SHOULD WE GIVE A "DIDDLE DAD GUMMED"
|
Here is a letter from a man who thinks that the Blood of Jesus does not exist.
I am going to answer him as kindly and Scripturally as possible. I will give his entire letter, and then answer it point by point.
I think you know of the difference that Hymers and I have had in the past about this subject. This is a continuation of a point of pride by Hymers to prove the unprovable, that the blood of Jesus is kept in liquid form in some kind of a container in heaven and from time to time something is dipped into it and it is again sprinkled upon certain things or people and those certain things or people are then cleansed from sins.
I don't give a diddle dad gummed if every Baptist in the world says that, there is not one verse of scripture to prove it. The only reason Hymers published the sayings of all those guys is because he can't, nor can anyone else, find a scripture that states that.
YES! The Blood of Jesus and its efficacy, its effectiveness, and its sin cleansing power is just as strong and just as fresh as it was when Jesus was crucified, but it is not still in liquid form, in some golden chalice, sitting on some shelf, in some heavenly storage room in heaven right now. That is idiotic as well as heretical.
It is further ridiculous. God does not from time to time walk by a chalice and weep tears of remembrance as he looks upon a glass of blood. God's Son is there and any tenderness he feels, he feels for his Son, not a glass of blood.
Hymers' stand completely ignores Isaiah 53:10-12. Jesus poured out his soul unto death, God made his soul an offering for sin, and the pouring out of the soul of Jesus satisfied the just demands of God for the penalty of sin.
His position flies in the face of the verses in Hebrews that say he suffered once. But Hymers demands many sprinklings of the blood - that is the celebration of the Catholic mass. Sorry, can't buy it.
Here is my answer to that letter, point by point.
(1) He says, "This is a continuation of a point of pride by Hymers to prove the unprovable, that the blood of Jesus is kept in liquid form in some kind of a container in heaven and from time to time something is dipped into it and it is again sprinkled upon certain things or people and those certain things or people are then cleansed from sins."
Answer: This is not "a point of pride" with me. It never has been, and it is not now. His statement is a psychological evaluation, but this man does not know me personally, and, so, is not really able to evaluate whether or not I take the stand I do out of "pride." Then, too, he misrepresents what I have said about the Blood of Jesus. I do not pretend to know what kind of "container" the Blood is kept in, nor do I say that "something is dipped into it." I have never said those things he attributes to me. I have simply given what the Bible says: "the blood of sprinkling" is listed as one of the things that exists in "the heavenly Jerusalem" (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). That is a plain statement of Scripture. When we come to the "heavenly Jerusalem," one of the things we will see there is "Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant" (Hebrews 12:24a). Another thing we will see there is "the blood of sprinkling" (Hebrews 12:24b). I go only as far as the Scriptures go, and no farther.
(2) He says, "I don't give a diddle dad gummed if every Baptist in the world says that, there is not one verse of Scripture to prove it. The only reason Hymers published the sayings of all those guys is because he can't, nor can anyone else, find a scripture that states that."
Answer: He says that all the men I quoted were wrong when they stated that the Blood of Jesus still exists in Heaven. He says that Chrysostom was wrong in the fifth century. Calvin was wrong in the days of the Reformation. Matthew Poole was wrong in the seventeenth century. Matthew Henry and Isaac Watts were wrong in the eighteenth century. Patrick Fairbairn and Spurgeon were wrong in the nineteenth century. So were the authors of The Pulpit Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, and The Expositor's Bible. He says that Andrew Murray, The Scofield Study Bible, Dr. M. R. DeHaan, Dr. John R. Rice, and Dr. J. Vernon McGee were wrong in the twentieth century. He says that Dr. R. A. Torrey was wrong when he said,
"We have not only a Saviour who died and so made atonement for sin, but also a Saviour who rose and carried the blood into the holy of holies - God's own presence - and presents it there, and who ever lives and pleads our case" (Dr. R. A. Torrey, What the Bible Teaches,Fleming H. Revell, 1898, p. 184).
He doesn't care "a diddle dad gummed" what Dr. Torrey or Dr. John R. Rice believed! And he goes on to say that none of these good Christians from the past could "find a scripture that states that." Yet I have repeatedly given Hebrews 12:24, which plainly tells us that "the blood of sprinkling" is with the resurrected Christ in "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Hebrews 12:22-24). I have also repeatedly quoted Psalm 16:10, which Peter cited in Acts 2:27,
"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
This was either completely fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, or it was only partly fulfilled. If the Blood of Jesus saw corruption and no longer exists, then the verse is only partly true! The belief that part of Christ saw corruption and disappeared is not acceptable to those who take Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27 seriously. The incorruptibility of the Blood of Christ is also taught in I Peter 1:18-19.
These are clear Scriptures (Hebrews 12:24; Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27; I Peter 1:18-19).
Then, added to these Scriptures, there is the clear type of the high priest going into the Holy of Holies with blood:
"But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered..." (Hebrews 9:7).
