Magic Blood Theory

[AustinC]

In a closed thread on atonement @JonC concluded a point by saying, "Who was paid? Nobody was paid. We were bought with a price. Christ's blood."

The only conclusion I could make from this is that Jesus shed blood was magical blood that didn't pay anyone or anything, but somehow bought something that cost something. And the conclusion is...Christ's blood.

If it does nothing yet buys something, but pays no one, I can only conclude it's magic blood. What else could it be?

Now, if you're as confused by Jon's statement as I am, I am pretty sure I just confused you even more because, well, it's just a bundle of confusing confusion, but somehow it's biblical and everything else is just philosophical without any biblical support so we got that going for us, which is nice.

 

[AustinC]

Oh, and somehow if you say Colossians 2, the magic is invoked. Say it with me. "Colossians 2."
Did it work? No!? It's supposed to work if you say "Colossians 2."

(How many have turned on your snarkometer at this point?)

Just remember, it's biblical not philosophical like y'all.

 

[Duckie]

In a closed thread on atonement @JonC concluded a point by saying, "Who was paid? Nobody was paid. We were bought with a price. Christ's blood."

The only conclusion I could make from this is that Jesus shed blood was magical blood that didn't pay anyone or anything, but somehow bought something that cost something. And the conclusion is...Christ's blood.

If it does nothing yet buys something, but pays no one, I can only conclude it's magic blood. What else could it be?

Now, if you're as confused by Jon's statement as I am, I am pretty sure I just confused you even more because, well, it's just a bundle of confusing confusion, but somehow it's biblical and everything else is just philosophical without any biblical support so we got that going for us, which is nice.

Literally being God's only son placed in a womb by the Holy Spirit, it isn't that His blood is "magic" but Holy and pure; undeserving of punishment, but sent because of the Father's love, mercy, and compassion for us.

 

[percho]

Did the following have anything to Jesus being born?

o·o·cyte
(ō'ō-sīt),
Female gamete or sex cell. When fertilized by a sperm, an oocyte is capable of developing into a new individual of the same species; during matuation, the oocyte, like the sperm, undergoes a halving of its chromosomal complement so that, at its union with the male gamete, the species number of chromosome (46 in humans) is maintained; yolk contained in the oocytes of different animal species varies greatly in amount and distribution, which influences the pattern of the cleavage divisions.

Was a oocyte of the virgin Mary caused to divide out of Spirit?

τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός --- from Matt 1:20

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh, and somehow if you say Colossians 2, the magic is invoked. Say it with me. "Colossians 2."
Did it work? No!? It's supposed to work if you say "Colossians 2."

(How many have turned on your snarkometer at this point?)

Just remember, it's biblical not philosophical like y'all.

Lol.
Yes...Roman's 8:1 was also invoked in a magical way.
That is a fine verse for sure.
It was explained to us that believe it, that somehow we need to believe it, but evidently in a magical way also.
We are not to understand the reason that the revealed wrath of Romans 1 does not come our way is that Jesus is the propitiation turning that much deserved wrath away from us....as the God given solution as He suffered in our place.The broken law of God was fully satisfied by His active and passive obedience...even unto death on the cross.
So....there is no condemnation to those in saving union In Christ.
No...we.just make as if we were not "children of wrath even as others".But God who is rich in mercy needed to save us.
Why was Paul all caught up on this "wrath of God" thing?
Did he not read Col.2?.....oh wait, hold on, he wrote Col.2 also?
Must be something else....what could it be?

 

[JonC]

In a closed thread on atonement @JonC concluded a point by saying, "Who was paid? Nobody was paid. We were bought with a price. Christ's blood."

The only conclusion I could make from this is that Jesus shed blood was magical blood that didn't pay anyone or anything, but somehow bought something that cost something. And the conclusion is...Christ's blood.

If it does nothing yet buys something, but pays no one, I can only conclude it's magic blood. What else could it be?

Now, if you're as confused by Jon's statement as I am, I am pretty sure I just confused you even more because, well, it's just a bundle of confusing confusion, but somehow it's biblical and everything else is just philosophical without any biblical support so we got that going for us, which is nice.

That is a very strange conclusion ..."magic blood"????

I served in the Army. I had friends who paid the ultimate price for their service...they died in the line of duty. Who did they pay? Did they have "magic blood"?
No, and nobody. But they still paid a price in defense of our nation's interest

The freedoms we enjoy in the US was bought with a price. Who was paid? Nobody. Yet there was still a price paid.

Do I believe as you....that God caused God to experience God's wrath instead of us to pay God for us so that we would be freed from slavery to God and made slaves of God?

No, of course not. I am a Christian who believes the Bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

That is a very strange conclusion ..."magic blood"????

