R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 09:48AM
zam
That's not what Dr. Wall teaches.
Dr. Wall
Dr. Wall
Dr. Walvoord (President of DTS after Dr. Chafer)
Truthtesty
Quote
I think Wall made it pretty clear that he believed Christ's spiritual death accomplished our salvation, not his literal, physical blood
That's not what Dr. Wall teaches.
Dr. Wall
Quote
Exegetically, it will be shown in the next section that, although the term [u:e3e645e59d]blood of Christ[/u:e3e645e59d] is not to be taken (as Thieme teaches) as a figure of speech referring to something other than physical blood, it is also not to be viewed as literal blood alone. [u:e3e645e59d]It includes both the physical, literal blood and the whole act of dying through which Christ went[/u:e3e645e59d].
Dr. Wall
Quote
Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his physical blood and the whole act of dying physically
Dr. Walvoord (President of DTS after Dr. Chafer)
Chafer [Vol. 2, Page 314]Quote
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, [u:e3e645e59d][b:e3e645e59d]I do believe that He literally shed His blood as part of the [i:e3e645e59d]act of dying [/i:e3e645e59d]and that this was necessary to fulfill such scriptures as Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter: 18-19; and similar passages.[/b:e3e645e59d][/u:e3e645e59d]The implication from your quotation of my writings that you and I agree on your major thesis set forth in the booklet is, therefore, wrong as I do not agree with the major point of view which you express in the booklet.
Quote
"The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, [b:e3e645e59d]it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, [u:e3e645e59d]to disassociate these two the one from the other[/u:e3e645e59d].[/b:e3e645e59d]"
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 10:21AM
zam
Who are you a mere creature to say it is not necessary what God has said was necessary? Who is man to judge and deny the literal shed blood? Do you question that Jesus walked on water? Do you question all the other miracles? [b:858d4d85cf]Jesus had power over death[/b:858d4d85cf]. Is this what a mere mortal does? Did Jesus exist as a mere mortal? [b:858d4d85cf]Did Jesus have a mere mortals blood?[/b:858d4d85cf] We understand "platelets and plasma and red and white blood cells" now. We just recently discovered DNA. We have no theanthropic body to study. God's understanding the differences of our our blood and the theanthropic blood of Christ is infinite. When God said it was necessary, how is it that you can deny the precious shed blood of the Lamb, when only satan is interested in attacking and denying the blood of the Lamb? When satan was defeated by that blood? Only satan's allies are interested in attacking and taking away from the blood of Christ.
Truthtesty
Quote
Personally, I have a hard time believing that the literal platelets and plasma and red and white blood cells of Jesus Christ did anything regarding our salvation.
Who are you a mere creature to say it is not necessary what God has said was necessary? Who is man to judge and deny the literal shed blood? Do you question that Jesus walked on water? Do you question all the other miracles? [b:858d4d85cf]Jesus had power over death[/b:858d4d85cf]. Is this what a mere mortal does? Did Jesus exist as a mere mortal? [b:858d4d85cf]Did Jesus have a mere mortals blood?[/b:858d4d85cf] We understand "platelets and plasma and red and white blood cells" now. We just recently discovered DNA. We have no theanthropic body to study. God's understanding the differences of our our blood and the theanthropic blood of Christ is infinite. When God said it was necessary, how is it that you can deny the precious shed blood of the Lamb, when only satan is interested in attacking and denying the blood of the Lamb? When satan was defeated by that blood? Only satan's allies are interested in attacking and taking away from the blood of Christ.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SynergyCon
()
Date: October 10, 2007 11:02AM
To those who might have an interest in “the blood”
In some teaching it is that the blood of Christ was not truly and fully human, but divine or “supernatural.” Some concede that although it was human blood, it could suffer no corruption; others say that since Christ is both human and divine, that His blood must be both human and divine. Others say that it is divine blood. Being divine or supernatural blood, it is incorruptible and indestructible. That every drop of blood which Christ shed in His lifetime, and especially the blood shed on Calvary was miraculously preserved, resurrected with Christ and is now with Christ in heaven. Some teach that the blood of Christ re-entered His body during His resurrection; others believe that the blood exists as a separate entity in heaven in some kind of vial or bowl. In order to secure redemption, some say, it was necessary that Christ's blood be literally sprinkled on a divine mercy seat in heaven. Others maintain that Christ is the mercy seat, so a literal sprinkling of Christ's blood was unnecessary. All insist that believers must be washed in the blood of Christ to be saved, and most reject any attempt to explain the blood as a metaphor.
