Forgiveness

[mark s]

Hebrews 10:11-18 ESV
(11) And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
(12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
(13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
(14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(15) And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
(16) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
(17) then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Why did the priest continue of offer sacrifices?

This is a serious question to consider, you child of God who do not think your sins have been completely forgiven, all sins, for all time.

Why keep offering sacrifices? Because the sacrifice only covered the current sin. The annual sacrifice only covered the previous year's sins.

However – If you didn't commit new sins, you would not need to offer new sacrifices. The new sacrifice was because there would be new sins.

The priest would offer the sacrifice, and apply the blood. Then repeat each year for the sins of the nation, and individually for the sins of individuals. New sins, new sacrifice, and again apply the blood.

Is it the same in the New Covenant?

Under the Old Covenant, there was a new sacrifice for each new sin, those that could be covered by sacrifice, that is. Some simply required your death. And a new annual sacrifice every year, a reminder that animal sacrifice was only temporary.

Under the New Covenant, one sacrifice was given, for all sins, for all time. No other sacrifice for sins can or will be made. One perfect sacrifice.

The priest stands daily at his work, but Christ sat down, after His one time sacrifice. By this single offering, He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

What is forgiveness? The word basically means to send away. Some translations say, “where there is remittance of these, there is no more offering for sin”. Simply stated, where sins have been sent away, there isn't any more sacrifice for sins. They have been sent away.

This is a key point in this passage.

Why is Jesus' sacrifice once and-for-all? No more sacrifice to be offered? Because the sins have been forgiven. Sent away.

Let's go back through this passage one more time:

Hebrews 10:11-18 ESV
(11) And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ~ Sins have not been taken away, and as new sins are added, they need new sacrifice.
(12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ~ Christ's work is finished, because His sacrifice has sent all sins away.
(13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
(14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. ~ The one offering was enough, and has provided a finished work – perfected for all time – to those whom God is making His own.
(15) And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
(16) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," ~ God makes us an new creature, we have passed from death to life.
(17) then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." ~
(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. ~ This sacrifice is not one-time-only because it is 'sufficient to provide forgiveness to be doled out sin by sin.' This is the final sacrifice because the sins have been forgiven.

May I be so bold as to request we keep the debate to this passage for a bit? I'd like the chance to explore this particular passage with you all.

Do you disagree with what I'm saying here? Please show where in this passage you feel I have misinterpreted what is being said.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Do you disagree with what I'm saying here? Please show where in this passage you feel I have misinterpreted what is being said.

I agree completely with Hebrews and as far as I can tell , with what you said too. But I dont understand what you say here : (at the end of verse 18) ...

This sacrifice is not one-time-only because it is 'sufficient to provide forgiveness to be doled out sin by sin.' This is the final sacrifice because the sins have been forgiven.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

Why is Jesus' sacrifice once and-for-all? No more sacrifice to be offered? Because the sins have been forgiven. Sent away.

I disagree that the Atonement is the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness is personal to you. The Atonement was personal to God. Unless an individual applies to God to partake of His Atonement, his sin remains unforgiven.

To understand this better, look at Young's Literal's usage of 'sins' and 'the sin'. Sins are the outworking of 'the sin', and Jesus broke the power of sin, as well as atoning for our sins.

If you look at the end of 2 Cor 5 in Tyndale's New Testament, he uses the word atonement several times. Unless the atonement is received by the comer-to-God he remains without it. Otherwise, you are preaching universalism.

No time right now to elaborate with scriptures, but I know you'll study this out for yourself anyway.

The topic is very relevant to many post on CyB and this is a good time to tackle it.

 

[mark s]

. But I dont understand what you say here : (at the end of verse 18) ...

~ This sacrifice is not one-time-only because it is 'sufficient to provide forgiveness to be doled out sin by sin.' This is the final sacrifice because the sins have been forgiven.

Hi Arnie,

This is what I mean. Someone could say that Jesus doesn't have to die again because His death is enough to provide forgiveness for all sins, for everyone. So that when we sin, we can come back for forgiveness, and there will always be enough.

But what Hebrews says is that Jesus doesn't have to die again because all the sins have already been sent away - forgiven.

Does this help?

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark,

[/font][/size]

I disagree that the Atonement is the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness is personal to you. The Atonement was personal to God. Unless an individual applies to God to partake of His Atonement, his sin remains unforgiven.