I served in the Army. I had friends who paid the ultimate price for their service...they died in the line of duty. Who did they pay? Did they have "magic blood"?
No, and nobody. But they still paid a price in defense of our nation's interest

The freedoms we enjoy in the US was bought with a price. Who was paid? Nobody. Yet there was still a price paid.

Do I believe as you....that God caused God to experience God's wrath instead of us to pay God for us so that we would be freed from slavery to God and made slaves of God?

No, of course not. I am a Christian who believes the Bible.

No...you are one that denies the work of the triune God in sending Jesus taking on a body of flesh, because the children were flesh and blood He took part of the same .
He as substitute took our penalty and destroyed Satan.
Wrath had to be turned away.
God's holy law was answered....not ignored.
We actually believe what is taught.The sacrificial system taught many lessons. We believe those lessons.Aaron walked you through several positions which you two tried to ignore by explaining it away.

 

[Iconoclast]

Another thing....the use of the funny emoji.....You took away the ones that indicate negative reactions to what is posted.
I do not see a you have got to be kidding me emoji.That makes no sense emoji,How ironic emoji
Also.keep your hypocrisy in check a bit.....
thank you baptistboard my enemies have been removed...look familiar? I remember someone who posted this several times.
I guess that use was okay???
Do not worry about such things..worry about your drifting away from truth.
This condescending thing of suggesting those who do not follow your aberrant ideas need to read their bible as if they do not is quite foolish.
Or....you try and put people in a position of defending people from history that they did not quote.....Aquinas, Augustine etc.
No one quoted them yet you deflect using this over and over giving your fractured fairy tale of church history.

 

[JonC]

No...you are one that denies the work of the triune God in sending Jesus taking on a body of flesh, because the children were flesh and blood He took part of the same .
He as substitute took our penalty and destroyed Satan.
Wrath had to be turned away.
God's holy law was answered....not ignored.
We actually believe what is taught.The sacrificial system taught many lessons. We believe those lessons.Aaron walked you through several positions which you two tried to ignore by explaining it away.

This is a false statement.

I have taught only Scripture here. The only thing I have denied is what you have added to God's Word (what is not written but you believe taught....i.e., you filling in "the blanks" you believe exist).

God sent His Son, offered Him as a sin offering, was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief, forsook Him to suffer and die, raised Him on the 3rd day and glorified Him, giving Him a name above every name.

Christ died for our sins, lay down His own life for us, suffered and died at the hands of the wicked which was the predetermined plan of God, bore our sins bodily, was bruised for our transgressions, shared our infirmity, and by His stripes we are healed.

Christ is the "Last Adam", the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, our High Priest, our Mediator, God's Righteous One, and our Redeemer who became a life giving Spirit.

Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and we are saved by His life. In Christ we escape the wrath to come. All judgment has been given Christ.


You and Aaron provided verses, but then revised philosophy as if the passage somehow justified the philosophy.

The difference between you and I is our view of Scripture. I believe Scripture is perfect and complete. You believe Scripture itself incomplete, something that takes a supporting role to what you believe is taught. You believe on "progressive revelation", that God spoke through the Reformed theologians, pastors, and teachers you have chosen to follow. I believe the only test of doctrine is Scripture.

What I have rejected is the teachings you add to Scripture. I believe your philosophy is flawed, therefore you adding it to God's Word only corrupts your understanding.

You are an infant, beloved of God but awaiting a time when you can remove the training wheels (the humanistic philosophy through which you now understand Scripture) and grow in faith and in the Spirit. You simply do not understand the redemption through which you have been saved. That does not make you less saved, but there should come a time you outgrow human wisdom and experience true growth. I look forward to fellowship with you when that time comes....in this life or the next.

 

[JonC]

Another thing....the use of the funny emoji.....You took away the ones that indicate negative reactions to what is posted.
I do not see a you have got to be kidding me emoji.That makes no sense emoji,How ironic emoji
Also.keep your hypocrisy in check a bit.....
thank you baptistboard my enemies have been removed...look familiar? I remember someone who posted this several times.
I guess that use was okay???
Do not worry about such things..worry about your drifting away from truth.
This condescending thing of suggesting those who do not follow your aberrant ideas need to read their bible as if they do not is quite foolish.
Or....you try and put people in a position of defending people from history that they did not quote.....Aquinas, Augustine etc.
No one quoted them yet you deflect using this over and over giving your fractured fairy tale of church history.

I do not believe adults need negative ratings. As an adult we should be able to articulate our thoughts and express them in both verbal and written form (baring any handicap).



I do not see an issue with using emojis in a reply (a casual, NEVER a formal reply).

