On what Scripture do you base your belief that the blood of Christ is in heaven on the mercy seat?Originally posted by DocCas:
I believe the blood of Christ is in heaven, on the mercy seat, and that it, like He, is perfect and precious, but to try to say more concerning the blood than the bible says, is to make His blood an idol.
-
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!
Sorry, I can't drop it. Maybe it's important!
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
Pastor Larry, have you been away? I figured you would be in here sometime.
I was away ... I am a historic fundamentalist. Thomas is right about the true fundmenatalist being a modern evangelical. the Evangelicals today are the ones who departed, not the fundamentalists. We are the evangelicals.
Daniel David
New Member
I meant vacation or time off or something. I wouldn't call any Detroit grad anything but a fundy.
It is on the Mercy Seat before the Father God in Heaven, placed there by the High Priest, Jesus Christ, the Sacrificial Lamb Himself, the Son of the Living God. Supernatural yes. Holy yes. Divine yes. Not some magic potion. Every drop of that Blood is precious, every drop. Shed for me, spent for me, so that I could be purchased by It.
DocCas
New Member
All of Hebrews 9 talks of the blood, and verse 12 says Christ entered the holy place, which has to be the heavenly tabernacle as he could not, under the law, enter the earthly holy of holies. Verse 24 confirms this. Although there is no clear statement that Christ sprinkled His blood on the heavenly mercy seat, 10.1 does say the law was a shadow of things to come, and it seems to me that the shadow was cast by something. I believe the OT practice was a type of Christ's entering the heavenly holy of holies and sprinkling His own blood on the mercy seat as proof of the sacrifice, just as the sprinkling of the blood in the OT was proof of the sacrifice.
However, with all that said, let me add it is not imperative to believe such, but only an inference from the type of OT sacrifices. The blood is the evidence of the sacrifice, not the substance of the sacrifice. And it was the substance of the sacrifice which purchased our redemption.
However, with all that said, let me add it is not imperative to believe such, but only an inference from the type of OT sacrifices. The blood is the evidence of the sacrifice, not the substance of the sacrifice. And it was the substance of the sacrifice which purchased our redemption.
Can we compromise and say that Christ's blood is holy and precious?
Is anything gained or lost by affirming or denying that Christ's blood is "divine" if we maintain His full deity and full humanity?.
And what does that mean "divine blood"?
Was His flesh "divine"?
"and the word (logos) was made flesh..."
What about His DNA? Is that "divine"?
Why should one part of Him be divine and not another? did he have "divine" hair?
The only passage in Scripture that comes close to speaking of "divine" blood is 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.
Paul says that God purchased the Church with His own blood. The wages of sin is death. The shed blood of Christ (His only-begotten Son) is the redemption currency and as such it is far more precious than silver and gold.
As to where the blood of Christ is located, I think DocCas has the probable answer, but even at that, if God sees every fallen sparrow and the individual hairs on our individual heads are numbered, then He surely knows where every molecule of that precious blood is located (if anyone is worried about it being lost).
So, if it did flow out into the dirt, He created the dirt "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".
Why do so many of you fret about these things?
HankD
[ September 05, 2002, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
Maverick
Member
The Trinity was all Spirit until Christ took on human flesh and spirit has no blood. Blood is a human thing. Since the sin nature was not transferred by God you might say it was definitely innocent blood like as was Adam and Eve's in the garden. That would certainly go along with Him being the second Adam. Then you see that IF I remember correctly a child normally gets the blood type of the father. In this case, that blood was definitely created by the Father and hence would be divine. This is more like the Certs commercial. Both are correct. Human blood, but innocent since no transfer of sin and divine because the blood type of the Father would be divine. Another miracle of the hypostatic union. This is also how Christ being divine could experience all human emotions, temptations and such, but would not and could not sin.
Indeed, this is why Christ could not have married and bore children. They would be a new race altogether and immortal. His children could have intermarried like Adam and Eve's and a new race both sinless and immortal dwelling with us. Now that would have been an ordeal. We can't bear folks who think they are perfect how would we deal with a race that was perfect?
Indeed, this is why Christ could not have married and bore children. They would be a new race altogether and immortal. His children could have intermarried like Adam and Eve's and a new race both sinless and immortal dwelling with us. Now that would have been an ordeal. We can't bear folks who think they are perfect how would we deal with a race that was perfect?
I was on vacation ... a couple days of golf in northern lower Michigan. Worst golf of the last 10 years for me ...
I appreciate Thomas's explanation. My contention (nicely meant) would be that the blood was, as he said, the demonstration of the sacrifice not the substance of it. The blood, in and of itself, was not the issue. Its sprinkling on teh mercy seat on the ark was symbolic of the bloody sacrifice appeasing the wrath of God for sin. Since the real death and sacrifice came, there was no longer any need to be symbolic about it. I take Heb 9:12 as something on the order of "by virtue of his own blood" rather than "with his own blood in a bowl." I think it is his bloody death that gave him to authority to enter heaven as our propitiation.