To understand this better, look at Young's Literal's usage of 'sins' and 'the sin'. Sins are the outworking of 'the sin', and Jesus broke the power of sin, as well as atoning for our sins.

If you look at the end of 2 Cor 5 in Tyndale's New Testament, he uses the word atonement several times. Unless the atonement is received by the comer-to-God he remains without it. Otherwise, you are preaching universalism.

No time right now to elaborate with scriptures, but I know you'll study this out for yourself anyway.

The topic is very relevant to many post on CyB and this is a good time to tackle it.

Hi dragonfly,

As the passage says, "those who are being sanctified", even in this passage, universalism is not indicated. And we know from the rest of Scripture that Universalism is error.

But when you say "the atonement", do you mean the animal sacrifices?

Typically, I see "atonement" being translated from kophar - cover - in relation to the efficacy of the animal sacrifices. Sins were covered. In Christ they are remitted - sent away, translated "forgiven".

But not all use the words this way. So I would like to make that distinction. By animal sacrifice, sins are covered, but not removed. By Jesus' sacrifice, sins are removed - forgiven.

(added to say . . . I think maybe I just figured out what you mean . . . like in Romans 5, God has reconciled us, and we have to receive the reconciliation)

And yes, this must be received to have value to individuals. But before getting too far into that particular topic, I'd like to stay with this Hebrews passage. Does it say what I claim that it says?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

(added to say . . . I think maybe I just figured out what you mean . . . like in Romans 5, God has reconciled us, and we have to receive the reconciliation)

And yes, this must be received to have value to individuals. But before getting too far into that particular topic, I'd like to stay with this Hebrews passage. Does it say what I claim that it says?

I'm glad you were able to pick up on that point about the need for us to receive the reconciliation. This is the import of Paul's message at the end of 2 Cor 5, and the import of 1 Timothy 2:5.

There is also 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world, with propitiation being to do with Christ making Himself the appeasement for our sins, to His Father.

Do you know that the New Covenant was between the Father and the Son? This is another reason it's imperative that men come through Christ to the Father. He is the Door. We are joined to the New Covanant by faith in Christ's death and resurrection. It's presumed that the comers thereto have an understanding of the sin of Adam's disobedience, and its outworking of the sinfulness and death of all his descendants, and that therefore, any real Saviour comes to deal with all of that - the spirit of disobedience, the death (the result of the sin), the sins themselves which incur God's wrath, and the ultimate restoration of men who receive this real Saviour, into right relationship (fellowship) with God the Father.


Look at these verses (please) in that context, and the context of the verses following (from 1 John).

Romans 10:9 '... if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from

the dead, thou shalt be saved. ​

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 3:21 - 26)



1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God ...'​

You wanted to stay with the verses in Hebrews, so here is Mickelson's Exhaustive definiton of

atonement
H3722 כָּפַר kaphar (kaw-far') v.
1. to cover (specifically with bitumen)
2. (figuratively) to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel
[a primitive root]
KJV: appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation).

I have no trouble accepting that the sin of the world has been cancelled in the heavenlies, but to assume it has been cancelled in every heart (ie, forgiven) is a step beyond what unbelievers have experienced, and fully justifies Paul's plea to the Corinthians - 'be ye reconciled to God'.

From John's baptism onwards, there was an understanding that sin was to be laid aside. We know, of course, that without the Holy Spirit's help, that is impossible to us, but I believe there was something else going on in the lives of those who heard Jesus Himself speak; that His role as Creator took on a personalised meaning to those whose hearts were open to receive His word (as the Master sower of the seed of eternal life). This is how He could honestly expect the woman in John 8, and the man in John 5 to 'go and sin no more'; and, the man in Mark 2:9 to be changed by having had his sins forgiven.

We have to remember that although sins had, apparently, been overlooked in history (such as Cain being marked rather than struck down dead by God), and David being able to testify to the blessedness of the man to whom God will not impute sins (although his nation suffered as a result of his sin), their forgiveness depended on Christ's eventual death, just as ours does. This is another reason it is poignant that a man called Barabbas - son of the father - who was a known rebel and murderer, should have been exchanged with Jesus on the day of His death. Yes, Jesus died for his sins, but he would only be saved from God's wrath (not yet poured out) if he repented and received 'the at-one-ment' in his own heart between Him and God.