Rev. D. A. Waite, pastor of “Bible For Today Baptist Church,” Collingswood, New Jersey, has made this doctrine of the blood part of the Articles of Faith for his church, even updating them in November 1997 “to meet present-day threats to the Faith”:
We believe that the doctrine of the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is of great importance in the Bible; that Christ's Blood has been under attack in centuries past as well as in recent decades by modernist apostates, Mary Baker Eddy, R. B. Thieme, Jr., John MacArthur, Jr., and others; that Christ's Blood is not a mere figure of speech or “metonym” to be equal to “death”; that Old Testament sacrifices had two distinct parts: (1) the death of the sacrifice; and (2) the application of the blood of the sacrifice; that death was not sufficient, but the blood had to be applied properly ... that some of Christ's Blood was taken by Him to heaven and placed on the heavenly mercy seat thus cleansing the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 9:12-14, 18-24; 10:19-22); that Christ's Blood is now in heaven as the “Blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:22-24); that Christ's Blood gives us boldness and access to the holiest in heaven (Hebrews 10:19); that Christ's Blood makes us perfect in every good work to do His will (Hebrews 13:21); and that Christ's Blood overcomes Satan.
Here is John MacArthur, Jr of “Grace to You” ministries view:
The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at his crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them ... Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement ... We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (I Peter 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death ... It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. That is not heresy; it's basic biblical truth.
The problem with the “Blood Indoctrinators” is that they insist on an absurd literalism. When the blood is mentioned in the Bible, they always read it literally, except when it speaks of the Lord's Supper. Then they rightly eschew the error of Romish transubstantiation. Thus according to the “Blood Indoctrinators” we are literally “washed in the blood” (Rev. 1:5), the blood is literally sprinkled on our souls (II Peter 1:2), the blood literally speaks in heaven (Heb. 12:24). To say that the blood of Christ is theological shorthand for the bloody, sacrificial, atoning death of Christ is anathema to the “Blood Indoctrinators.”
The Scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ died and was buried (I Cor. 15:3-4), and that as part of His dying, He shed real, literal blood, but I do not believe that every New Testament reference to the blood of Christ is a reference to the red liquid which flowed in His veins and arteries when He was on earth. How can a physical substance (blood) be applied to a spiritual soul? When the Bible speaks of us being washed in blood, it means that our guilt and pollution are removed by virtue of His atoning death; it does not mean that we are literally washed in blood.
John Calvin explains it well when commenting on Romans 3:25:
A propitiatory through faith in his blood, I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned “blood,” because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation.
In a few instances the word blood, in reference to Christ, is His literal physical blood. John 19:34 (“and forthwith came there out blood and water”) would be a good example. In other places, the word blood has the idea of guilt, of bearing the responsibility for the death of another. For example, “Behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us” (Acts 5:28) and “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). In other instances, blood is a reference to Christ’s violent death on the cross for the redemption of God's elect. For example, concerning Ephesians 1:7 (“in whom we have redemption through his blood”) Calvin comments,
St. Paul speaks here expressly of his blood, because we are obliged to resort to his death and passion as to the sacrifice which has power to blot out our sins ... Now it is true that Jesus Christ not only shed his blood, even in his death, but also experienced the fears and terrors which ought to have rested upon us. But St. Paul here under one particular comprehends the whole, in the manner common to holy Scripture.
Elect sinners are saved by virtue of the redeeming work of Christ. The Bible uses various terms to refer to that work. Sometimes, the word “blood” is used; sometimes the word “cross,” and on other occasions the word “death.” For example, Paul writes, “if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). Elsewhere, Paul writes that we are reconciled by Christ's death (Col. 1:21-22).
My point is that many believers, pastors, Theologians, etc. have many views on the blood of Christ. Again, Thieme’s view, which I might add is also the view of many others, does not qualify Thieme as a cult leader.
God made salvation easy and simple so that anyone could have it. One is not going to lose their salvation over what the definition of “blood” is.
