| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13150 Registered: 12-2003  |
I've been working on the fourth issue of Proclamation, and Martin Carey has written an amazing article which he entitled "Never Without Blood". I want to hear how you understood Jesus' blood when you were an Adventist. What was it for? I realized that I don't really know what I thought about it. I heard the words, "He died for my sins," "He died to pay the price for my sins," "He died to uphold the law," "He died to show us the lengths to which He'd go to show us He loved us," and on and on. At the same time, I had no idea my FUTURE sins were forgiven...or that I was completely justified in God's eyes. (Well, perhaps I really wasn't as an Adventist! I didn't have any assurance of salvation, and I didn't know who Jesus was...) What did you think about the blood, and what do you think now? I'm becoming convinced that this question may still be somewhat open-ended among us formers as well as among many who call themselves Christian. Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9493 Registered: 3-2004  |
I thought the same as you Colleen. I just did not understand the purpose of Jesus shed blood as an sda. Now I see it as a loving thing for God to do because He loves me. Because of His blood and my acceptance of Jesus as my Savior I now know that all my sins are forgiven. Diana L | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2255 Registered: 7-2007 |
As an Adventist, I thought that since Jesus shed His blood while dying for my sins, I could eventually be saved "if I kept up my end of things." I just didn't know that I could completely "put my weight down" on His sacrifice for me because I felt that part of "it" was up to me. That's the heartbreaking thing about SDAs. Since they think that part of the work is up to them, they don't fully accept Jesus' sacrifice in their behalf. Therefore they don't get saved. The easiest thing in the world is to get saved, but they slave and agonize away, desperately hoping to make it to Heaven, without really accepting the GIFT. Ellen White has really "done a number on them." The Bible is SO CLEAR that salvation is a FREE GIFT but Ellen White has convinced millions of people to work for it. The Bible says believers "have been saved," but Ellen White says not to say believers have been saved. It really breaks my heart!  | ||
| Surfy Registered user Username: Surfy Post Number: 766 Registered: 11-2007 |
I think I used to believe that His blood made it possible for us to be saved. Now I believe that His blood saves us. Kinda what others have been saying. Surfy | ||
| Kiki Registered user Username: Kiki Post Number: 37 Registered: 9-2011 |
After being an Adventist for several years, I heard only one pastor say (recently) that Jesus paid for all of my sins, past, present and future, and I thought the pastor was wrong because I had never heard such a thing. I never knew what sins I had been forgiven for, I suppose all the sins up to my baptism and then I had to confess for every new sin that I had... and if I forgot one like EGW said, I could count my salvation lost. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 205 Registered: 2-2011 |
~I grew up as a (cradle adventist) 4th generation~I never remember hearing about the 'blood' of Jesus in church or in adventist religion classes in school~ However, I did hear about the 'blood' of Jesus & its power to save from my paternal Grandmother who was a Methodist~ my family went to visit her & my Grandfather on Sunday afternoons & many times she would play the piano and sing the following hymn~ There is Power in the Blood lyrics by Lewis E. Jones~1899~ The following is the first verse & the Refrain "Would you be free from your burden of sin? There's power in the blood; power in the blood; would you o'er evil a victory win? There's wonderful power in the blood." ~~~~~Refrain~~~~ "There is power, power, wonder working power In the blood, of the Lamb; There is power, power, wonder working power In the precious blood of the Lamb." This old hymn has a lively rhythm and we would sing it with 'gusto'! My dear Grandmother also told me how important it was for Jesus to shed His blood on the cross for our sins~I was young at this time, but she planted a seed! When I was in the process of coming out of adventism I began to listen to the teachings of Jon Courson~ He has written a deep study on the 'blood'of Jesus~ I believe all would benefit from hearing~ ~mj~ | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 1705 Registered: 12-2007  |
I didn't even think about it until this thread,,, but now that I am thinking about it... I don't remember EVER hearing anything as a SDA about Jesus "blood" and very little even about the cross. I remember occasionally hearing about His "death, burial and resurrection" usually along with being reminded that He "rested" in the grave through Sabbath showing that He felt IT was of such importance that He "observed Sabbath even in death". Gives me chills (bad kind) now to think about it. Even THE most important event in this earths history took a back seat to "Sabbath" observance. Just makes me want to cry. Please forgive us our ignorance Lord. | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 984 Registered: 5-2009 |