I know this doesn't look much like a walk through those verses in Hebrews (! :huh: ), but that's because it's unwise to construct an entire doctrine from just a few verses. Ideally they need support from elsewhere in scripture.

I would like to look at Heb 10:16. It is true that when we receive the Holy Spirit our minds should begin to be renewed if we yield to Him to resist other thoughts and if we yield our bodies to resist all other actions than those into which the Spirit leads us, but, we have passed from death into life only as we remain grafted into Christ's death. In other words, our reality has to be as near the same as His, for us to make that claim this side of natural death.

Once we have received our resurrection body, we trust to be able to make that claim without any mental or physical hindrance, (in a land wherein dwelleth (only) righteousness 2 Peter 3:13, but for now, the carnal mind and the flesh war against the Spirit, and we must guard against giving it ground as we seek to outwork our inner life through our mortal bodies.

Looking at Heb 10:14 (I'm not sure if your italics are your own words or someone else's), For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. ~ The one offering was enough, and has provided a finished work – perfected for all time – to those whom God is making His own', there is a case to be made for keeping it as 'sanctified' rather than 'being sanctified', (which is another discussion, but) which may not be irrelevant to understanding correctly who we are made in Christ - the assumption being that we have given our fully informed consent to His offer of salvation.

This translation (of yours) puts the emphasis on the offering, whereas the KJV puts the emphasis on the effect of the offering on the believer. I'm used to the latter emphasis, and, I believe (especially if the 'being' is left out) that it says something slightly different, which is more true and more complete (which we can talk about further).

perfected
G37 ἁγιάζω hagiazo (hag-ee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to make holy
2. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate
3. (mentally) to venerate
[from G40]
KJV: hallow, be holy, sanctify
Root(s): G40

I think this post is long enough, so because it's quite a large topic, I'll stop here for tonight.

Blessings.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Hi Arnie,

This is what I mean. Someone could say that Jesus doesn't have to die again because His death is enough to provide forgiveness for all sins, for everyone. So that when we sin, we can come back for forgiveness, and there will always be enough.

But what Hebrews says is that Jesus doesn't have to die again because all the sins have already been sent away - forgiven.

Does this help?

Yes it helps (and I agree)

 

[mark s]

Hi dragonfly,

Before getting into other passages, I'd like to settle whether or not we agree on the meaning of this passage. Building doctrines can only happen, in my opinion, once we've correctly understood the words we're reading. If we can settle on our agreement of what this passage says, and what the words mean, then we can begin to combine this and other passages. Your post is going quite a few different directions. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it, but I'd like to cover this particular ground first.

Looking at Heb 10:14 (I'm not sure if your italics are your own words or someone else's), For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. ~ The one offering was enough, and has provided a finished work – perfected for all time – to those whom God is making His own', there is a case to be made for keeping it as 'sanctified' rather than 'being sanctified', (which is another discussion, but) which may not be irrelevant to understanding correctly who we are made in Christ - the assumption being that we have given our fully informed consent to His offer of salvation.

This translation (of yours) puts the emphasis on the offering, whereas the KJV puts the emphasis on the effect of the offering on the believer. I'm used to the latter emphasis, and, I believe (especially if the 'being' is left out) that it says something slightly different, which is more true and more complete (which we can talk about further).

Italicized words are mine. I will always reference other writers if I make use of their material.

"being sanctified"

As a present tense passive voice, I think that "being sanctified" fits, though we need to decide if it should be seen as an ongoing event in the lives of those to whom it happens, or if it should be seen as a simple event that happens repeatedly to different people. To me, I think it's the latter, for the following reason.

"has perfected" is in the perfect tense, which generally speaks of a completed, finished work. So I think this work is completed when it occurs, and therefore the present tense of "being sanctified" is for different people, the idea being even now people are being perfected by God.

Following are some alternate translations:

Heb 10:14

(ALT) For by one offering He has perfected for all time the ones being sanctified.

(AMP) For by a single offering He has forever completely cleansed and perfected those who are consecrated and made holy.

(ASV) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified

(ESV) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

(Geneva) For with one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified.

(ISV) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

(KJVR) For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. .

(NASB) For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

(NET) For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.

(NIV) because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

(NKJV) For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

(NLT) For by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom he is making holy.

(YLT) for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified;

Make of those what you will . . .

And you highlighted the King James:

(KJV) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

My guess is that we are likely seeing "sanctified" in the same way, something that happens at a given time to a given person.