Thanks
Synergycon
In some teaching it is that the blood of Christ was not truly and fully human, but divine or “supernatural.” Some concede that although it was human blood, it could suffer no corruption; others say that since Christ is both human and divine, that His blood must be both human and divine. Others say that it is divine blood. Being divine or supernatural blood, it is incorruptible and indestructible. That every drop of blood which Christ shed in His lifetime, and especially the blood shed on Calvary was miraculously preserved, resurrected with Christ and is now with Christ in heaven. Some teach that the blood of Christ re-entered His body during His resurrection; others believe that the blood exists as a separate entity in heaven in some kind of vial or bowl. In order to secure redemption, some say, it was necessary that Christ's blood be literally sprinkled on a divine mercy seat in heaven. Others maintain that Christ is the mercy seat, so a literal sprinkling of Christ's blood was unnecessary. All insist that believers must be washed in the blood of Christ to be saved, and most reject any attempt to explain the blood as a metaphor.
Rev. D. A. Waite, pastor of “Bible For Today Baptist Church,” Collingswood, New Jersey, has made this doctrine of the blood part of the Articles of Faith for his church, even updating them in November 1997 “to meet present-day threats to the Faith”:
We believe that the doctrine of the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is of great importance in the Bible; that Christ's Blood has been under attack in centuries past as well as in recent decades by modernist apostates, Mary Baker Eddy, R. B. Thieme, Jr., John MacArthur, Jr., and others; that Christ's Blood is not a mere figure of speech or “metonym” to be equal to “death”; that Old Testament sacrifices had two distinct parts: (1) the death of the sacrifice; and (2) the application of the blood of the sacrifice; that death was not sufficient, but the blood had to be applied properly ... that some of Christ's Blood was taken by Him to heaven and placed on the heavenly mercy seat thus cleansing the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews 9:12-14, 18-24; 10:19-22); that Christ's Blood is now in heaven as the “Blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:22-24); that Christ's Blood gives us boldness and access to the holiest in heaven (Hebrews 10:19); that Christ's Blood makes us perfect in every good work to do His will (Hebrews 13:21); and that Christ's Blood overcomes Satan.
Here is John MacArthur, Jr of “Grace to You” ministries view:
The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at his crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them ... Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement ... We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (I Peter 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death ... It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. That is not heresy; it's basic biblical truth.
The problem with the “Blood Indoctrinators” is that they insist on an absurd literalism. When the blood is mentioned in the Bible, they always read it literally, except when it speaks of the Lord's Supper. Then they rightly eschew the error of Romish transubstantiation. Thus according to the “Blood Indoctrinators” we are literally “washed in the blood” (Rev. 1:5), the blood is literally sprinkled on our souls (II Peter 1:2), the blood literally speaks in heaven (Heb. 12:24). To say that the blood of Christ is theological shorthand for the bloody, sacrificial, atoning death of Christ is anathema to the “Blood Indoctrinators.”
The Scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ died and was buried (I Cor. 15:3-4), and that as part of His dying, He shed real, literal blood, but I do not believe that every New Testament reference to the blood of Christ is a reference to the red liquid which flowed in His veins and arteries when He was on earth. How can a physical substance (blood) be applied to a spiritual soul? When the Bible speaks of us being washed in blood, it means that our guilt and pollution are removed by virtue of His atoning death; it does not mean that we are literally washed in blood.
John Calvin explains it well when commenting on Romans 3:25:
A propitiatory through faith in his blood, I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned “blood,” because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation.
In a few instances the word blood, in reference to Christ, is His literal physical blood. John 19:34 (“and forthwith came there out blood and water”) would be a good example. In other places, the word blood has the idea of guilt, of bearing the responsibility for the death of another. For example, “Behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us” (Acts 5:28) and “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). In other instances, blood is a reference to Christ’s violent death on the cross for the redemption of God's elect. For example, concerning Ephesians 1:7 (“in whom we have redemption through his blood”) Calvin comments,
St. Paul speaks here expressly of his blood, because we are obliged to resort to his death and passion as to the sacrifice which has power to blot out our sins ... Now it is true that Jesus Christ not only shed his blood, even in his death, but also experienced the fears and terrors which ought to have rested upon us. But St. Paul here under one particular comprehends the whole, in the manner common to holy Scripture.
Elect sinners are saved by virtue of the redeeming work of Christ. The Bible uses various terms to refer to that work. Sometimes, the word “blood” is used; sometimes the word “cross,” and on other occasions the word “death.” For example, Paul writes, “if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10). Elsewhere, Paul writes that we are reconciled by Christ's death (Col. 1:21-22).
