Jesus didn't take away our sin, only our punishment

[Paul Christensen]

I gave this a 'like' as I agree with John 1:29, and every other verse in the bible, even those I cannot truly comprehend at the moment. I, however, do not agree with what he(Enoch 111) is making it say. It says “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Notice how John quoted John the Baptist, "who takes away". It doesn't say he was trying to take away the sin of the world, but "who takes away the sin of the world!" This is referring to the doctrine of expiation, which is the removal of one's guilt. So if the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world, and 'world' means 'everybody whoever lived', then everybody whoever lived has had their sins, their guilt removed, and everybody whoever lived is saved.

It's the same trap ppl fall into when eisegeting 1 John 2:2. It says and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. The same thing is being expressed here by John as was in John 1:29. 'Propitiation' means 'atoning sacrifice' and the NIV aptly uses that very wording. Now, who was propitiated? It was not man, but God. God was the one offended. Man offended God, and they had to pay Him for the wrong they committed. Yet, man could not do this. He had no way of repairing the damage incurred by Adam's fall in the Garden. That is why the God-man, the Christ came in the flesh. Man sinned, man must repay. The Christ becomes flesh, lives the sinless, perfect life, that no other man could live. When He was imputed the sins of the ones the Father gave Him, He stood before His Father as a guilty sinner. Remember, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.[2 Corinthians 5:21] He will forever be the sinless, spotless Lamb of God, but He was reckoned a sinner when He was imputed the elect of God's sins. And God dealt with Him as if it was me or another person. This shows the holiness and righteousness of God. He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?[Romans 8:32] It was the Father who delivered His Son over to those who would mock, spit upon, rip the beard from His face, place a crown of thorns upon His head, and nail to the cross. This is what propitiation is. It makes an actual payment to the Father, and the Father was satisfied with the payment the Son made. If He propitiated God for 'everybody whoever lived' sins, then the Father is satisfied for their payment the Christ made, and all are saved. But we know on the day of judgment many will be cast headlong into an eternal lake of fire.

I ended up giving this a like after having to read it very carefully to make sure that you were not promoting Universalism, which you are not.

Only one small point though. Jesus didn't stand as a guilty sinner before His Father when He presented His blood in the heavenly holy of holies, because just before He died on the cross, He said, "It is finished (in other words, the debt has been fully paid). He did become sin, but that was in the three hours He hung on the cross, bearing the wrath of God for our sin. But when the debt was paid, He gave up His spirit to the Father. He did not remain sin, and He did not go down into hell to be tormented of the devil, as some teach. When He said that it was all finished, the price for sin was fully paid, and He appeared before the Father as the spotless Lamb of God; and when He was ascended, He took His place as the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and Wonderful Counsellor, totally clothed in glory and majesty as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

If He was still sin when he died and His spirit went to the Father, He could not have said, "It is finished" as He died, because it would not have been.

Just a minor correction to ensure accuracy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I ended up giving this a like after having to read it very carefully to make sure that you were not promoting Universalism, which you are not.

Only one small point though. Jesus didn't stand as a guilty sinner before His Father when He presented His blood in the heavenly holy of holies, because just before He died on the cross, He said, "It is finished (in other words, the debt has been fully paid). He did become sin, but that was in the three hours He hung on the cross, bearing the wrath of God for our sin. But when the debt was paid, He gave up His spirit to the Father. He did not remain sin, and He did not go down into hell to be tormented of the devil, as some teach. When He said that it was all finished, the price for sin was fully paid, and He appeared before the Father as the spotless Lamb of God; and when He was ascended, He took His place as the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and Wonderful Counsellor, totally clothed in glory and majesty as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

If He was still sin when he died and His spirit went to the Father, He could not have said, "It is finished" as He died, because it would not have been.

Just a minor correction to ensure accuracy.

One thing. Show me where He presented the blood in the heavenly holy of holies? I have heard this my whole life, but I can't find it. I think someone started this, it grew legs of its own, and took off running.

 

[CharismaticLady]

sin was condemned in the flesh.
Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:4 "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

PICJAG.

WINNER!!!

@SovereignGrace and @Preacher4Truth

If you don't like me, listen to 101G

 

[DNB]

We have been released from the power and penalty of sin, no doubt. But while we are in our mortal body, we still have the presence of sin with us. We reckon ourselves dead to sin, because our bodies have the sentence of death, and we are in a type of 'death row', living out our lives waiting for the appointment that we all have to keep.