But just checking a "funny" or "prayers" box for a post that is neither intended as humor or requesting prayers is juvenile. It is childish behavior.

When I was a child I thought like a child, I behaved like a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things.


Going forward, please consider putting away childish things.

 

[DaveXR650]

God sent His Son, offered Him as a sin offering, was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief, forsook Him to suffer and die, raised Him on the 3rd day and glorified Him, giving Him a name above every name.

Christ died for our sins, lay down His own life for us, suffered and died at the hands of the wicked which was the predetermined plan of God, bore our sins bodily, was bruised for our transgressions, shared our infirmity, and by His stripes we are healed.

Christ is the "Last Adam", the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, our High Priest, our Mediator, God's Righteous One, and our Redeemer who became a life giving Spirit.

Man is reconciled to God through Christ's death and we are saved by His life. In Christ we escape the wrath to come. All judgment has been given Christ.

Jon. I know there have been so many posts on this probably close to 1000 at this point but there is nothing above that I don't agree with. What I can never understand is that that looks like penal substitution to me. If you are trying to say that PSA is all about wrath then I'm gonna need some references. I have not found that to be so in my limited reading. I believe we are by nature "children of wrath" and I believe wrath is clearly a reaction by God to sin that scripture has decided to use for our benefit. I also believe that if Christ died for our sins, and in Christ we escape the wrath to come as you say above and he was a sin offering and God was pleased to crush him - well in my view that sufficiently describes wrath being put on his Son. I have come across several reformed writers explaining PSA who specifically state that God was not mad at Jesus. Given the obvious link of wrath to our sin and the link of our sin to Jesus death, and the fact that propitiation means propitiation, I don't think that PSA is wrong. And also given the fact that the reformers did not view PSA as the total explanation of the value of the atonement I really don't understand what you are doing.

One last thing, those paragraphs above put you on solid ground as a fellow believer in my book - it's just that it looks to me like an explanation of PSA.

 

[JonC]

Let's make this thread a bit more honest.

What did I really claim?

1. God sent Jesus as a sin offering that we may be saved.

2. On the Cross God was reconciling man to Himself. We now have the ministry of reconciliation.

3. The Son became flesh, became man, bore our sins bodily, and shared in our infirmaty. Because we were flesh Christ became flesh.

4. Christ became a curse for us, was made sin for us. He died for our sin. He suffered the wages we deserved (the wages of sin, which is death). Man is reconciled to God by Christ's death, men are saved by His life.

5. Christ 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.

6. Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. All judgment has been given Him and in Him there is no condemnation. In Him we escape the wrath to come. This is the wrath of God against the wicked.

7. Christ won the victory over evil, over Satan, and freed us from the bonds of sin and death.

What did @Iconoclast post that I said?

No...you are one that denies the work of the triune God in sending Jesus taking on a body of flesh, because the children were flesh and blood He took part of the same .
He as substitute took our penalty and destroyed Satan.
Wrath had to be turned away.

Now - LOOK at what I have posted and at @Iconoclast claim about what I said. Discern who is being honest here and who is trying to obscure the disagreement.

What did I really reject? I rejected the additions others read into God's Word (added to the text of Scripture).

 

[percho]

IMHO From creation man was fleshly, sold under sin because God was going to be manifest in the flesh, as the Son of God to destroy the devil and his works through redemption.

Somehow this also requires the wrath of God being satisfied.

It also required that, the faith, be of (see Mark 11:22 thus genitive) God, rather than something that proceeds from the mind of the flesh unto it's salvation.

Someone prove me wrong.

 

[JonC]

Jon. I know there have been so many posts on this probably close to 1000 at this point but there is nothing above that I don't agree with. What I can never understand is that that looks like penal substitution to me. If you are trying to say that PSA is all about wrath then I'm gonna need some references. I have not found that to be so in my limited reading. I believe we are by nature "children of wrath" and I believe wrath is clearly a reaction by God to sin that scripture has decided to use for our benefit. I also believe that if Christ died for our sins, and in Christ we escape the wrath to come as you say above and he was a sin offering and God was pleased to crush him - well in my view that sufficiently describes wrath being put on his Son. I have come across several reformed writers explaining PSA who specifically state that God was not mad at Jesus. Given the obvious link of wrath to our sin and the link of our sin to Jesus death, and the fact that propitiation means propitiation, I don't think that PSA is wrong. And also given the fact that the reformers did not view PSA as the total explanation of the value of the atonement I really don't understand what you are doing.

One last thing, those paragraphs above put you on solid ground as a fellow believer in my book - it's just that it looks to me like an explanation of PSA.

I spoke with others who point out most who hold Penal Substitution Theory share my objections, if asked directly. So it may simply be an issue of labels.