My point is that many believers, pastors, Theologians, etc. have many views on the blood of Christ. Again, Thieme’s view, which I might add is also the view of many others, does not qualify Thieme as a cult leader.
God made salvation easy and simple so that anyone could have it. One is not going to lose their salvation over what the definition of “blood” is.
Thanks
Synergycon
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 11:10AM
Truthtesty
zam
Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary:
[www.dts.edu]
Also, Vol. 2, Page 105 (summarizing) Chafer speaks of churches or institutions which deny God's saving grace through [u:b883c63864]blood redemption[/u:b883c63864]. Christians supporting those institutions are aiding satan.
Truthtesty
Quote
You say "you seem to do". That's an observation. It's not correct because I have pointed to both positive and negative statements. The point is what do you do? You say "In Christ zam", but do you deny the efficacy of the literal blood of Christ? In christ zam? because of Thieme? Because if you do then Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said that is satanic.
zam
Quote
No, Chafer identified those that deny the saving power of Christ alone as accomplishing salvation Satanic. Please provide the quote that Chafer said that you must believe in the literal blood of Christ as accomplishing savlation, or you are satanic.
Doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary:
Quote
We believe that [u:b883c63864]Satan[/u:b883c63864] is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by [u:b883c63864]fostering[/u:b883c63864] religious movements and [u:b883c63864]systems of doctrine[/u:b883c63864], [u:b883c63864]which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:b883c63864] and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
[www.dts.edu]
Also, Vol. 2, Page 105 (summarizing) Chafer speaks of churches or institutions which deny God's saving grace through [u:b883c63864]blood redemption[/u:b883c63864]. Christians supporting those institutions are aiding satan.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 11:15AM
To the Forum:
Macarthur is a Thiemite. And just as big an incompetent idiot as Thieme.
Truthtesty
Macarthur is a Thiemite. And just as big an incompetent idiot as Thieme.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 11:34AM
synergycon
Truthtesty: That's not your call pit viper.
Truthtesty
Quote
One is not going to lose their salvation over what the definition of “blood” is.
Truthtesty: That's not your call pit viper.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 11:37AM
To the Forum:
If you want what is considered one of the best studies on the "blood", that would be Leon Morris's study (As Dr. Wall suggested) "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross". You can ILL this from your local library. Or you can purchase the chapter in question "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD'"from [jts.oxfordjournals.org]
Truthtesty
If you want what is considered one of the best studies on the "blood", that would be Leon Morris's study (As Dr. Wall suggested) "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross". You can ILL this from your local library. Or you can purchase the chapter in question "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD'"from [jts.oxfordjournals.org]
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zams
()
Date: October 10, 2007 12:48PM
Truthtesty,
Yes, I understand. Chafer believed in the literalness of the blood of Christ within the context of salvation. That is not my point. My point is that you are trying to pin the label of cult on Thieme, and attempting to use Chafer to back this up. Not that you believe what Chafer says. You never responded to my direct question of whether or not you are a Christian, or even personally believe in the blood of Christ, metaphorical, literal, or otherwise.
Chafer:
This is the context of the Chafer quote you keep misconstruing. He is not attempting to drive home the point that those who deny the literalness of the blood of Christ are cultish, but rather that those who add anything to simple atonement are cultish. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to this atonement. I use the term myself, it is a Biblical term, and it refers to Christ's sacrifice. You are deceptively misleading others from what Chafer is really trying to say here, to push your agenda of labeling Thieme as cultish.
I understand completely what Wall teaches, though perhaps I was not clear. Wall teaches that not only physical blood alone saves, the term must encompass the entire act of Christ dying. Not just his physical blood.
Hmm, interesting. Do you deny the literal shed blood of Christ, Truthtesty? Do you believe His blood accomplished your salvation? Are you a Christian?
DTS statement:
Again, you are missing the context. The doctrinal point is the same as Chafer's statement you keep misrepresenting. That those who deny salvation by grace alone are agents of Satan's false religious systems. Yes, Chafer believes in the literal blood of Christ, as per his statements, but the emphasis here is not if blood is literal or metaphoric, it is that the blood of Christ (meaning his atoning work) is sufficient, and those who add anything to grace alone are under Satanic influence.
In Christ,
Zams
Yes, I understand. Chafer believed in the literalness of the blood of Christ within the context of salvation. That is not my point. My point is that you are trying to pin the label of cult on Thieme, and attempting to use Chafer to back this up. Not that you believe what Chafer says. You never responded to my direct question of whether or not you are a Christian, or even personally believe in the blood of Christ, metaphorical, literal, or otherwise.
