The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood

[The Biblicist]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

He does not demand that "all things" are purged with blood. Thus we can find bloodless sacrifices. However, he does demand "without the shedding of blood their is no remission" regardless what UNINSPIRED men may say after the writing of Scripture. NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN.

Furthermore, this is stated clearly in a context that directly applies it to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

"It was therefore necessary" NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN but there are other reasons it was necessary according to INSPIRED writers - WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Because -

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross,

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Why should the "blood" of Christ be regarded as "precious" if it was unnecessary to be literally shed?

1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Notice, I have not attacked any person. I have said nothing personal about anyone. I have attacked a POSITION. I have simply stated scriptures that deal directly with the "blood" of Christ as an offering on the cross and scriptures that explicitly state why the blood was shed and what that "blood" obtained. These are all writngs by INSPIRED men not UNINSPIRED later traditions of men.

 

[convicted1]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

He does not demand that "all things" are purged with blood. Thus we can find bloodless sacrifices. However, he does demand "without the shedding of blood their is no remission" regardless what UNINSPIRED men may say after the writing of Scripture. NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN.

Furthermore, this is stated clearly in a context that directly applies it to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

"It was therefore necessary" NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN but there are other reasons it was necessary according to INSPIRED writers - WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Because -

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross,

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Why should the "blood" of Christ be regarded as "precious" if it was unnecessary to be literally shed?

1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Notice, I have not attacked any person. I have said nothing personal about anyone. I have attacked a POSITION. I have simply stated scriptures that deal directly with the "blood" of Christ as an offering on the cross and scriptures that explicitly state why the blood was shed and what that "blood" obtained. These are all writngs by INSPIRED men not UNINSPIRED later traditions of men.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

He does not demand that "all things" are purged with blood. Thus we can find bloodless sacrifices. However, he does demand "without the shedding of blood their is no remission" regardless what UNINSPIRED men may say after the writing of Scripture. NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN.

Furthermore, this is stated clearly in a context that directly applies it to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

"It was therefore necessary" NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN but there are other reasons it was necessary according to INSPIRED writers - WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Because -

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross,

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Why should the "blood" of Christ be regarded as "precious" if it was unnecessary to be literally shed?

1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Notice, I have not attacked any person. I have said nothing personal about anyone. I have attacked a POSITION. I have simply stated scriptures that deal directly with the "blood" of Christ as an offering on the cross and scriptures that explicitly state why the blood was shed and what that "blood" obtained. These are all writngs by INSPIRED men not UNINSPIRED later traditions of men.

You asked: "Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???"

My answer: Certainly not. Further, which atonement theories are you speaking of?

 

[The Biblicist]

You asked: "Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???"

My answer: Certainly not. Further, which atonement theories are you speaking of?

All theories that deny the cross or death of Christ was absolutely essential for remission of sins. All the theories that do not use and emphasize the words "the blood" as do Biblical writers in regard to Christ's atonement. All the theories that do not regard 'the blood" to be essential for all the stated reasons given in my OP by Biblical writers. All the theories that SPIRITUALIZE the word "blood" to mean something other than what runs through the veins of sacrificial animals and Christ. All the theories that place the major emphasis on "example" rather than on His death for remission of sins.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

All theories that deny the cross or death of Christ was absolutely essential for remission of sins. All the theories that do not use and emphasize the words "the blood" as do Biblical writers in regard to Christ's atonement. All the theories that do not regard 'the blood" to be essential for all the stated reasons given in my OP by Biblical writers. All the theories that SPIRITUALIZE the word "blood" to mean something other than what runs through the veins of sacrificial animals and Christ.

Be specific. Which theories?

Further, why do you suppose that legalistic theories such as Satisfaction and Penal Substitution were not held until 1000 years and 1500 years after Christ, respectively?

 

[The Biblicist]

Be specific. Which theories?

Further, why do you suppose that legalistic theories such as Satisfaction and Penal Substitution were not held until 1000 years and 1500 years after Christ, respectively?

All the theories that make the emphasis of the atonement to be Christ's "EXAMPLE" rather than his death for the remission of sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

Be specific. Which theories?

Further, why do you suppose that legalistic theories such as Satisfaction and Penal Substitution were not held until 1000 years and 1500 years after Christ, respectively?

Note the OP! This is not a discussion about history but about the absolute necessity of shedding of blood. I could care less what uninspired men say as we can find anything we want from their pens. Notice the OP sticks only with INSPIRED writings. If you can't make your case from the Bible who cares about making your case from the traditions of men!

 

[The Biblicist]

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

He does not demand that "all things" are purged with blood. Thus we can find bloodless sacrifices. However, he does demand "without the shedding of blood their is no remission" regardless what UNINSPIRED men may say after the writing of Scripture. NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN.

Furthermore, this is stated clearly in a context that directly applies it to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us...14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

"It was therefore necessary" NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISSION OF SIN but there are other reasons it was necessary according to INSPIRED writers - WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Because -

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,

Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross,

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Why should the "blood" of Christ be regarded as "precious" if it was unnecessary to be literally shed?

1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


Do not all those atonement theories that deny the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for remission of sin treat his blood as an "unholy thing"???

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Notice, I have not attacked any person. I have said nothing personal about anyone. I have attacked a POSITION. I have simply stated scriptures that deal directly with the "blood" of Christ as an offering on the cross and scriptures that explicitly state why the blood was shed and what that "blood" obtained. These are all writngs by INSPIRED men not UNINSPIRED later traditions of men.

The OP sets forth scriptures that explicitly and clearly without any ambiugity demand the actual shedding of Christ's blood is essential for the remission of sins. All atonement theories that deny this basic Biblical principle are false.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

All the theories that make the emphasis of the atonement to be Christ's "EXAMPLE" rather than his death for the remission of sins.