What is not in Scripture is Christ experiencing God's wrath instead of us, Chrust's death appeasing God, and Christ dying instead of us. Neither is the idea God separated from Christ orvthat Christcexperienced the equivalent of what the wicked will experience at Judgment.

 

[percho]

and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this -- judgment, Heb 9:27

What is the end result of the sin? Death - afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death. James 1:15

Read chapter 31 of Numbers. - Would you say that through the children of Israel the wrath of God was poured out upon the Midianites?

Was that their judgement? 1 John 2:2 and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this -- judgment, Heb 9:27



Just a thought.

 

[JonC]

IMHO From creation man was fleshly, sold under sin because God was going to be manifest in the flesh, as the Son of God to destroy the devil and his works through redemption.

Somehow this also requires the wrath of God being satisfied.

It also required that, the faith, be of (see Mark 11:22 thus genitive) God, rather than something that proceeds from the mind of the flesh unto it's salvation.

Someone prove me wrong.

I agree depending on what you mean by "wrath of God satisfied".

If you mean that there is no wrath against Christ (there never was) and in Him we escape the wrath to come (clothed in His righteousness), then I agree.

If you mean God could only forgive sin after or by punishing sin, then I disagree.

 

[DaveXR650]

OK. I'll accept that. After 900 posts we will disagree on the last paragraph especially. Is there some group or another theologian that you know of that is teaching this? Earlier, someone said, I can't remember if it was you, that there were even reformed people moving away from PSA. I haven't come across any. I'm just curious. I did read where years ago, a couple of campus ministries split over the atonement but I can't get any specifics. I'm just curious.

I strongly believe that penal substitution and God's wrath against sin are central to the faith and would have no trouble charging "heresy", except that what you state you do believe looks like PSA to me.

 

[percho]

I just had another thought.

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires (lust) of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Is that inclusive of all including Adam?

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires (lust) of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

and each one is tempted, by his own desires (lust) being led away and enticed, afterward the desire (lust) having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death. James 1:14,15

Did the lust of the flesh, of Adam, precede or proceed his sin?

The sin was the result of the manner in which he was created.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, < Why.

What, must take place, in order for God to proceed with his plan tp destroy the devil and his works.

Will it require the wrath of God be satisfied against all ungodliness? How?

 

[JonC]

OK. I'll accept that. After 900 posts we will disagree on the last paragraph especially. Is there some group or another theologian that you know of that is teaching this? Earlier, someone said, I can't remember if it was you, that there were even reformed people moving away from PSA. I haven't come across any. I'm just curious. I did read where years ago, a couple of campus ministries split over the atonement but I can't get any specifics. I'm just curious.

I strongly believe that penal substitution and God's wrath against sin are central to the faith and would have no trouble charging "heresy", except that what you state you do believe looks like PSA to me.

Yes, there are many who teach this.

If you want ancient authors there is Justin Martyr, Augustine, Gregory, Ignatius, Clement, Jerome, and John Chrysostom (just to name afew) a few.

As far as more modern theology goes you have Anabaptist Theology and Eastern theology.

Modern groups include many Anglican churches, some Baptist churches, all Amish churches, all Mennonite churches, and all Eastern churches. There are Reformed churches that have moved from Penal Substitution Theory and rely on Scripture as well (many Presbyterian churches, many in the Federation of Reformed Churches).

Penal Substitution Theory has been a minority view (a large minority in the Western world) since its arrival.

 

[Iconoclast]

OK. I'll accept that. After 900 posts we will disagree on the last paragraph especially. Is there some group or another theologian that you know of that is teaching this? Earlier, someone said, I can't remember if it was you, that there were even reformed people moving away from PSA. I haven't come across any. I'm just curious. I did read where years ago, a couple of campus ministries split over the atonement but I can't get any specifics. I'm just curious.

I strongly believe that penal substitution and God's wrath against sin are central to the faith and would have no trouble charging "heresy", except that what you state you do believe looks like PSA to me.

What you have being posted is our duo trying to use wording as close to the truth as they can, without agreeing with PSA.lol
This way....they give an appearance of as they claim being biblical without being biblical at all.lol
I am posting on my phone now , but when work is done I will attempt to demonstrate this by simply looking at what they said but showing that what they said explains nothing.What they said does not answer what was asked.

An example; in a different post JonC posts:[ I believe Christ died for us.I believe that means Christ died for us]

Well, he really went way out on a limb there!
He does not explain;
why was this necessary?
who was the us?
is there any reason Christ had to die ?
Did the trinity have anything to do with it?
Was God only a spectator?
Was it a Covenat death?

nothing of any substance at all...unbelievers know Jesus died, so just repeating partial verses explains nothing