Chafer:
Quote
No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration
This is the context of the Chafer quote you keep misconstruing. He is not attempting to drive home the point that those who deny the literalness of the blood of Christ are cultish, but rather that those who add anything to simple atonement are cultish. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to this atonement. I use the term myself, it is a Biblical term, and it refers to Christ's sacrifice. You are deceptively misleading others from what Chafer is really trying to say here, to push your agenda of labeling Thieme as cultish.
I understand completely what Wall teaches, though perhaps I was not clear. Wall teaches that not only physical blood alone saves, the term must encompass the entire act of Christ dying. Not just his physical blood.
Quote
Who is man to judge and deny the literal shed blood?
Hmm, interesting. Do you deny the literal shed blood of Christ, Truthtesty? Do you believe His blood accomplished your salvation? Are you a Christian?
DTS statement:
Quote
We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
Again, you are missing the context. The doctrinal point is the same as Chafer's statement you keep misrepresenting. That those who deny salvation by grace alone are agents of Satan's false religious systems. Yes, Chafer believes in the literal blood of Christ, as per his statements, but the emphasis here is not if blood is literal or metaphoric, it is that the blood of Christ (meaning his atoning work) is sufficient, and those who add anything to grace alone are under Satanic influence.
In Christ,
Zams
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: October 10, 2007 07:42PM
zam
No you don't understand or you are intentionally denying the obvious. Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacious [/u:6fcda866a8]saving value of the literal blood in blood redemption. Which everyone should note that you too leave out the word efficacious when referring to the efficacous literal shed blood.
The latter as completely [b:6fcda866a8][u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption [/u:6fcda866a8][/b:6fcda866a8] of Christ as the former.
zam
The shoe fits. Thieme meets the bill, according to Dr. Chafer.
The latter as completely [u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption[/u:6fcda866a8] of Christ as the former.
Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacious[/u:6fcda866a8] saving value of the literal blood in blood redemption.
zam
zam
No I am not misconstrueing anything.
Dr. Chafer is saying that those who deny the efficacy of the literal shed blood are a cult. It's both sides of the coin. You trying to deny one side of it and lying straight through your teeth.
[b:6fcda866a8]The latter as completely [u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption [/u:6fcda866a8]of Christ as the former[/b:6fcda866a8]
Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacy of the literal shed blood in blood redemption,[/u:6fcda866a8] which Thieme denies and you keep saying that I am misconstrueing faith plus consecration. Which I am not doing. Dr. Chafer is decribing that a cult from a christian perspective is more than just denying faith plus consecration, it's also ignoring the efficacious literal shed blood in blood redemption(which is a complete denial from Chafer's perpective). It you who's trying to misconstrue Dr. Chafer in your cultish defense of your cult leader.
Look at the whole paragraph. Quit trying to miscontrue what Dr. Chafer meant. Quit trying to misconstrue what I am saying.
zam
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology.
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology.
zam
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology. And no not just cultish, but a cult from a christian perspective.
zam
No. I am missing nothing of the context. In your attempt to sound as if you know what your talking about, you are misconstrueing Dr. Chafer. You like Thieme try to deny the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacy of the literal shed blood[/u:6fcda866a8] in Christ's atoning work.
Thieme
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
DTS Doctrinal Statement
Truthtesty
Quote
Yes, I understand. Chafer believed in the literalness of the blood of Christ within the context of salvation. That is not my point.
No you don't understand or you are intentionally denying the obvious. Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacious [/u:6fcda866a8]saving value of the literal blood in blood redemption. Which everyone should note that you too leave out the word efficacious when referring to the efficacous literal shed blood.
The latter as completely [b:6fcda866a8][u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption [/u:6fcda866a8][/b:6fcda866a8] of Christ as the former.
zam
Quote
My point is that you are trying to pin the label of cult on Thieme, and attempting to use Chafer to back this up.
The shoe fits. Thieme meets the bill, according to Dr. Chafer.
The latter as completely [u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption[/u:6fcda866a8] of Christ as the former.
Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacious[/u:6fcda866a8] saving value of the literal blood in blood redemption.
zam
Quote
No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration
zam
Quote
This is the context of the Chafer quote you keep misconstruing. [u:6fcda866a8]He is not attempting to drive home the point that those who deny the literalness of the blood of Christ are cultish[/u:6fcda866a8],
No I am not misconstrueing anything.