I wasn't taught anything about His blood, either. Everyone bleeds if they're beaten and crucified...it had no importance to me, really. Just something physical and natural. And my old "Bible Story " book emphasized how he suffered just to say He loved me. I didn't get that ...it bothered me that he hurt just to say He loved me. He could have just said and not have gone through all the torture. I REALLY didn't get that He was PAYING for anything. As I got older, I had no idea His death had anything to do with my future sins. I think it is so cool to think about how blood works in our physical bodies, then learn spiritual lessons from it. Our RBCs bring oxygen to all of our body parts, then take away the waste from our tissue, carrying to each specific place that gets rid of it. The blood then takes food and distributes to every part of us. The blood of Christ is also essential to the body of Christ (us!), feeding us and continually cleansing us. Dr. DeHaan ("The Chemistry of the Blood") describes this "marvel of divine chemistry". In Revelation the saints use the blood of the Lamb to wash their robes white--try that with human blood! He says the blood is mentioned over 700 times in Scripture; "throughout all eternity it shall never lose it's power. 'It is precious,' says Peter. 'It is incorruptible,' says David. 'It is overcoming blood,' says John in Revelation 'for they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony'. NO WONDER Satan hates the blood and will do anything to get rid of that power of the blood of Christ!" It's an interesting little book. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 208 Registered: 2-2011 |
A post script to my above post #205~ Anyone who has been to an adventist church at one time or another has sung from a hymnal~the adventist have their "own" version, which does not include the hymn I mentioned "There's Power in the Blood" ~ Also, another Christian hymn, about Jesus' 'blood', entitled, "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus", is missing! I do not think this is by coincidence; because they are both old hymns from the late 1800's ~ The adventist hymnal was not printed until the 1940's, I believe~! ~mj~ | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 604 Registered: 5-2009  |
I love what you wrote, Nowisee! I'm going to look that up. I've heard Beth Moore say that the blood of Jesus is still warm. Meaning, it is just as life-giving and effective for cleansing of our sin today as it was the day that He shed it. Amen. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13155 Registered: 12-2003 |
Nowisee, that's amazing. I love those words from Scripture all combined together...such power! Thanks for sharing that! Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 641 Registered: 7-2005 |
Colleen In my country (Romania) the adventist subculture has a substitute for Christ's blood, it was called "mercy's sponge". It appeared only in prayers and was accepted language, in a standard phrase: "Cleanse us with your mercy's sponge". Remembering this is strange, because it seems like an instinctive evasion of using the word "blood." The interesting part is that, while theoretically affirming the penal subtitutionary theory of atonement, in practice the elimination of blood from vocabulary led to a "bloodless" view of atonement, on the same plane as the those who, in line with Graham Maxwell's abelardian's view embrace the moral influence theory of atonement. Also I'm more and more inclined to see adventists as embracing Hugo Grotious' governmental view of atonement: God could have forgiven sin without requiring a payment, but because the rules of His government would be questioned, He had to execute punishment. In the adventist version, the governmental view sounds: because God had to uphold the law, Jesus had to die. Ultimately it was not God's righteous character and His justice resulting in His wrath against sin, internal attributes of Himself, but an external standard that constrained God in giving His Son to die. Gabriel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13162 Registered: 12-2003 |
Gabriel, very interesting about the Romanian "mercy's sponge". I agree with you re: the effects of using that language. I further agree that Adventism is actually aligned with the governmental theory of atonement. I've thought so, too, for a couple years or so (when I first read about it!). Very, very true. Adventism is, essentially, bloodless...and the "blood" it does espouse is an incomplete atonement. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1362 Registered: 7-2004  |