The Scripture, "The soul that sins shall surely die" is applied to every human being, and outside of Christ that means physical and spiritual death. But for those in Christ, we are made spiritually alive (ie: born again of the Spirit of God), but we still have the sentence of death in our mortal bodies, and therefore in Christ we mortify our sins by reckoning our sins in our mortal flesh dead - nailed to the cross with Christ.

As Paul says, there is a struggle between our flesh and our spirit. Even though the flesh is on the altar to have the knife through it, it continues to struggle and roar because it doesn't want to die. We would be pretty unrealistic if we didn't have desires in our bodies tempting us to sin. But temptation isn't sin. We have the power to resist it, because we have the Holy Spirit within us.

But I am not living in cloud cuckoo land like the guy on another forum who said, "I have not sinned for the last 30 years!"

But sin does not rule us, according to the Scripture, "Sin shall not have dominion over us" (Romans 6:14).

I believe that if a professing Christian says they don't have a struggle between their spirit and their flesh, there is a doubt whether they are truly born again of the Spirit of God. If Paul had to beat his body into submission so that he wouldn't end up being a castaway, then that shows that we need also to discipline our bodily desires. Peter said for us to be sober and vigilant because the devil goes around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

A religious hypocrite who is content with his comfortable, imaginary image of God (idolatry) and who just follows what his body wants to do in the mistaken notion that what he does is no longer sin, because his imaginary god has taken away the presence of sin from his body, will get a rude and hobble shock when he comes up before Christ on the day of judgment and is told, "I never knew you. Depart from Me, worker of iniquity!"

So, I am not saying that there is any excuse for holding onto our favourite sins. We are to forsake them, and continue to resist temptation when it comes. We have won the war against sin, but there will be battles to fight until we die and go to be with the Lord.

Thank you Paul, that was one of the few rational and realistic views, yet stated!
We are corporeal beings, and the spirit within us, is at enmity with the flesh. Our ontology did not change at our conversion to Christ.
Therefore in our mind we relish in Christ's redemptive power, but in our flesh, the battle remains (Romans 7:18-25).
And like you said (in so many words), he that says otherwise, is deluded, ...and if I may add, offensive.
...do you really believe that you reflect the full image of God, you who claim that you 'don't sin'?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I ended up giving this a like after having to read it very carefully to make sure that you were not promoting Universalism, which you are not.

Only one small point though. Jesus didn't stand as a guilty sinner before His Father when He presented His blood in the heavenly holy of holies, because just before He died on the cross, He said, "It is finished (in other words, the debt has been fully paid). He did become sin, but that was in the three hours He hung on the cross, bearing the wrath of God for our sin. But when the debt was paid, He gave up His spirit to the Father. He did not remain sin, and He did not go down into hell to be tormented of the devil, as some teach. When He said that it was all finished, the price for sin was fully paid, and He appeared before the Father as the spotless Lamb of God; and when He was ascended, He took His place as the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and Wonderful Counsellor, totally clothed in glory and majesty as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

If He was still sin when he died and His spirit went to the Father, He could not have said, "It is finished" as He died, because it would not have been.

Just a minor correction to ensure accuracy.

Here is where ppl fail trying grasp the Hypostatic Union and all it entails. The Christ gave up His Spirit to the Father, and His body to the grave. Spirits do not have blood. There was no blood to offer on the holy of holies in heaven, as His blood was the same as your's and mine's and it was spill out onto the ground. His blood did not contain any mystical properties as it was truly human blood. I wrote a blog about this, defending Dr. John MacArthur, who ppl were saying he was denying the blood saves ppl. It was taken grossly out of context.


Dr. John MacArthur has NEVER denied the necessity of the Christ’s blood

I was in a very spirited debate with a couple ladies on Twitter who said Dr. John MacArthur has denied the necessity of the blood in saving sinners. That could not be further from the truth. I will provide a link to http://www.gty.org where he clarifies what he said. This was from January 1, 1987. How this got started again, Faith Baptist Church(not sure where this church is located) made a documentary called “Calvinism: A Doctrine of Demons”. This brought this to the forefront again and I want to address this here, and post it on Twitter for those ladies, and others, to read. With that, let’s delve into this.