Greek commonly uses word order to show emphasis, that which appears first being more important. I tihnk each of these translations conveys the correct word order from the Greek.

I think this is a very important verse to understand, but then, I think this passage is very important. That is why I want to make sure we settle first what it is saying, before we start bringing in other passages and concepts. We don't have to decide upon a doctrine yet, we need to understand the statements of the text.

Then we can look at what we think are relevant cross-references, though I'd like to apply the same methodology. First establish what the next passage is saying, and what it means. Then we can take the two and bring them together.

So how are we doing so far? Do you agree with my statements? Disagree?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

Two main comments from me.

1) Have you looked at the Greek in all those translations (because I don't intend to, but I note they are from different manuscripts)?

2)

Then we can look at what we think are relevant cross-references, though I'd like to apply the same methodology. First establish what the next passage is saying, and what it means. Then we can take the two and bring them together.

Isn't this rather a secular approach to God's word? I am not at all used to it, and think it far more helpful to determine the meaning of 'sanctified' from the whole breadth of scripture, than to limit our cogitations to this one occurence of it. (Just my 2c.)

 

[mark s]

Hi dragonfly,

I don't think there are any variants on this verse, but I don't have my resources with me right now.

But as far as my methodology, is it not wise to know what a passage says before trying to fit it to other passages? And then to know what those passages say before building doctrine from them?

Now, perhaps there may be an ambiguous statement made, in which case, we need to identify that, to determine the possible alternate meanings, and then, once we've done that, to look for other passages that will clarify the ambiguity.

BTW . . . as a reminder, I've started this thread to talk about forgiveness, and initially from this passage. I hope to expand, but I'd like to come to consensus on what this passage tells us about forgiveness.

As for the meaning of sanctified, that will certainly require it's own word study, imo.

BTW . . . this isn't quite right:

perfected
G37 ἁγιάζω hagiazo (hag-ee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to make holy
2. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate
3. (mentally) to venerate
[from G40]
KJV: hallow, be holy, sanctify
Root(s): G40

The word translated perfected is from teleleoo, I believe, while sanctified is from hagiazo.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

I'd like to come to consensus on what this passage tells us about forgiveness.

I'm going to quote from the KJV. Which version are you using?

Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.


remission
G859 ἄφεσις aphesis (af'-es-is) n.
1. freedom
2. (figuratively) pardon
[from G863]
KJV: deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission


Well, I disagree with your method, especially the word 'concensus' - unless you were referring to agreement between texts rather than people.

Regarding forgiveness, there is a difference between the offer of forgiveness, and obtaining forgiveness, which you seem to be blurring - perhaps intentionally for the sake of the discussion... But it's because of this indistinction we need other co-ordinates to define the truth.

Here is the context of repentance and faith with regard to remission of sins which is missing from the wording of Hebrews 10 because it is has been laid out in Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 3:25 Whom 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; ​

Nowhere in these verses is it implied that sins are forgiven to us without us making contact with God in respect to them.

I do not mean that a person applying to Jesus Christ for the first time, has to annote each individual sin. No! Rather, he has to have come to an inner awareness of his guiltiness as a sinner, and of his need for the Saviour. These propel his heart into the attitude which causes him to seek God in prayer for forgiveness.

 

[whitestone]

I'll reply.

Hebrews 10:11-18 ESV

(11) And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
True. A repetitive offering of the blood of bulls and goats, by an old dying priesthood order, can not take away sins, ever.

~ Sins have not been taken away, and as new sins are added, they need new sacrifice.

False. Nothing in that verse has anything to do with "new sins" or because "the new sins need new sacrifices".
The topic is the multiple priests and their multiple sacrifices verses One Priest and One sacrifice of Christ.
NOT "multiple sins", that is a silly assertation.

(12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

~ Christ's work is finished, because His sacrifice has sent all sins away.

For each person personally Yes, all MY sins are sent away. Our One Priest in His One sacrifice did that for me.
(Unless of course, you still continue to sin...Heb 6:6, but that is another story already covered on this forum)

I need no other priest, I need no other sacrifice than Christ's death. News for those still bound under the law. That is the topic here.

(13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Yes, as it happens to each man in his own order as He turns to Jesus and is forgiven.

(14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

~ The one offering was enough, and has provided a finished work – perfected for all time – to those whom God is making His own.

Correct, The writer is saying there is no more need for multiple priests or multiple sacrifices.