Having joined SDAism rather than being raised in it, I'll offer a different perspective. I came inti SDAism with at least semi-formed thoughts about the importance of Christ's blood in the forgiveness and cleansing from sin. The topic of Christ's blood was so rarely discussed within SDAism that I just kind of assumed that SDAs must teach the same things, with nothing to really contradict or confirm that idea. As the true nature of the Gospel took hold of my understanding, I began to understand more of the idea of His blood as our covering righteousness. But it wasn't until I was processing out of SDAism that I began understanding the role of His blood in forming the New Covenant. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1363 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm not sure SDAism actually has a theory of the Atonement. It just isn't that important in SDA theology. Now the Day od Atonement has huge significance for SDAism. But this hits right at the heart of what the underlying problem of SDAism is, IMO, that Christ and Him crucified does not hold a place of high importance in SDA theology or worship. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 1061 Registered: 2-2008  |
So true Ric... Christ's death and resurrection was not that important as an SDA. I thought maybe that was in my home only. As an adventist, my experience was the same as others, blood and atonement wasn't talked about much. At Easter, we celebrated the bunny rather than Christ's resurrection. Just thinking that maybe we didn't talk about it much because it would have been difficult for my parents to explain that Christ's blood covered our sins... but didn't... because there had to be an investigation. Could a child understand that? I remember a time when my son was at a sda school at CA. A friend of mine who was Baptist asked my why the school didn't take Good Friday off. She told me she felt that Easter wasn't that important to an sda. I didn't know what to say to her because she had nailed it on the head. His death wasn't that important... just an event. sad. I still think that if God would have used chocolate instead of blood... us girls would have understood the whole atonement thing a lot sooner!  vivian | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1364 Registered: 7-2004 |
Not certain about understanding atonement sooner, but fewer people would skip communion. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 1063 Registered: 2-2008 |
LOL! | ||
| Johnr1937 Registered user Username: Johnr1937 Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2011 |
Without the shedding of blood, there IS NO remission of sin! Heb_9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. Hebrews 9:22 From Albert Barnes' Notes on the bible: And almost all things - It is a general custom to purify everything by blood. This rule was not universal, for some things were purified by fire and water, Num_31:22-23, and some by water only; Num_31:24; Lev_16:26, Lev_16:28. But the exceptions to the general rule were few. Almost everything in the tabernacle and temple service, was consecrated or purified by blood. And without shedding of blood is no remission - Remission or forgiveness of sins. That is, though some things were purified by fire and water, yet when the matter pertained to the forgiveness of sins, it was “universally” true that no sins were pardoned except by the shedding of blood. Some impurities might be removed by water and fire, but the stain of “sin” could be removed only by blood. This declaration referred in its primary meaning, to the Jewish rites, and the sense is, that under that dispensation it was universally true that in order to the forgiveness of sin blood must be shed. But it contains a truth of higher order and importance still. “It is universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven, except in connection with, and in virtue of the shedding of blood.” It is on this principle that the plan of salvation by the atonement is based, and on this that God in fact bestows pardon upon people. There is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever been pardoned except through the blood shed for the remission of sins. The infidel who rejects the atonement has no evidence that his sins are pardoned; the man who lives in the neglect of the gospel, though he has abundant evidence that he is a sinner, furnishes none that his sins are forgiven; and the Mussulman and the pagan can point to no proof that their sins are blotted out. It remains to be demonstrated that one single member of the human family has ever had the slightest evidence of pardoned sin, except through the blood of expiation. In the divine arrangement there is no principle better established than this, that all sin which is forgiven is remitted through the blood of the atonement; a principle which has never been departed from hitherto, and which never will be. It follows, therefore: (1) that no sinner can hope for forgiveness except through the blood of Christ; (2) that if people are ever saved they must be willing to rely on the merits of that blood; (3) that all people are on a level in regard to salvation, since all are to be saved in the same way; and, (4) that there will be one and the same song in heaven - the song of redeeming love. |