Thanks Thomas for your response.
All about Grace
New Member
It is amazing to watch how people will twist Hebrews 2.14 & 9 to try and defend some type of divine blood theory.
A couple of basic questions here that may or may not have been answered:
1) Was the blood that flowed through the veins of Jesus' body different than the blood that flows through every human's body?
I am thinking primarily of the DNA composition of the blood -- don't say, "yes, it was precious." What made it precious is the fact it was shed for sinful humanity.
2) Did Jesus ever "shed" blood during his lifetime? E.g., did he cut his finger and bleed? Did he fall down and skin his knee and bleed? If so, what role did this shed blood play?
3) If the blood of Jesus is "preserved" in heaven on the mercy seat, how did it get there? Was there a basin at the foot of the cross? Was the blood he shed during the scourging also transported to heaven? How about the blood on the whip and clothes and cross and streets of Jerusalem? What portion of the blood was saved and what was not?
If the divine blood THEORY is accurate, it must a) proven from the text & b) shown to be consistent. Neither has happened in this thread.
This fledgling and quickly fading theory has no ground upon which to stand. It was introduced by Hyles and his followers in order to demarcate themselves even further from the mainstream. It has no biblical nor historical basis and should be dismissed (if it should even be taken seriously at all). I know of no major theologian or NT scholar who even addresses it (unless you want to include MacArthur in this crowd).
In no way should we diminish the importance of the shed blood of Christ but in no way should we elevate it to some type of suprahuman blood either.
I go back to my original Olford quote: if we had a vial of the blood of Christ today the best thing we could do is pour it down the sink before people started worshipping it. It seems Olford is right.
BTW, quoting hymns that have to do with the precious shed blood of Jesus bear no weight in the "divine blood" discussion.
A couple of basic questions here that may or may not have been answered:
1) Was the blood that flowed through the veins of Jesus' body different than the blood that flows through every human's body?
I am thinking primarily of the DNA composition of the blood -- don't say, "yes, it was precious." What made it precious is the fact it was shed for sinful humanity.
2) Did Jesus ever "shed" blood during his lifetime? E.g., did he cut his finger and bleed? Did he fall down and skin his knee and bleed? If so, what role did this shed blood play?
3) If the blood of Jesus is "preserved" in heaven on the mercy seat, how did it get there? Was there a basin at the foot of the cross? Was the blood he shed during the scourging also transported to heaven? How about the blood on the whip and clothes and cross and streets of Jerusalem? What portion of the blood was saved and what was not?
If the divine blood THEORY is accurate, it must a) proven from the text & b) shown to be consistent. Neither has happened in this thread.
This fledgling and quickly fading theory has no ground upon which to stand. It was introduced by Hyles and his followers in order to demarcate themselves even further from the mainstream. It has no biblical nor historical basis and should be dismissed (if it should even be taken seriously at all). I know of no major theologian or NT scholar who even addresses it (unless you want to include MacArthur in this crowd).
In no way should we diminish the importance of the shed blood of Christ but in no way should we elevate it to some type of suprahuman blood either.
I go back to my original Olford quote: if we had a vial of the blood of Christ today the best thing we could do is pour it down the sink before people started worshipping it. It seems Olford is right.
BTW, quoting hymns that have to do with the precious shed blood of Jesus bear no weight in the "divine blood" discussion.
Daniel David
New Member
SBCbyGrace, I was just about to ask if you had ever heard of the hymn - Power in the Blood? I then saw your last line. That was great.
Between Jack Hyles, Science Fiction, and bad Hymnal theology, we have successfully turned the perfect blood of Christ into a shroud of Turin theory.
Out like Jack Hyles from fundamentalism.
Between Jack Hyles, Science Fiction, and bad Hymnal theology, we have successfully turned the perfect blood of Christ into a shroud of Turin theory.
Out like Jack Hyles from fundamentalism.
Have you noticed that some people must jab or antagonize in their post. Why couldn't you have said; this is my opinion, and then your comments...which, btw, was very articulate and interesting. I just don't understand the slam?
It is amazing to watch how people will twist Hebrews 2.14 & 9 to try and defend some type of divine blood theory.
I don't mean to be the forum policeman, because it does seem that I have posted several "suggestions" on how we address each other here. I would hate to see this forum digress to the state of some of the others. I believe this would thrill some people to no end. I suggest we leave our "righteous indignation" out of our post. Unless, of course, it is something heretical or blasphemous, that requires a strong rebuke...then let's all get 'em!
Thanks!!!!!!
It is amazing to watch how people will twist Hebrews 2.14 & 9 to try and defend some type of divine blood theory.
I don't mean to be the forum policeman, because it does seem that I have posted several "suggestions" on how we address each other here. I would hate to see this forum digress to the state of some of the others. I believe this would thrill some people to no end. I suggest we leave our "righteous indignation" out of our post. Unless, of course, it is something heretical or blasphemous, that requires a strong rebuke...then let's all get 'em!