(15) And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
(16) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"

~ God makes us an new creature, we have passed from death to life.

True, that is what will happen if we don't abort the man-child Christ we are carrying around in us. But that isn't what this verse is saying... ("new creature" you are quoting 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15. "passed from death to life" is quoting other scriptures Jo 5:24 & 1 Jo 3:14)
Verse 16 and others shows forth the fulfillment of Jer 31:31-34 to Israel now in Christ. It is a Marriage Covenant they looked forward to, whereby we are required to be party to Him in "FIDELITY" and "Obedience to the Faith(fidelity") as a Wife to Her Husband.
The "New Creature" is the Son of God being produced within us (in our "womb") by Righteous Fidelity of us to our Husband Jesus.
Always remember, being unfaithful to Him by committing adultery against Him in "infidelity"... no sacrifice remains for THAT we know (Heb 6:6) All we have to do is look at God's O.T. Wife and see her fate to be reminded against infidelity.

(17) then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

True, HE won't. But what happens if you do?

(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

True, thank you Jesus.

~ This sacrifice is not one-time-only because it is 'sufficient to provide forgiveness to be doled out sin by sin.' This is the final sacrifice because the sins have been forgiven.

Nope. It has nothing to do with "sin by sin". It has to do with One Priest, One sacrifice.
The emphasis that YOU put in Hebrews, concerning multiple sins, is altogether missing. The emphasis is One Priest. One sacrifice.

In any case, Jesus isn't the final sacrifice for the reason that you said, "because the sins have been forgiven". Nothing of that segment in Hebrews says that.
What it DOES say is that when we've been forgiven by our One Priest in His One sacrifice, we don't need another priest or another sacrifice because Jesus is the LORD prophecied who fulfilled the Melchisedek Priesthood of Everlasting Life (as it goes on to say).

What it does NOT say is that "we don't need another priest or sacrifice because no more sins exist". It does NOT say that! We know that people still sin!
What it DOES say is that all our sins are forgiven by the One Priest in His One sacrifice.
Those who receive Jesus as their One High Priest, and relate to His One sacrifice, NEED NO OTHER PRIEST OR SACRIFICE!

But very clever attempt Mark, to give merit and insert your own ideas that Jesus forgives everyone regardless of whether they continue to sin... You display a solid "Universalism" theology, and with your comments behind each verse, you show precisely where you've twisted your way off the path of comprehending the atonement. Makes it easy to show where you've strayed from the Word to a foreign theology.

Yes, Jesus is our one priest. Our one sacrifice. Not because of continuous sinful people continually sinning. But because the Old Mosaic Law can't save with it's old continual replacement of priests and sacrifices as under the Levitical Priest system.
THAT is the topic.

Your topic here is a clear attempt to refute the prior topics we've discussed, concerning HOW WE RESPOND TO HIS SACRIFICE. If you WANT to know how God sees those who CONTINUE to sin after having received their One Priest in His One sacrifiec, read this again by the same writer;
Here is the difference between the Law of Moses (with their multiple priests and sacrifices) and the Law of Righteousness with His One Priest and One Sacrifice; Read carefully...

(Heb 10:26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(Heb 10:27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
(Heb 10:28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
(Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

You've never once addressed this warning.

So I'll just ask you straight out, please answer this for all of us here... What remains for a person who sins wilfully after they received the knowledge of the truth?
What sacrifice or priest is available for someone who counts the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, despising the Spirit of Grace by continuing to sin??

Is there some 'other' sacrifice remaining for that person's sins to be taken away?

Do you think it is "acceptable" to preach to people that they can't avoid sin?
Do you think you are doing God's will preaching that their is no Power of Resurrection Life in Christ by which He Lives His Righteousness in us?

Do you still sin regularly Mark?
What is it?
Adultery?
Lying, stealing, what is it?
What sin is it in your life that you don't allow Jesus to cleanse out and remove??
If we are your brethren to whom you desire fellowship with, why not let your brethren help you to pull your hand out of the fire??

It seems your heart may be in the right place, but unrepentant sin evidently has it's teeth firmly imbedded into your hand if you are unable to lift it to do the righteousness of Christ. To Jesus, it must feel like your arm is paralyzed or something? Why don't you let HIM move your right hand to do righteousness??

