Calvinist's belief VS TEV

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Maybe this will help Askjo if he/she is still around.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-9-1.htm

John MacArthur believes both the death of Christ and the blood of Christ, however the problem is what he wrote his own commentary on Hebrews. He used the word, "symbol." Why the symbol?

 

[Ransom]

Because the blood that was shed and sprinkled in the sacrifices was symbolic of remission of sin.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Because the blood that was shed and sprinkled in the sacrifices was symbolic of remission of sin.

David Cloud answered on the word, "symbolic." He wrote: "Blood is NOT merely symbolic for death when we are speaking of Christ's Atonement. God's law demands death AND the shedding of blood for remission of sin (Lev. 17:11; Eze. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:22). The Old Testament sacrifices depicted how the Lord Jesus Christ would pay the price for sin. The blood of the O.T. sacrifices did not merely depict Christ's death; it depicted Christ's BLOOD. His death alone could not save us; His blood was required. In Romans 5:9-10 we see the two together. Verse 9 says we are justified "by his blood," and verse 10 says we are reconciled "by his death." "

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Dr. Bob Griffin, you are right that Jesus died for us, but how would the death forgive us our sins?

Ask God. He set it up! He demanded His Son die and that death, burial and resurrection is the precious Gospel I preach.

Let me ask you:
Are you implying that Jesus actually went to Golgotha after His crucifixion and actually scooped up some blood and sand from the roadside and actually ascended and took a cup or two (how much blood is needed?) to heaven and actually sprinkled it on an actual mercy seat there or my sin would not have actually been covered by His death?

(IF you believe this, then we shall start another thread and discuss it.)

My salvation was from "a lamb slain before the foundation of the world". A "done deal" in God's eyes. "For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all time!"

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Maybe this will help Askjo if he/she is still around.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-9-1.htm

John MacArthur believes both the death of Christ and the blood of Christ, however the problem is what he wrote his own commentary on Hebrews. He used the word, "symbol." Why the symbol? </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, Take the time to read more of what the man teaches. Cloud takes a limited set of MacArthur's words then proceeds to put words into his mouth... this practice is otherwise known as lying.

symbol

\Sym"bol\, n. [L. symbolus, symbolum, Gr. sy`mbolon a sign by which one knows or infers a thing, from ? to throw or put together, to compare; sy`n with + ? to throw: cf. F. symbole. Cf. Emblem, Parable.] 1. A visible sign or representation of an idea; anything which suggests an idea or quality, or another thing, as by resemblance or by convention; an emblem; a representation; a type; a figure; as, the lion is the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that the blood is symbolic of Christ's death without diminishing the value of either whatsoever. Once again, the issue becomes whether one thinks His physical blood had some kind of mystical qualities and is in some literal way applied to us or our sins. When the soldiers scourged Jesus they surely got some of His blood on them- did this blood save them? Do you think there is some reservoir of His blood in the spiritual realm that is somehow applied to us or our sin? Do you think His blood would have been sufficient without Him dying to save us?

The symbolism is an absolute necessity to connect His sacrificial death with the OT system of sacrifice. The "blood" necessarily connects with Christ death, not simply His bleeding.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:

[qb] In Romans 5:9-10 we see the two together. Verse 9 says we are justified "by his blood," and verse 10 says we are reconciled "by his death." " [/b]

that only tells me that the two have the same referent.

talk about a prooftext!

remember Peter's words to Ananias n Sapphira? unless u argue fr that passage that God n the HOly Spirit r two discrete entities, that Peter was trying to CONTRAST the two ...

 

[Ransom]

Askjo said:

David Cloud answered on the word, "symbolic."

And David Cloud is wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Death can't forgive us but the blood of Christ.[/qutoe]The blood and death go together. Leviticus 17:11 reminds that that the shedding of blood is good by means of the life. It is the life that is important. The word "blood" in Scripture in reference to the atonement is a synonym for death. The Rom 5:9-10 passage shows the parallelism involved where two different words means the same thing.

The KJV is correct on Romans 3:25 reflecting the "blood". The TEV is incorrect because of its controversy with the misinterpretation itself.

This is true, but you are confusing this with MacArthur and the rest of us orthodox theologians who would disagree with the TEV, but fully affirm that the "blood" means the same things as "death" does. The wages of sin is __________ (get out your KJV1611 or the KJV that you currently use and play "fill in the blank.") You will see the orthodox position.

you are right that Jesus died for us, but how would the death forgive us our sins?

It is the doctrine called "Consequent absolute necessity." It means that once God decided to save sinners, death was the only proper payment. As Bob said, it is God who decided it, not us.