This is followed by the antitype in verses eleven through twenty-five, Jesus entering "into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (Hebrews 9:24). We are told in this section that "the blood of Christ" will "purge your conscience" (Hebrews 9:14). Nothing is said that would cause anyone to think the Blood had disappeared and was not in the Heavenly sanctuary. Then, the section ends by telling us,
"Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others" (Hebrews 9:25).
The natural antitype is fulfilled by Jesus taking His Blood into the Heavenly sanctuary. It is very awkward and unnatural to say that the priest entered, "not without blood," but Jesus did enter without Blood! (cf. Hebrews 9:7).
Hebrews 9:1-25; Hebrews 12:24; Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27; I Peter 1:18-19 are all Scriptures which plainly teach that the Blood of Christ is eternal.
Those plain and clear passages of Scripture ought to be enough to make any honest-hearted person at least consider seriously what Spurgeon, Torrey, and Dr. John R. Rice said about the Blood!
Why would the Apostle Paul specifically tell us to "have faith in his blood" (Romans 3:25) if there were no Blood to have faith in?
"Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:24-25).
Have we really come to the place where we don't give a "diddle dad gummed" what anyone in the past believed? Has the rebellious attitude of the Baby Boomers caused us to reject these Scriptural teachings from past generations? Has it come to that? Do our beliefs have to be reinvented every twenty years? Have we come to the place where we can no longer sing these words?
Faith of our fathers! living still In spite of dungeon, fire and sword,
Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy When e'er we hear that glorious word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith! We will be true to thee till death.
("Faith of Our Fathers" by Frederick W. Faber, 1814-1863).
(3) He says, "YES! The Blood of Jesus and its efficacy, its effectiveness, and its sin cleansing power is just as strong and just as fresh as it was when Jesus was crucified" - BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Answer: We are in a sad state of apostasy when there are
"fundamentalists" denying the very existence of Christ's Blood!
(4) He says, "It is not still in liquid form, in some golden chalice, sitting on some shelf, in some heavenly storage room in heaven right now. That is idiotic as well as heretical."
Answer: How does he know that it is not in liquid form? How in the world does he know that? What Scripture does he have to back up that statement? I would like to see it! Furthermore, how does he know that it isn't in "some golden chalicein heaven right now"? How in the world does he know that? What Scriptures does he have to back up this dogmatic statement?
The Bible plainly tells us that there are seven golden vials (or bowls) in Heaven, in Revelation 15:7,
"And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials [bowls]" (Revelation 15:7).
How does this man know that there isn't an eighth "golden chalice" containing the Blood of Christ? He says he knows there isn't an eighth golden bowl, but how does he know there isn't? The Bible plainly reveals that there are at least seven chalices made out of gold in Heaven. There may well be an eighth golden chalice. We are not told one way or the other - and so it is very presumptuous for him to say there couldn't possibly be an eighth such bowl!
(5) He says, "That is idiotic as well as heretical," to believe that the Blood is kept in Heaven.
Answer: My, my! Is he saying that Dr. Rice and Dr. McGee were "idiotic and heretical"? Is he saying that Spurgeon, Dr. M. R. DeHaan, and The Scofield Study Bible were "idiotic and heretical"? What Scriptures does he quote to make such a boldly dogmatic statement?
(6) He says, "But Hymers demands many sprinklings of the blood - that is the celebration of the Catholic mass. Sorry, can't buy it."
Answer: I never said any such thing! What I believe is that Jesus gave His Blood one time on the Cross, and that His Blood was taken one time into the "heavenly Jerusalem" (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). What I believe is exactly the opposite to what the Catholics teach in the Mass!
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Hebrews 9:12).
Conclusion:
What is the purpose of this man's letter? Is it an attack against the supernaturalism of the Bible? There are things about the gospel of Christ that are a mystery to the natural mind of human beings, things that go beyond the rational - into the spiritual. How did Jesus' "flesh and bone" body rise from the dead? We do not humanly understand all of this, yet in Luke 24:39 the resurrected Christ said,
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39).
We do not rationally have full understanding of how the flesh and bones of Jesus rose from the dead, or how His flesh and bones ascended into Heaven (cf. Acts 1:9). We do not fully understand how "this same Jesus" will come again in His flesh and bone resurrected body - and yet the Bible tells us it is so (cf. Acts 1:11).
In the same way, our human minds do not fully comprehend how the "blood of sprinkling" could be kept with the resurrected body of Jesus in "the heavenly Jerusalem" but we know it is there because the Bible says so (Hebrews 12:24). We know that the Blood of Jesus is in Heaven the same way we know His Body is there - by faith!
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7).
"But without faith it is impossible to please him" (Hebrews 11:6).
"Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:24-25).
"Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8).
For more information on this subject, click on "My Answer to Dr. MacArthur's Letter on the Blood" and the article titled, "What Christian Leaders Across the Centuries Said About Christ's Eternal Blood." They are hyperlinked. Click them on here.
There is a fountain filled with blood Drawn from Emmanuel's veins,
And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, Lose all their guilty stains,
And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains.
("There Is a Fountain" by William Cowper, 1731-1800)