Dr. Chafer is saying that those who deny the efficacy of the literal shed blood are a cult. It's both sides of the coin. You trying to deny one side of it and lying straight through your teeth.
[b:6fcda866a8]The latter as completely [u:6fcda866a8]ignores the blood redemption [/u:6fcda866a8]of Christ as the former[/b:6fcda866a8]
Dr. Chafer believed in the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacy of the literal shed blood in blood redemption,[/u:6fcda866a8] which Thieme denies and you keep saying that I am misconstrueing faith plus consecration. Which I am not doing. Dr. Chafer is decribing that a cult from a christian perspective is more than just denying faith plus consecration, it's also ignoring the efficacious literal shed blood in blood redemption(which is a complete denial from Chafer's perpective). It you who's trying to misconstrue Dr. Chafer in your cultish defense of your cult leader.
Quote
As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?
Look at the whole paragraph. Quit trying to miscontrue what Dr. Chafer meant. Quit trying to misconstrue what I am saying.
zam
Quote
In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to this atonement.
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology.
Quote
I use the term myself, it is a Biblical term, and it refers to Christ's sacrifice.
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology.
zam
Quote
You are deceptively misleading others from what Chafer is really trying to say here, to push your agenda of labeling Thieme as cultish.
No. In this paragraph "shed blood of Christ" refers to "[b:6fcda866a8]efficacious literal shed blood[/b:6fcda866a8]", which Dr. Chafer clearly states in 8 volume Systematic Theology. And no not just cultish, but a cult from a christian perspective.
zam
Quote
Again, you are missing the context. The doctrinal point is the same as Chafer's statement you keep misrepresenting. That those who deny salvation by grace alone are agents of Satan's false religious systems. Yes, Chafer believes in the literal blood of Christ, as per his statements, but the emphasis here is not if blood is literal or metaphoric, it is that the blood of Christ (meaning his atoning work) is sufficient, and those who add anything to grace alone are under Satanic influence
No. I am missing nothing of the context. In your attempt to sound as if you know what your talking about, you are misconstrueing Dr. Chafer. You like Thieme try to deny the [u:6fcda866a8]efficacy of the literal shed blood[/u:6fcda866a8] in Christ's atoning work.
Thieme
Quote
[u:6fcda866a8]1 John 1:7[/u:6fcda866a8] "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
Quote
[u:6fcda866a8]1 John 1:7[/u:6fcda866a8] "Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished [u:6fcda866a8]directly by that blood[/u:6fcda866a8]
DTS Doctrinal Statement
Quote
We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even [u:6fcda866a8]counterfeiting the works of G[/u:6fcda866a8]od by fostering religious movements and [u:6fcda866a8]systems of doctrine[/u:6fcda866a8], which systems in every case are characterized by a [u:6fcda866a8]denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:6fcda866a8] and of salvation by grace alone (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zams
()
Date: October 11, 2007 12:15AM
Quote
Dr. Chafer is saying that those who deny the efficacy of the literal shed blood are a cult
No, he is saying that those who deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ alone; those that say you must add consecration to faith, are cultish. The context of nearly every quote from DTS or Chafer you are posting is that those who add works to Christ's complete work on the cross are satanic or cultish.
Yes, Chafer and the DTS statement espouse the literalness of the blood of Christ, [i:ba8266573c][b:ba8266573c]but that is not the context as per pertaining to cultishness in the ones that are dealing with the cult subject[/b:ba8266573c][/i:ba8266573c]. They are trying to communicate that Christ's saving work on the cross was enough, not go off on a dissertation about those who deny the literalness of Christ's blood being a cult.
I would think any person with a rational thinking mind can clearly see this, however there appears to be some mental block with you where either you have some perceptive problem, or you are so hellbent on revenge you just aren't getting it. Yes, keep on endlessly quoting Wall/Chafer/DTS. But unless you see what the context and points trying to be made are, you are wasting your time.
Speaking with you appears to be a waste of time. Your posts indicate nothing of sincere desire to heal and communicate in a rational manner. All I see is revenge and hate. You remind me of the jilted boyfriend who keeps showing up at your ex-girlfriend's workplace 30 years after you broke up. As another poster indictated, isn't it time to move on?
In Christ,
Zams
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.