Is Your Preaching Stained With Blood?

[The Biblicist]

I beg to differ with you. I recommend a well respected work that covers the most popular Christian doctrines during the patristic and early church age: Early Church Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. While Kelly is not the only word on the patristic and early church age he is one the most recognized scholars about that age and appeals to Reformed and non-Reformed theologians.

As far as your personal experience, that is anecdotal.

The problem is that anything can be drawn from secular uninspired history to prove anything. The bottom line is not the uninspired traditions of men but the inspired words of God.

The inspired writers' use and emphasis on the words "the blood" along with providing a multitude of reasons why they do is markedly different from the non-essential blood atonement writers. The reason is that they hold to two different kinds of atonement. The Biblical writers say that the shedding of Christs blood was absolutely essential for the remission of sins while the non-essential blood advocates deny that.

The non-essential blood advocates try to divert and pervert the facts by pointing to sacrifices that were bloodless. However, the writer of Hebrews admits that some were bloodless but in the very same breath says the shedding of blood is necessary for remission of sins and that is why Christ's blood had to be shed - Heb. 9:12-21.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

First, some people are misrepresenting the early atonement theories.

Second, the later theories were developed by medieval legalistic Romanism and legalistic Protestant Reformers, especially Calvin. These theories were not held by the early church because the early church did not find them in scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

The thread has to do with the atonement. And it is not my history, it is history, period.

You cannot prohibit me from posting here. You are not a dictator. Atonement is particularly relevant to this thread; thus, my posts are not off topic.

But Thomas were you not the one who in your very first two posts claimed you did not want to post here because you would be attacked or did I misread your posts? Now you are demanding the very opposite of what you were declining to do?? So which is it?

 

[Revmitchell]

First, some people are misrepresenting the early atonement theories.

Second, the later theories were developed by medieval legalistic Romanism and legalistic Protestant Reformers, especially Calvin. These theories were not held by the early church because the early church did not find them in scripture.

Ok I see you are going to maintain your childish agenda. Maybe you should try a little self control.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The problem is that anything can be drawn from secular uninspired history to prove anything. The bottom line is not the uninspired traditions of men but the inspired words of God.

The inspired writers' use and emphasis on the words "the blood" along with providing a multitude of reasons why they do is markedly different from the non-essential blood atonement writers. The reason is that they hold to two different kinds of atonement. The Biblical writers say that the shedding of Christs blood was absolutely essential for the remission of sins while the non-essential blood advocates deny that.

The non-essential blood advocates try to divert and pervert the facts by pointing to sacrifices that were bloodless. However, the writer of Hebrews admits that some were bloodless but in the very same breath says the shedding of blood is necessary for remission of sins and that is why Christ's blood had to be shed - Heb. 9:12-21.

The source of your atonement theory was an uninspired man who invented a theory unknown until him.

 

[Revmitchell]

But Thomas were you not the one who in your very first two posts claimed you did not want to post here because you would be attacked or did I misread your posts? Now you are demanding the very opposite of what you were declining to do?? So which is it?

That was just his disingenuous attempt at jumping in this thread with his agenda. Not very honest.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Ok I see you are going to maintain your childish agenda. Maybe you should try a little self control.

What agenda would that be, and how is it childish? If your charges had any substance or factual basis, you wouldn't have to resort to denigration and insults. But that's your MO, isn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

That was just his disingenuous attempt at jumping in this thread with his agenda. Not very honest.

Yep! I also noticed that he was the very first one to call others names ("junior") and make personal attacks, the very thing he was attempting to charge others with.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That was just his disingenuous attempt at jumping in this thread with his agenda. Not very honest.

And this from the king of liars that you are.

You are about as phony as anyone I've ever known.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Notice that Herald and I were having a good discussion without denigrating each other.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yep! I also noticed that he was the very first one to call others names ("junior") and make personal attacks, the very thing he was attempting to charge others with.

You are a liar.

You and such ilk as the "Rev" are incapable of having honest conversation.