The more I dwell on this topic with you, the more I am hearing a call for help from you. Please let us help! We aren't here to push our own ideas. Let us just humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord and He will lift us up with each other's hands. That is what I believe anyway. Let us die to ourselves and Live in the New Life of Christ Jesus Resurrected within us by the Filling of us with His Holy Spirit!
Even so, Come quickly Lord Jesus Amen!

Whitestone

 

[mandygirl]

definately always want to forgive and be forgived Thank God

 

[mark s]

Hi Mark,



I'm going to quote from the KJV. Which version are you using?

Hi dragonfly,

Primarily I've quoted from the English Standard Version, though I've noted with every quotation its source.

Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.


remission
G859 ἄφεσις aphesis (af'-es-is) n.
1. freedom
2. (figuratively) pardon
[from G863]
KJV: deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission

Are you quoting from Strong's? Are you in agreement that this aphesis is the sending away or removal of sins? According to your source, as well as Thayer, this is from aphiemi, a verb "to send", this is a "sending away".

Well, I disagree with your method, especially the word 'concensus' - unless you were referring to agreement between texts rather than people.

If we cannot agree on what this passage is saying, then it's sure going to be an uphill fight to reach any agreement upon doctrines derived from it. My hope is to examine the passage and find either that we agree over what it says, and, if not, find the specific word or words that we disagree over.

Admittedly this can take time and patience.

Regarding forgiveness, there is a difference between the offer of forgiveness, and obtaining forgiveness, which you seem to be blurring - perhaps intentionally for the sake of the discussion... But it's because of this indistinction we need other co-ordinates to define the truth.

The matter of obtaining forgiveness is not stated in this passage. I am attempting to stay focused.

I see statements made concerning the provision of forgiveness, comparing the Old and New Covenants, and the efficacy of each method. I see statements concerning obtaining atonement under the Old Covenant. But I don't see statements concerning obtaining forgiveness under the New Covenant. So this is why I have not addressed that.

Here is the context of repentance and faith with regard to remission of sins which is missing from the wording of Hebrews 10 because it is has been laid out in Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ​

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 3:25 Whom 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;​

Again, my hope has been to reach some sort of conclusion over the statements in the Hebrews passage, of what we can and cannot learn from that text, before branching out.

Nowhere in these verses is it implied that sins are forgiven to us without us making contact with God in respect to them.

I do not mean that a person applying to Jesus Christ for the first time, has to annote each individual sin. No! Rather, he has to have come to an inner awareness of his guiltiness as a sinner, and of his need for the Saviour. These propel his heart into the attitude which causes him to seek God in prayer for forgiveness.

And nowhere have I stated anything otherwise.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply.

I see that I find the use of the word 'forgiveness' confusing, because I would use it in the context of having obtained forgiveness and not the way the ESV uses it.

You have again leaned away from what I consider the correct way to approach understanding scripture when you said:

If we cannot agree on what this passage is saying, then it's sure going to be an uphill fight to reach any agreement upon doctrines derived from it. My hope is to examine the passage and find either that we agree over what it says, and, if not, find the specific word or words that we disagree over.

I'm sure you think you're offering a very fair negotiating structure hereby, but, it's precisely because of the idea that mere humans can determine what God's word means - that we have the drift away from truth which is demonstrated in some modern translations.

What I would rather do, is look at half a dozen (if there are that many) places where the mechanics of atonement, reconciliation, forgiveness, remission of sins, is sketched (or laid out in full portrait) and look for the overlaps........ to determine what God means by it all - quite a different approach from whether two humans can agree. What we ought to be trying to do, is 'see' and 'hear' what the Holy Spirit is revealing to us.

The Greek translations I'm giving are from Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries.

 

[mark s]

Replying to Whitestone . . .

Hebrews 10:11-18 ESV

(11) And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
True. A repetitive offering of the blood of bulls and goats, by an old dying priesthood order, can not take away sins, ever.

~ Sins have not been taken away, and as new sins are added, they need new sacrifice.

False. Nothing in that verse has anything to do with "new sins" or because "the new sins need new sacrifices".
The topic is the multiple priests and their multiple sacrifices verses One Priest and One sacrifice of Christ.
NOT "multiple sins", that is a silly assertation.

Leviticus 4:1-3 ESV
(1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
(2) "Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD's commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them,
(3) if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering.

Did not the people bring new sacrifices for new sins? Do people still do that?

