Replies

"At no point was your body washed with physical blood."

At no time has my body been PHYSICALLY washed with blood. Salvation of neither the soul or body requires this. And that is just one good reason to deny that baptism with water has the affect of washing away sin; water baptism cannot do this.

But to say that God having washed us in the Blood of Jesus Christ is but metaphoric is also NOT accurate. It may seem like a mystery to many, but in the economy of God's workings there is a sense in which He did in fact LITERALLY wash us in the Blood of Jesus Christ for the cleansing away, once for all, of our sins (Revelation 1:5; 12:11). To get that sense directly from the Scriptures, please read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 carefully, especially 9:12-14; 10:19; 13:20. Then 1 Peter 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25; 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:14, 20.
May I insert here that the subject of the Blood is just one reason that we have rejected all English versions of the Bible that were produced from the Vaticanus-type or Sinaiticus-type Greek manuscripts (corrupted in the Alexandrian school between 100 and 300 A.D.), which found their way into the revision committees since 1881. If you compare the "Blood" references between those English versions and the English translations from the Textus Receptus (Antiochan/Byzantine-type) Greek manuscripts, you will find that the whole doctrine of the Blood of Christ has been weakened and obscured by the former. Simply, all modern English versions of the Bible, especially since 1950 have a severely weakened set of verses on the Blood of Christ when compared to the King James Bible.
Physical and literal are not necessarily synonyms, and spiritual and literal are not opposites. Many people can't see something as LITERAL if it is not PHYSICAL. But the physical creation is just a PART of God's creation, and only one of the spheres in which He operates. This is why I would not say that I am only speaking metaphorically with regard to being washed in Jesus' Blood.

Too mystical? Too theological? It requires much more space than I feel I should use here. I have written more on the subject. Anyone is welcome to request more in private correspondence.

Many people can't see something as LITERAL if it is not PHYSICAL.

I don't have a problem with a claim or statement being literal and also not about something physical. For example, "The Holy Spirit exists" is literally true, and yet it is not about something physical. When, however, someone claims that a statement is literally true, and then denies the literal sense of the statement, that's a problem. Christ's blood is physical. But you say, "At no time has my body been physically washed with blood". And then you claim that we must literally be washed in the blood of Christ to be saved. Well, if we must literally be washed in Christ's blood, and you have never literally been physically washed with physical blood, then from your premises it would follow that you are not saved. Do you think that Christ has non-physical blood, and is that what you think you were washed with?

-A8

Salvation of neither the soul or body requires this. And that is just one good reason to deny that baptism with water has the affect of washing away sin; water baptism cannot do this.

Then why is the Great Commission to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and not, "go and distribute Bibles that don't include the New Testament (which hasn't been defined or even fully written yet) which we won't be able to print up for another 1400 years"?

Maybe because "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)