“For some strange reason people have accused me of denying the blood of Christ, which is not so. I affirm that a literal Jesus Christ who was man in every respect, one hundred percent man yet God incarnate, died on the cross, shed His literal blood as a sacrifice for sin. And I believe that, and I believe that it was that sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that atoned for the sins of man, and those who believe appropriate that atonement and receive eternal life through His death and resurrection, and that’s historic Christian theology.“[This was Dr. MacArthur speaking]


Now, show me where he’s denied the blood here. He mentioned the necessity of the blood, along with His death and resurrection. A gospel that denies the blood is no gospel at all, yea, is another gospel. Yet, he has not denied it here.



“But in recent months, I have noticed that there is an encroaching heresy on the blood, that there are people who say that the blood of Jesus was not human, it was divine. One pastor said to me, “He had the blood of God.” I said, “What is the blood of God?” He said, “Divine blood.” I said, “God is a spirit, that was the blood of Christ, that was the blood of a man, He was one hundred percent man.” It’s heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God, and it demonstrates a failure to understand what theologians have called the hypostatic union, that is the God-man union in Christ.

There are others who say that there’s something magical in the blood, there’s something in the blood itself that washes sin away, when the Scripture teaches it was the death of Christ that atoned for sin, and He shed His literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of His life for sin. But there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin. And so, this heresy has begun to develop, strangely enough.“[Dr. MacArthur]

Again, show me where Dr. MacArthur has denied the necessity of the blood of the Christ. What he was addressing were the heresies springing up that had the blood having some sort of mystical properties, some sort of magical power. The blood that flowed through His veins was no different than yours or mine. No one who came into contact with that blood, if He had gotten cut, had their sins atoned for. The Roman soldier who pierced His side and caused blood and water to gush out, that blood would not have saved him if it came into contact with him. The shedding of blood goes way deeper than that my dear reader. It was not the mere bleeding that saves people. Bear with me here a minute. Bleeding alone doesn’t save. Look at the Old Testament sacrifices. The animals sacrificed not only bled, but died. It was the bleeding coinciding with its death that brought the atonement. If the animal bled but did not die, there would have been no atonement. If it had died and there was no bleeding, there would have been no atonement. It took BOTH the bleeding AND the death of that animal to bring atonement. It’s the same way with the Christ’s atonement on the cross. It took the bleeding and death to bring atonement.



Blood also refers to someone’s life. Dr. MacArthur said this Judah, you remember, in Genesis 37 said to his brothers about Joseph, quote: “What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?” Well, they didn’t mean collect his blood and hide it in the ground, they meant conceal his death, conceal the violent, murderous death. See, here he is giving proper context to blood. They would be concealing his blood, but hiding his body, the life they took, not his literal blood.



When the Christ said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,“ [Mark 14:24] was that literally blood He gave them to drink? No. That’s RCC teaching, not mainstream Christian teaching. He was saying that He was shedding His blood, giving His life. The Greek word for shedding is αἱματεκχυσία which means shedding, an effusion. An effusion means the escape of a fluid from anatomical vessels by rupture or exudation. This means He shed His blood and gave His life in the process of shedding His blood.



You remember the words of Jesus – pardon me, the words of Judas about Jesus? He said, “I have betrayed innocent” – what? – “blood.” And what he meant by that is, “I have brought Jesus without cause near violent death.” And the Jews said let His what be on our heads? His blood, the responsibility for His violent death.[Dr. MacArthur]

Again, another clear example of where blood was synonymous with life. When God told Cain “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground,”[Genesis 4:10] was Abel’s blood literally crying out? I see this along the lines of those who were slain, under the altar saying “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”[Revelation 6:10] They we’re talking about the lives they lost lives for the word of God. Their blood here was referring to their lives.

Continued...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Part 2....

The New Testament says, for example, “He gave His blood.” The New Testament also says, “He gave His soul.” The New Testament says, “He gave His life,” and the New Testament says, “He gave Himself.” It all means the very same thing.[Dr. MacArthur]

Here it is again. Dr. MacArthur is showing that the word blood did not only mean a red liquid filled with red blood cells, white blood cells, serum, &c., but also referred to His giving of His life. If bleeding was the only necessity, then His death was not necessary. All He would have had to have done was cut Himself and let the blood gush forth. But dear reader, it was the giving of His life, while shedding His blood, that saves us.