As for the daily sacrifices which are not actually stated as being to provide atonement, it could be argued either way. Personally, I tend towards that these are for the daily atonement for sins, however, I can't think of any passages that actually state this. Perhaps you could point me towards any you might know.

The annual sacrifice was most certainly to make atonement for sin, though it was not, of course, daily.

But while I could say for the sake of discussion that we are talking about the morning and evening sacrifices, and not the personal sacrifices, I would hardly call it a “silly assertion”. You may want to look at just how many times the OT calls for individuals to offer atoning sacrifices.


(12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

~ Christ's work is finished, because His sacrifice has sent all sins away.

For each person personally Yes, all MY sins are sent away. Our One Priest in His One sacrifice did that for me.
(Unless of course, you still continue to sin...Heb 6:6, but that is another story already covered on this forum)

I need no other priest, I need no other sacrifice than Christ's death. News for those still bound under the law. That is the topic here.

With the exception of your reference to Hebrews 6:6, and whether or not future sins remove God's forgiveness, or are unforgiven (you may be surprised at how easily this will be refuted from your own assertions), which I'll leave for later, so I can continue to focus on this passage, I agree with you here.



(13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Yes, as it happens to each man in his own order as He turns to Jesus and is forgiven.

God's children are His footstool? I've never thought about it that way. Interesting point of view.

(14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

~ The one offering was enough, and has provided a finished work – perfected for all time – to those whom God is making His own.

Correct, The writer is saying there is no more need for multiple priests or multiple sacrifices.

(15) And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
(16) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"

~ God makes us an new creature, we have passed from death to life.

True, that is what will happen if we don't abort the man-child Christ we are carrying around in us. But that isn't what this verse is saying... ("new creature" you are quoting 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15. "passed from death to life" is quoting other scriptures Jo 5:24 & 1 Jo 3:14)
Verse 16 and others shows forth the fulfillment of Jer 31:31-34 to Israel now in Christ. It is a Marriage Covenant they looked forward to, whereby we are required to be party to Him in "FIDELITY" and "Obedience to the Faith(fidelity") as a Wife to Her Husband.
The "New Creature" is the Son of God being produced within us (in our "womb") by Righteous Fidelity of us to our Husband Jesus.
Always remember, being unfaithful to Him by committing adultery against Him in "infidelity"... no sacrifice remains for THAT we know (Heb 6:6) All we have to do is look at God's O.T. Wife and see her fate to be reminded against infidelity.

Nothing in this passage speaks of “aborting the man-child Christ we are carrying around in us”. I know of nothing in Scripture that mentions that talks about us carrying “ the man-child Christ in us.”

The Son of God produced in our womb? Very strange indeed! But here again, before getting too far afield, I'd like to focus on this passage first.

(17) then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

True, HE won't. But what happens if you do?

I believe we should define ourselves as God defines us. I will have more to say on this later.

(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

True, thank you Jesus.

~ This sacrifice is not one-time-only because it is 'sufficient to provide forgiveness to be doled out sin by sin.' This is the final sacrifice because the sins have been forgiven.

Nope. It has nothing to do with "sin by sin". It has to do with One Priest, One sacrifice.
The emphasis that YOU put in Hebrews, concerning multiple sins, is altogether missing. The emphasis is One Priest. One sacrifice.

Good, down to specifics! The reason for my assertion is this:

This passage tells us that under a certain condition, there is no more offering for sin. This, I believe, refers to either atoning or propitiary sacrifice. No more is no more.

So then, what is the condition under which there is no more sacrifice? Where there is forgiveness of sins.

Now, here's the interesting part . . . since we've already been told that Jesus' sacrifice was a single sacrifice for all time – a once for all sacrifice, this confirms that the condition has been met.

In any case, Jesus isn't the final sacrifice for the reason that you said, "because the sins have been forgiven". Nothing of that segment in Hebrews says that.

I must disagree . . .

(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

The book has already told us the condition by which there would be no more sacrifices, and that there are no more sacrifices. We'll see this again when we look at Hebrews 6.

And by this we know the condition has been met.

What it DOES say is that when we've been forgiven by our One Priest in His One sacrifice, we don't need another priest or another sacrifice because Jesus is the LORD prophecied who fulfilled the Melchisedek Priesthood of Everlasting Life (as it goes on to say).

What it does NOT say is that "we don't need another priest or sacrifice because no more sins exist". It does NOT say that! We know that people still sin!

