Good grief Mr Moderator. How can you make such an outlandish declaration. "So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs." Common courtesy would have you at least phrase it as a question, "are you zeebrook here to defend Thieme and his beliefs?" Simple answer, No. Long answer follows:
So where have I defended Thieme and his beliefs? We have entered a debate on the meaning of the phrase "the blood of Christ". Once we nail that down we can address how Thieme addressed the term. To date I have quoted Stibbs, Morris, Behm etc to show that theologians, linguists etc research in the scriptures prove that the phrase "the blood of Christ" denotes His death. While Truthtesty resorts to name calling such as Morris a low theologian) etc which is laughable. Morris was a much respected theologian and expositor. His Gospel of John was hailed at it time as one of the best treatises on the Gospel. His "Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" when first produced was a leading light. Likewise Stibbs. Just because Truthtesty disagrees with them he labels them as poor expositors etc. I have made it patently clear that I agree wtih Stibbs, Morris etc that the phrase "the blood of Christ" denotes Christ's death. I even pulled in a comment from Thomas Constable on 1 John 1:7. "The "blood of Jesus" is a metonymy for the death of Jesus. It is Christ's death that cleanses us, not that Jesus' blood cleanses us like a kind of spiritual soap" [www.soniclight.org
]) with which I agree. So how can any of that be interpreted as defending Thieme and his beliefs.
John Walvoord in correspondence with R.B. Thieme Jr as reproduced in Truthtesty's favourite work Joe Wall's "(Bob Thieme's Teaching on Christian Living
" says "While I do not believe that the literal blood of Christ was carried into heaven and that He went to heaven through His blood rather than with His Blood as indicated in Hebrews 9:12, it is not true that I agree with your exposition of what was accomplished when Christ died on the cross. I believe Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually
and died by an act of His will. While He did not bleed to death
, I do believe that He literally shed His blood as part of the act of dying and that this was necessary to fulfill such scriptures as Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter: 18-19; and similar passages." With this statement Zeebroo concurs.
Note that Wall (Bob Thieme's Teaching on Christian Living
p20) on the issue of the Blood of Christ goes on to state "none of the Dallas Seminary professors shared Walter's alarm, and none classified Thieme outside of orthodox Christianity". Note that, not outside of orthodox Christianity. So even if one held Thieme’s view they would not be outside the bounds of orthodoxy according to Dallas.
Wall (p22) then goes on to say "it is not contrary to either the nine fundamentals listed above or the Dallas Seminary Doctrinal Statement to define the term blood of Christ as Thieme does, so long as he acknowledges that Christ physically bled and died in the process of providing salvation -- which Thieme does teach.
" Note also Wall's analysis is that Thieme teaches that Christ physically bled and died in the process of providing salvation.
Wall (p23) "it should be observed that blood of Christ cannot be used solely of the fluid that once flowed in Jesus veins". Zeebrook agrees.
Wall (p23) "On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the term blood of Christ is used solely of Christ's spiritual death as Thieme suggests; since New Testament figurative usage of blood includes physical death." Zeebrook agrees.
Wall (p23) "To be fair with Thieme's position, it should be pointed out that Thieme sees only the phrase blood of Christ as a representative analogy, not the other uses of blood". So when Truthtesty goes off quoting other passages he is not understanding we are dealing with one phrase only, “the blood of Christ”.
Wall (p30) "Nevertheless, it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy
." As much as you rant and rave as Wall attests Thieme is still within the bounds of orthodoxy. In fact Wall goes on to critique Walter’s almost magical view of the blood.
So I am not defending Thieme and his beliefs. When you misdirect and deliberately obfuscate I challenge.
Let’s go further, Charles Spurgeon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 32 p123 says
“When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus.
We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin"; we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"; and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God,"
Even Spurgeon knew full well that the phrase “the blood of Christ” did not solely relate to literal fluid but speaks of His death. Yes I believe Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually and both were necessary for our salvation. Yes I can say that I believe that Christ “shed His blood” as I understand that, along with many, many others to denote His death. But the scriptural accounts of His crucifixion no where say that He shed literal blood on the cross apart from the spear impress on His side. An impress that occurred after He had died (He voluntarily gave up His life).
John MacArthur in a work entitled I Believe in the Precious Blood
“It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46)”. (John MacArthur, I Believe in the Precious Blood.
In what way am I defending Thieme and his beliefs when my position is similar Morris, Stibbs, and the following:
Charles Bigg commenting on 1 Peter 1:2 says:
Throughout this Epistle the writer dwells so constantly upon the sacrifice of the Cross that the Blood of Christ can mean nothing else than His Death and Passion
. (A Critical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, The International Critical Commentary (2nd ed.; Edinburgh, 1902, p. 93)
Similarly F. J. Taylor noted that :
The phrase "the blood of Christ
" is used much more frequently in the NT than either the death of Christ or the Cross of Christ, ... especially in Pauline Epp., Heb. and 1 John. It is a pictorial way of referring to the violent death upon the cross
of shame voluntarily enduring for men by Christ (Rom. 325; 5:9). (F. J. Taylor, "Blood," A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. by Alan Richardson (London, 1950, p. 34.)
Philip Edgecumbe Hughes says that
An accurate summary of the doctrine of Scripture is given by Johannes Behm as follows:
To shed blood is to destroy the bearer of life and therefore life itself. Hence haima ["blood"] signifies "outpoured blood," "violently destroyed life," "death" or "murder." In this sense it is used of the slaying of Jesus in Mt. 27:4,24; Ac. 5:28, and of the prophets, saints and witnesses of Jesus in Mt. 23:30,35; Lk. 11:50 f.; Rev. 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2.... The interest of the NT is not in the material blood of Christ, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken from Him. Like the cross, the "blood of Christ" is simply another and even more graphic phrase for the death of Chris
t in its soteriological significance.
“The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews. Part I: The Significance of the Blood of Jesus” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (April, 1973) 99-109
So Mr Moderator your declaration that Zeebrook is defending Thieme and his beliefs is an egregious error. Just because Truthtesty says so does not make it so.