All about Grace
New Member
I didn't mean to jab or antagonize. If my post reflected that type of spirit, I apologize. I spend much of my limited forum "discussion" time debating moderates and liberals on other sites, so at times some derision filters into my posts. Perhaps I assumed people would recognize my post was my personal opinion on this issue. I welcome any attempts to refute any position I post (with a loving spirit of course).
I have in no way tapped into my "righteous indignation" reservoir. My comments were intended to be straitforward, stimulating, and challenging. Nothing more or less. I am just looking for consistency in this discussion.
I believe some of the present elevation of the blood of Christ and KJV (for starters) in some circles borderlines on heresy. So ...
Line up the troops. Here comes the strong rebuke police.
I agree that some people can get very dogmatic about certain aspects of their faith. I don't know if the argument about the Blood, or the KJV elevates to the level of heresy....I just don't know. But, I'm sure there are probably some out there that can get so dogmatic about it, that they actually place it in front of Christ himself. Obviously, that would be very dangerous, and would be heresy. I've never witnessed it. I guess an analogy would be the way some have elevated Mary, or the Cross, to some level of deity. I love that ol' cross...but if it weren't for Jesus, it would just be a lower case "t".
Maverick said:
Then you see that IF I remember correctly a child normally gets the blood type of the father. In this case, that blood was definitely created by the Father and hence would be divine.
No, no, no, a thousand times no!
Blood is the product of both parents' genes, just like hair, eyes, spleens, and every other part of the body.
It amazes me that this old wives' tale continues to be repeated over and over again despite being so easily debunked - in this case, even in the very same thread! Does no one bother to just look these things up in a medical textbook?
In fact, why appeal to a textbook when simple observation will suffice? Like DocCas, I too have the same blood type as my mother (O+), but not as my father (O-) - which is a biological impossibility if the genetic material for blood comes exclusively from the father. [Added later by Ransom.]
Sorry if this comes across as "jabbing or antagonizing," and I'm sorry if it wreaks havoc with your personal theology of the Atonement - but it is a brute fact that cannot be ignored.
Indeed, this is why Christ could not have married and bore children. They would be a new race altogether and immortal.
Arguments are only so good as the premises they are based on. Since this one is based on the false premise that blood is derived only from male genes, it is without merit. [Added later by Ransom.]
[ September 06, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Then you see that IF I remember correctly a child normally gets the blood type of the father. In this case, that blood was definitely created by the Father and hence would be divine.
No, no, no, a thousand times no!
Blood is the product of both parents' genes, just like hair, eyes, spleens, and every other part of the body.
It amazes me that this old wives' tale continues to be repeated over and over again despite being so easily debunked - in this case, even in the very same thread! Does no one bother to just look these things up in a medical textbook?
In fact, why appeal to a textbook when simple observation will suffice? Like DocCas, I too have the same blood type as my mother (O+), but not as my father (O-) - which is a biological impossibility if the genetic material for blood comes exclusively from the father. [Added later by Ransom.]
Sorry if this comes across as "jabbing or antagonizing," and I'm sorry if it wreaks havoc with your personal theology of the Atonement - but it is a brute fact that cannot be ignored.
Indeed, this is why Christ could not have married and bore children. They would be a new race altogether and immortal.
Arguments are only so good as the premises they are based on. Since this one is based on the false premise that blood is derived only from male genes, it is without merit. [Added later by Ransom.]
[ September 06, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
It's the same thing with the idea that the mom's blood and the baby's never intermingle. That used to be thought to be true, but no longer-- we now know that the placenta is not the impermeable barrier we once thought it was. So this whole theory is built--not upon scripture, for no one has really posted any scripture in support--but upon two supposed scientific facts that are really scientific untruths.
Daniel David
New Member
Would this be the same as Science Fiction?
Out like that green alien that escaped from the supersecret government cover-up facility.
Daniel David
New Member
I find this statement amazing. I thought the body of Christ laid in a tomb until He resurrected it. When did He sneak out and gather all that blood and take it to heaven? Did He go to heaven and return during the night and get it all? What if they crucified someone else the next day on the same cross?
This is just so weird. By His blood (sacrificial death), He is our faithful High Priest.
Out like the Old Covenant.
[ September 06, 2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]
Bible-belted
New Member
A question:
The "divine blood" idea is meant to extoll Christ's deity is it not?
Then how does that reconcile with the author of Hebrews' assertion that for a time (presumably in the Incarnation) Christ was made lower than the angels? Divine blood would seem to require that Jesus be higher than the angels, unless we want to posit (without any scriptural evidence) the existence of another class of being...
The "divine blood" idea is meant to extoll Christ's deity is it not?
Then how does that reconcile with the author of Hebrews' assertion that for a time (presumably in the Incarnation) Christ was made lower than the angels? Divine blood would seem to require that Jesus be higher than the angels, unless we want to posit (without any scriptural evidence) the existence of another class of being...