Believing in Jesus's death on the cross and the work that he did there as necessary for salvation is not my "personal teaching," it is the teaching of Scripture.
So you say. We must always remain humble and not think every word that proceeds out of our mouth, is the mouth of God.
Afterall, I read God saying we must believe in His resurrection to be saved. I don't read any Scripture saying we believe in His death unto salvation.
What you mean to say according to your past words, is that everyone must believe in your teaching on the work of Jesus' death on the cross. That's proselytization by one's own doctrine, not winning souls to Christ by preaching His doctrine of Scripture.
And if making the atonement by shedding of blood alone, is that work you teach finsihed on the cross, then that is a false teaching of another kind of atonement than God's:
His atonement sacrifice is made by shedding and sprinkling of blood. Not by shedding alone as the heathen do, nor by sprinkling alone, which is not possible after the sacrifice is killed.
If a person only has to believe that he was raised again, it could be that he was just one of three criminals executed and that God decided to raise him from the dead. He could have been just another sinful human whose death would have been meaningless for redeeming us from sin.
Nonsensical. I've never heard nor even concieved anyone believing in His resurrection, who did not believe He died first.
Non squitur.
RBDERRICK said:
No man must believe Jesus Christ's resurrection and His work on the cross, else ye cannot be saved.
This is flat out heresy, a denial of the gospel.
You see what I mean? You're not preaching faith in His death, but faith in your teaching of His work on the cross.
Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)
No one is arguing against the blood of Jesus Christ. The argument is whether He sprinkles and buys us by His natural blood shed on the cross, or by the eternal blood of His Spirit sprinkled from on high.
Since we are commanded by Jesus to drink His blood, then it would be contrary to OT and NT law to do so, if He speaks of His natural blood as a man in the flesh.
And since the blood of Jesus Christ that makes atonement for our sins, is the blood of the NT, then of course it is the eternal blood of His resurrection, that He spoke of while yet in the flesh.
Only the carnal minded disciples believed, and still believe, He is speaking of His natural blood shed, as a man in the flesh.
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (ESV)
Rom 3:25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1Jo 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
He is the propitiation of sins now. He is risen from the dead now. His old natural blood shed into the ground, is not His spiritual blood now. Neither is His old flesh body, His resurrected body now. The shape and likeness are the same, not the flesh and the blood.
To believe the blood of Jesus Christ in the flesh, is the same blood of the resurrection man Christ Jesus, one must believe one of two things:
His blood was eternally pure in the flesh. Which denies Jesus Christ is come in the flesh of man, but in some other kind of supernatural flesh and blood. That lie has been around a while.
Or, one must believe His blood of the resurrection, is the same natural blood of Jesus Christ in the flesh. I don't believe I've heard that one yet.
Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (ESV)
Since He rose again for our justification, then His blood sprinkled for justification is by His quickening Spirit, which is only by His resurrection after His death.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (ESV)
All men were brought under guilt of His shed blood on the cross. All that repent are brought to mercy with sprinkling by His resurrection.
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (ESV)
His blood shed on the cross was not sprinkled, and so no conscience was cleansed by His death alone, but only condemned by killing Him on a cross.
His blood sprinkling by His Spirit sanctifies the soul and purges the conscience of all past sins.
Once again. The argument is about what blood of Jesus Christ sprinkles and purifies and washes away sins, and is drank by obedience to His word.
God's words are written to forestall all errors foreseen by Him. If anyone wants to believe they are atoned for, forgiven, and justified by the His natural blood shed on the cross, then the OT and NT law condemns them for drinking it, either at the cross, or somehow after His resurrection.
That certainly would be a #1 relics search. Beats any burial linen, or wooden splinters from a cross.
You are pitting the cross against the resurrection,
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
I'm not the one speaking against the resurrection, as having nothing to do with the atonement made by blood.
Or, do you agree the resurrection is necessary to making the atonement by blood? Otherwise, the cross is pit against the resurrection, and the resurrection is made unnecessary by the cross.
by making his work on the cross meaningless.
Thank you. I'll save this one for any more misrepresentation charges from you.
It isn't either/or, it's both/and. His resurrection was meaningful because his work on the cross was meaningful.
True. Without dying, He could not rise again from the dead. And without dying as a meek lamb for slaughter in obedience to the Father, He could not bring all men under condemnation of His death. And without His resurrection He cannot sprinkle any man that repents and obeys Him.
His resurrection, divorced from his atoning work on the cross, as you are teaching, makes his resurrection meaningless, as I pointed out above.
Nonsensical. How can His necessary resurrection to make the atonement by sprinkling of blood, be divorced from shedding His blood on the cross? There cannot be one without the other.
It's not the same flesh and blood at the cross and at His resurrection, but it's still the same God and man Jesus Christ, shedding His natural blood on a cross, and sprinkling His eternal blood by the Spirit.
