violence to not only His sacrifice, but to the scriptures themselves, as the above verses clearly show.

Please, don't fall for the self-serving rhetoric of an Arminian Methodist who made up the whole issue so he could throw rocks at a man who left BJU to attend Los Angeles Pacific College (Now Azusa Pacific University) a regionally accredited school.
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
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that believing in the full and complete sacrifice of Christ is somehow attaching my name to the name of a man? I agree with you on a lot of things, does that mean I have attached my name to yours? Or does that mean we have both read the scriptures with understanding and came to the same conclusion?
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
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I do not know how it could be made any clearer than it is stated in Lev 17:11. I stand with Tom in that the blood is inclusive and I will add Jesus, though he was Son, through the things he suffered, learned- the obedience unto the absence of soul living being in the blood of his flesh on the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him Phil 2:9 by, Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; Gal 1:1
Why must it be "I stand with Tom"?
Why not I agree with Tom?

HankD
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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—
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why must it be "I stand with Tom"?
Why not I agree with Tom?

HankD
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.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
You are welcome.

Help me out when I need it.

HankD
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To "stand" with someone has the nuance of a condemnation partnership against someone else whereas to disagree is simply to disagree IMO.


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

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I can see that. Didn't think it at the time but I can see what you mean.
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
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Last edited:

harrelljr99

New Member
Site Supporter
I disagree.

The blood of Christ did not need to be made efficacious, He was holy from His conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. That would of necessity include His blood

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

The cross was necessary to fulfill scripture at the right time and place not because there was unholy blood in His veins and arteries waiting to become efficacious - waiting to see whether He would sin or not, He was not able to sin. He is/was God in the flesh.

James 1
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

what if; what if; what if...

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
 

harrelljr99

New Member
Site Supporter
This does not help you. The Father ordained that the Son would suffer as He did. So it must be that the Father had something in mind other than the simple shedding of blood. It was the obedience of death on the cross after a life of obedience.

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
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
“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.
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
 

harrelljr99

New Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Top