I think I see the difficulty. I'm not, nor is Hebrews saying that sins no longer exist, or that no one ever sins anymore. It's not talking about sinfulness. It's talking about forgiveness. This is an important distinction.

But it does say that
What it DOES say is that all our sins are forgiven by the One Priest in His One sacrifice.
Those who receive Jesus as their One High Priest, and relate to His One sacrifice, NEED NO OTHER PRIEST OR SACRIFICE!


But very clever attempt Mark, to give merit and insert your own ideas that Jesus forgives everyone regardless of whether they continue to sin... You display a solid "Universalism" theology, and with your comments behind each verse, you show precisely where you've twisted your way off the path of comprehending the atonement. Makes it easy to show where you've strayed from the Word to a foreign theology.

Again, this particular point is not included in this passage, and I'd like to stay with this passage to either reach some agreement over what it does and does not say, or at the very least determine the specific points of this passage that we disagree over.

As for your claim of Universalism, please show where I've espoused that doctrine. I have not. This is a groundless accusation, and in fact, I have catagorically denied it.

Yes, Jesus is our one priest. Our one sacrifice. Not because of continuous sinful people continually sinning. But because the Old Mosaic Law can't save with it's old continual replacement of priests and sacrifices as under the Levitical Priest system.
THAT is the topic.

I agree with your statement that His single sacrifice is not so because of people's sinning.

According to this passage, it is because the scope of His sacrifice encompassed all sins.

Your topic here is a clear attempt to refute the prior topics we've discussed, concerning HOW WE RESPOND TO HIS SACRIFICE. If you WANT to know how God sees those who CONTINUE to sin after having received their One Priest in His One sacrifiec, read this again by the same writer;
Here is the difference between the Law of Moses (with their multiple priests and sacrifices) and the Law of Righteousness with His One Priest and One Sacrifice; Read carefully...

My topic here is a blatant attempt to explore the teaching of a particular passage of Scripture, as a means to launch a Scriptural examination of exactly what the Bible does and does not say about forgiveness.

My attempt to keep it very focused and on track is actually an attempt to have a systematic and orderly discussion, without all the hopping around from topic to topic and verse to verse that so often happens in these discussions, when certain Scriptures and assertions are offered that cannot be addressed according to certain theologies.

(Heb 10:26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(Heb 10:27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
(Heb 10:28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
(Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

You've never once addressed this warning.

While, again, I'd dearly like to see this passage through for at least a little while, again, to follow through to a conclusion, rather than leaving it half finished because some don't like the conclusions, I'll simply say, at this time,

To the Hebrew, who cannot seem to let go of the Old Covenant, now that he's heard about Jesus and His sacrifice, you can't go back to sacrificing bulls and goats, as if Jesus' blood was no better that the animal's blood.

So I'll just ask you straight out, please answer this for all of us here... What remains for a person who sins wilfully after they received the knowledge of the truth?
What sacrifice or priest is available for someone who counts the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, despising the Spirit of Grace by continuing to sin??

Only Jesus.

I'll not bother with the rest of your post, as your usual style is to turn the discussion towards your accusations against me personally, as well as blatantly misrepresenting what I teach. Ad hominem arguments need only be named, not refuted.

Love in Christ,
Mark

========================================================================

Hi dragonfly,

Perhaps you'd prefer to use the word "remission". I would be fine with that.

But I think you misunderstand my intent. I'm not planning on taking a vote on what God's Word means. As far as I'm concerned, it says what it says and means what it means. Our job is to find out what that is. But because we have some basic disagreements over these topics, I'd like to study with you these foundational passages, and see if perhaps we might find we understand them the same way, and if that is true, we may come to understand these doctrines better.

As you and I have some different conclusions, this is an opportunity to test ourselves against the text, helping each other to do this. If we find that our ideas come from, and are supported by Scripture, this is good. If we find that we've made mistakes, this is good, if gives us opportunity to be corrected.

Let's say we never reach agreement. Then, at the end of it all, we can say to each other, OK, we disagree on this particular point, but this is because I understand such and such verse this way, and you understand it that way. But my hope is that through this process, anyone who has misinterpreted Scripture might discover that to be so, and to be able to correct it.

I like to fully cover a passage at a time, so that we can be sure we're building with the right bricks. How can we see the "overlaps" if we don't truly understand what a particular passage says?

I hope this helps to clarify my intent.

Love in Christ,
Mark