You know, I can make a claim, although it’s not biblical, that the Christ’s death reconciled us to God, so the resurrection isn’t necessary. It says His death reconciled us, and to be reconciled means we are no longer His enemies, but friends. Don’t you believe it? Don’t you believe your bible? It right there in Romans 5:10. Yet, it says at the end of that verse we are saved by His life. I can take a portion of scripture and twist it so bad it’s a horrible teaching. Many other places tell us we are saved by His life. That’s what has happened with Dr. MacArthur’s quote that got twisted by some people. All anyone has to do is go back through his FOURTY years in the ministry and find out he has NEVER denied the necessity of the blood of the Christ. But it’s easier to take one statement out of context to ruin someone’s ministry. I know, I almost did that to Dr. MacArthur once. I hurt a dear friend and Brother and he corrected me on it. He showed me I can’t take one quote from him(which I was uncertain of the meaning, but wrote about it anyways…yeah I know, DUMB) and extrapolate it from his ministry of fourty years. Neither should those who say Dr. MacArthur denies the blood extrapolate that twisted quote from his forty years of ministry.



Here is the link to that article that has a message where he goes through several previous sermons preaching in the necessity of the blood.

The Blood of Christ

Here’s a link to a Radio Free Geneva hosted by Dr. James White, who further expounds on Dr. MacArthur’s belief on this topic. Start at 12:00——>~30:00 to listen to it.

 

[Paul Christensen]

One thing. Show me where He presented the blood in the heavenly holy of holies? I have heard this my whole life, but I can't find it. I think someone started this, it grew legs of its own, and took off running.

Now that is interesting, because Hebrews 9:12 says that "by His blood He entered in once into the holy place", and not with His blood.

This shows that the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy of holies is an error made through a misreading of the Hebrews Scripture and a confusion with the Levitical priest taking the blood of the animal into the Temple holy place and sprinkling it over the mercy seat.

The place where Jesus shed His blood was on the cross, and when it was finished, He died and was buried, and His spirit went to the Father. When He rose again, He had a new body of flesh and bones, but no blood (that we know of), so His shed blood was left on the cross, and He entered into the heavenly holy place as our great High Priest, not having to take any blood to sprinkle on some heavenly mercy seat, but because He had already shed His blood on the cross.

So, I am, after all these years, rejecting the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy place because it is through a misreading of the verse and therefore not correct.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Thank you Paul, that was one of the few rational and realistic views, yet stated!
We are corporeal beings, and the spirit within us, is at enmity with the flesh. Our ontology did not change at our conversion to Christ.
Therefore in our mind we relish in Christ's redemptive power, but in our flesh, the battle remains (Romans 7:18-25).
And like you said in so many words), he that says otherwise, is deluded, ...and if I may add, offensive.
...do you really believe that you reflect the full image of God, now that you 'don't sin'?

Our developmental sanctification involves being progressively transformed into the image of Christ which will finally be completed when we see the Lord face to face and are changed from mortality into immortality.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Our ontology did not change at our conversion to Christ.

I disagree (of course. LOL)

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

That is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To be saved, we must remain in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Now that is interesting, because Hebrews 9:12 says that "by His blood He entered in once into the holy place", and not with His blood.

This shows that the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy of holies is an error made through a misreading of the Hebrews Scripture and a confusion with the Levitical priest taking the blood of the animal into the Temple holy place and sprinkling it over the mercy seat.

The place where Jesus shed His blood was on the cross, and when it was finished, He died and was buried, and His spirit went to the Father. When He rose again, He had a new body of flesh and bones, but no blood (that we know of), so His shed blood was left on the cross, and He entered into the heavenly holy place as our great High Priest, not having to take any blood to sprinkle on some heavenly mercy seat, but because He had already shed His blood on the cross.

So, I am, after all these years, rejecting the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy place because it is through a misreading of the verse and therefore not correct.

When I heard this the first time I was like "Whoa! Wait, what?" It was His Spirit that went back to the Father. His Spirit did not possess blood, as spirits do not have blood. And when He arose from the grave in His gloried body, I do not think His body had any blood(as you said, "that we know of") in it.

It's ppl like you who make these sites a treasure at times. :)

 

[SovereignGrace]

Now that is interesting, because Hebrews 9:12 says that "by His blood He entered in once into the holy place", and not with His blood.

This shows that the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy of holies is an error made through a misreading of the Hebrews Scripture and a confusion with the Levitical priest taking the blood of the animal into the Temple holy place and sprinkling it over the mercy seat.