There's only one atonement theory which does that -- in fact, the Example Theory.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Note the OP! This is not a discussion about history but about the absolute necessity of shedding of blood. I could care less what uninspired men say as we can find anything we want from their pens. Notice the OP sticks only with INSPIRED writings. If you can't make your case from the Bible who cares about making your case from the traditions of men!

And yet your theory is from an uninspired man -- Calvin.

My point is that the early church did not see these later theories in the scriptures. So again my relevant question: Why do you suppose that legalistic theories such as Satisfaction and Penal Substitution were not held until 1000 years and 1500 years after Christ, respectively? The answer: Because these are not found in scripture but were later inventions based in wrong and legalistic concepts of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

There's only one atonement theory which does that -- in fact, the Example Theory.

You are evading the primary issue of my OP and that is the Bible demands the actual literal shedding of Christ's blood for the remission of sins. Do you or do you not believe that? Do you believe the bloody sacrifice and death of Christ was absolutely essential for atonement and remission of sins? I am referring to all theories that deny this basic essential.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You are evading the primary issue of my OP and that is the Bible demands the actual literal shedding of Christ's blood for the remission of sins. Do you or do you not believe that? Do you believe the bloody sacrifice and death of Christ was absolutely essential for atonement and remission of sins? I am referring to all theories that deny this basic essential.

I believe that the Incarnation was absolutely essential. With it came Christ's total and complete identification with every aspect of creation, including death, and in His sacrificial life, death, and resurrection, He overcame Satan, sin, separation, and death -- physical and spiritual -- and reconciled us to God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that the Incarnation was absolutely essential. With it came Christ's total and complete identification with every aspect of creation, including death, and in His sacrificial life, death, and resurrection, He overcame Satan, sin, separation, and death -- physical and spiritual -- and reconciled us to God.

But that is not what I asked! That is not what the OP is about. I asked do you believe the literal shedding of Christ's own blood is essential for the remission of sins?

I took Systematic Theology and I know the various theological designations but I refuse to operate through anything other than Biblical words and principles. Just like I don't like the theological term "Calvinism" and refuse to use it as well as other theological designations as most remove you from the Biblical terminology or put it into terms unfamiliar with common Bible readers.

So just please answer my simple question in bold above.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

But that is not what I asked! That is not what the OP is about. I asked do you believe the literal shedding of Christ's own blood is essential for the remission of sins?

I took Systematic Theology and I know the various theological designations but I refuse to operate through anything other than Biblical words and principles. Just like I don't like the theological term "Calvinism" and refuse to use it as well as other theological designations as most remove you from the Biblical terminology or put it into terms unfamiliar with common Bible readers.

So just please answer my simple question in bold above.

I also prefer to operate through Biblical words and principles. And, like the early church, I do not see Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, or other later theories in scripture.

If you think I am not adhering to the OP, I will respectfully bow out of the discussion since you have not attacked me here. I do like civil discussion; I will abide by your wishes.

Edit: To more directly answer your question: No, I do not personally believe that because I don't find in scripture that God required that. Christ's life, death, and resurrection accomplished the redemption of man and the creation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I also prefer to operate through Biblical words and principles. And, like the early church, I do not see Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, or other later theories in scripture.

If you think I am not adhering to the OP, I will respectfully bow out of the discussion since you have not attacked me here. I do like civil discussion; I will abide by your wishes.

I have not asked you to bow out! I have asked a very simple question which is included in the title of the OP and which is addressed from the first line of the OP throughout the OP. And that question is:

Do You believe that the literal shedding of Christ's own blood was absolutely essential for the remission of sins?

This is not a difficult question, it is not ambigous.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have not asked you to bow out! I have asked a very simple question which is included in the title of the OP and which is addressed from the first line of the OP throughout the OP. And that question is:

Do You believe that the literal shedding of Christ's own blood was absolutely essential for the remission of sins?

This is not a difficult question, it is not ambigous.

See the edit that I added to my previous post.

 

[The Biblicist]

See the edit that I added to my previous post.

Thank you kindly for that clear answer. Now that our differences are clear then the only issue that remains is to see if the scriptures validate your positon or mine as they are contradictory to each other.

Would you be so kind now to address the Biblical evidences in my OP that defend my position and thus condemn your position? Please deal with them directly and in the order and context I gave them and I will respond likewise.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thank you kindly for that clear answer. Now that our differences are clear then the only issue that remains is to see if the scriptures validate your positon or mine as they are contradictory to each other.

Would you be so kind now to address the Biblical evidences in my OP that defend my position and thus condemn your position? Please deal with them directly and in the order and context I gave them and I will respond likewise.

I have addressed this subject elsewhere, so I will respond only briefly and in summary: Both the NT and OT Jewish sacrificial system affirm that blood sacrifice was not necessary for the remission of sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have addressed this subject elsewhere, so I will respond only briefly and in summary: Both the NT and OT Jewish sacrificial system affirm that blood sacrifice was not necessary for the remission of sins.

Thomas no discussion can proceed in generalities when the question is specific. What you have stated is not the issue. It is what I have stated and the evidence I have provided to disprove your position that is the issue of this OP.

I have not spoken in generalities but in very careful specifics and I would like you to address my specifics with specifics or else there is no point in discussing an OP that is specific.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thomas no discussion can proceed in generalities when the question is specific. What you have stated is not the issue. It is what I have stated and the evidence I have provided to disprove your position that is the issue of this OP.

I have not spoken in generalities but in very careful specifics and I would like you to address my specifics with specifics or else there is no point in discussing an OP that is specific.

It's just that I get weary of repeating the same thing I have posted elsewhere.

You have not disproved my position. The very verse you started with proves my position, and so do the words of the OT prophets, and, as I mentioned, even the OT sacrificial system itself.