 

[The Biblicist]

What agenda would that be, and how is it childish? If your charges had any substance or factual basis, you wouldn't have to resort to denigration and insults. But that's your MO, isn't it?

I have provided a post to address YOUR POSITION not your person and yet you do not respond to that. It seems you are more interested in personal fights as that is subject of the bulk of your posts. Just go back and read your own posts. I would like to stick to positions not persons. Care to take up my post? I made no personal attacks on you in that post just attacked your position. Fair enough?

 

[The Biblicist]

You are a liar.

You and such ilk as the "Rev" are incapable of having honest conversation.

Look, junior, I am able to more than hold my own against anyone here. Just because I don't like confrontation doesn't mean I am incapable of handling it. So, if that's what you desire, bring it on. - POST 35 - Thomas Hewley

I could find nothing previous to this posts except attacks on your POSITION not one word about your person.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have provided a post to address YOUR POSITION not your person and yet you do not respond to that. It seems you are more interested in personal fights as that is subject of the bulk of your posts. Just go back and read your own posts. I would like to stick to positions not persons. Care to take up my post? I made no personal attacks on you in that post just attacked your position. Fair enough?

The post you just quoted was a response to the supposed "Rev".

And the post of yours that I last quoted was a direct personal attack on me.

 

[The Biblicist]

And this from the king of liars that you are.

You are about as phony as anyone I've ever known.

No one on this forum in this thread has addressed you in such personal terms as your are now addressing others. No one! They have asked you not to change the subject but not attacked your person. You are the only one on this thread attacking the persons of others, the very thing you charged others with. The proof is there for anyone who simply reads the exchanges with you in this thread.

Notice, I am not attacking your person, I am simply pointing out the facts that can be easily verified by checking your own posts.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one on this forum in this thread has addressed you in such personal terms as your are now addressing others. No one! They have asked you not to change the subject but not attacked your person. You are the only one on this thread attacking the persons of others, the very thing you charged others with. The proof is there for anyone who simply reads the exchanges with you in this thread.

Notice, I am not attacking your person, I am simply pointing out the facts that can be easily verified by checking your own posts.

Just let it go I have reported his posts and asked the thread be closed since he cannot behave himself.

 

[The Biblicist]

The post you just quoted was a response to the supposed "Rev".

And the post of yours that I last quoted was a direct personal attack on me.

The only post that I have posted on the POSITION that I take is found just a couple of pages back. I never attacked your person in any way. I simply pointed out facts that can be eaisly verified by reading your own posts and words that came from your own mouth. I never called you a "liar" or a "phony" or addressed you as "Junior" or any other derogatory names. You are the only one on this thread addressing people in that personal manner.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No one on this forum in this thread has addressed you in such personal terms as your are now addressing others. No one! They have asked you not to change the subject but not attacked your person. You are the only one on this thread attacking the persons of others, the very thing you charged others with. The proof is there for anyone who simply reads the exchanges with you in this thread.

Notice, I am not attacking your person, I am simply pointing out the facts that can be easily verified by checking your own posts.

Yes, the facts are there. When people post untruths about me, I call them what they are -- lies, and liars.

When people initiate denigrating posts to me, I answer them. I'm not taking crap off of anybody.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Just let it go I have reported his posts and asked the thread be closed since he cannot behave himself.

Shows what kind of trash you are. I have not reported anyone yet, although I could and should have. I will from now on.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The only post that I have posted on the POSITION that I take is found just a couple of pages back. I never attacked your person in any way. I simply pointed out facts that can be eaisly verified by reading your own posts and words that came from your own mouth. I never called you a "liar" or a "phony" or addressed you as "Junior" or any other derogatory names. You are the only one on this thread addressing people in that personal manner.

The person I addressed as "junior" -- read his posts to me. Funny, isn't it, how the person who responds to initial insults gets accused.

All the hypocrites here can report me all they want. I just hope there is equal justice meted out to the initiators.