The place where Jesus shed His blood was on the cross, and when it was finished, He died and was buried, and His spirit went to the Father. When He rose again, He had a new body of flesh and bones, but no blood (that we know of), so His shed blood was left on the cross, and He entered into the heavenly holy place as our great High Priest, not having to take any blood to sprinkle on some heavenly mercy seat, but because He had already shed His blood on the cross.

So, I am, after all these years, rejecting the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy place because it is through a misreading of the verse and therefore not correct.

Also, the high priest and all he died typified Him, but was not just like Him. The type typifies the antitype, but is not an exact replica. :)

 

[Paul Christensen]

When I heard this the first time I was like "Whoa! Wait, what?" It was His Spirit that went back to the Father. His Spirit did not possess blood, as spirits do not have blood. And when He arose from the grave in His gloried body, I do not think His body had any blood(as you said, "that we know of") in it.

It's ppl like you who make these sites a treasure at times. :)

I know that I can be quite opinionated at times which promotes some spirited responses and some acrimonious ones too. But I try to form my opinions on what I saw in the literal text of the Bible.

I really appreciate your kind comment and it encourages me no end.

 

[DNB]

I disagree (of course. LOL)

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

That is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. To be saved, we must remain in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Well then, if all you stated were true, then you must be an exceptional example to the world around you. When people meet you, they must remark, 'My stars, that woman clearly has the Spirit of God within her!' With your wisdom and peace, you must be quite the testimony to Christ, and have converted countless lost souls?

 

[Joseph77]

Exposed with his own words a decade ago, still revealed online through seeking ... "form of religion" with no power to save.
MacArthur

 

[Paul Christensen]

You must be an exceptional example to the world around you. When people meet you, they must remark, 'My stars, that woman clearly has the Spirit of God within her!' With your wisdom and peace, you must be quite the testimony to Christ, and have converted countless lost souls?

That is called irony! :cool:

 

[SovereignGrace]

I know that I can be quite opinionated at times which promotes some spirited responses and some acrimonious ones too. But I try to form my opinions on what I saw in the literal text of the Bible.

I really appreciate your kind comment and it encourages me no end.

When I said "Whoa! Wait? What?" that was when I first heard He didn't offer His blood on the mercy seat in heaven. I had heard that pretty much my whole life by ppl I love and trust. But after reading the evidence, I found out that what they told me was wrong. They were sincere in their belief, but sincerely wrong.

And I am thankful you are like me that when someone shows me with bible I am wrong, they admit they were wrong. Admitting that ain't easy for my flesh, but when ppl win me with biblically based arguments, they've won me. :)

 

[DNB]

The place where Jesus shed His blood was on the cross, and when it was finished, He died and was buried, and His spirit went to the Father. When He rose again, He had a new body of flesh and bones, but no blood (that we know of), so His shed blood was left on the cross, and He entered into the heavenly holy place as our great High Priest, not having to take any blood to sprinkle on some heavenly mercy seat, but because He had already shed His blood on the cross.

Flesh & bones but no blood? Paul, what just happened? After his resurrection, and for forty days, he walked, talked, ate fish and bread, defecated and slept, but had no blood? All because he shed his blood on the cross, as in all of it, not a drop was left, not a single ounce or gram, not an iota.
Can I take back my previous positive remark, about your sensibilities?

 

[SovereignGrace]

That is called irony! :cool:

 

[Joseph77]

Now that is interesting, because Hebrews 9:12 says that "by His blood He entered in once into the holy place", and not with His blood.

This shows that the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy of holies is an error made through a misreading of the Hebrews Scripture and a confusion with the Levitical priest taking the blood of the animal into the Temple holy place and sprinkling it over the mercy seat.

The place where Jesus shed His blood was on the cross, and when it was finished, He died and was buried, and His spirit went to the Father. When He rose again, He had a new body of flesh and bones, but no blood (that we know of), so His shed blood was left on the cross, and He entered into the heavenly holy place as our great High Priest, not having to take any blood to sprinkle on some heavenly mercy seat, but because He had already shed His blood on the cross.

So, I am, after all these years, rejecting the teaching that Jesus took His blood into the heavenly holy place because it is through a misreading of the verse and therefore not correct.

Most people never find this out.
The Father in heaven made this known to you.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Exposed with his own words a decade ago, still revealed online through seeking ... "form of religion" with no power to save.
MacArthur

So, you are not a Dr. MacArthur fan?