Misunderstanding the blood of Christ

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

-----------------------

Introduction

In our experience we have encountered substantial numbers of Christians who misunderstand the sacrificial blood. The nature of the misunderstanding differs, but whether one is a Charismatic or Calvinist, both seem to have errant ideas about the blood.

What is the Purpose of the Blood?

The blood is the result of a sacrifice (see Leviticus chapter one). God set forth the requirement that animals would be sacrificed and the blood of those sacrifices would be sprinkled on the altar for the atonement of Israel's sins (Exodus 20:24, Exodus 29:12, Exodus 29:36). 

Leviticus 17:11 says, 

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

The relationship between sin and blood is tightly connected. Sin is the problem, and the blood is the solution.

Atonement

The Hebrew word "atonement" is kaphar, which means to cover over. Thus the blood of the sacrificial animals covered over sin, but did not remove sin: 

Hebrews 10:4 ...it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Because of this it troubles us when we hear Charismatics talking about being "covered by the blood," as if Jesus' blood was some sort of protection:

In times of uncertainty and spiritual warfare, it is essential to recognize that the blood of the Lamb serves as a shield of protection.

Notice that this idea appeals to the OT concept of covering over. But Charismatics don't invoke the blood to cover over sin, rather, the blood wards off the attacks of the enemy or deflects peril.

There is no Bible verse that refers to the blood in this way. 

Calvinists/Reformists have their own variation of this error. GotQuestions.org describes it this way:

When God the Father looks at us, He no longer sees the old sinful self. The old you is now hidden with Christ in God. The Father ceases to count your sins against you because of your identification with the death and resurrection of His Son. In the eyes of God, you are changed into a new creation in Christ’s image... (Colossians 3:3)

It's a variation on the same idea, but instead of being covered by the blood of Christ one is covered by Christ, in this instance for warding off God's judgment rather than for the attacks of the enemy.

Again, there is no Bible verse that tells us that Jesus protects us from the Father.

Both perspectives are in error.

Jesus' Blood Cleanses, it Doesn't Cover Over

We are washed clean by Jesus' blood and are no longer dressed in filthy rags (Revelation. 7:9, Zechariah 3:4). Our sin isn't hidden under the blood, we have been set free from sin and been given new life as new creations. Jesus' one sacrifice is complete, sufficient, and all we need:

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Jesus' blood was spilled to completely remove our sin:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death...

Hebrews 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... 

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

The blood is enough. The cross did it all, and nothing more is needed. This of course means that we are not "covered by the blood," we are washed clean by the blood, a past event for every Christian. All sin and death is already dealt with. 

Nor are we hidden in Christ to cover over our filthiness. Jesus doesn't cover us with His righteousness because of us still being filthy sinners, He actually, literally makes us clean. 

Conclusion

We are not covered by the blood, we are washed by the blood. Our protection is the indwelling Holy Spirit, not the blood. We do not invoke the blood, we ask for more of the Holy Spirit.

The blood does not hide us from the Father, the blood washed us so we can stand before the Father.

Jesus is not our camouflage before the Father, he is the one who presents us as clean to the Father.

A Word on Pascal’s Wager - John C. Wright

Found here. Some interesting background information.

---------------------------------

Who Killed Jesus? - by Barry York

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

This starts out really well, but turns south after several paragraphs. And the downhill slide will become severe.

We will comment at that point.

----------------------

Yesterday, Today, Forever: Christ Against False Teaching - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

Ms. Prata is a cessationist who doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy. This means she needs to reframe the NT to conform to her doctrine. So she redefines prophecy as teaching (or false prophets as false teachers). 

This is a rather clumsy attempt to impugn those Bible teachers she disagrees with. Thus the pursuit of the miraculous by some churches is made out to be mere thrill-seeking. It can't be good because it violates her doctrine. It must be false because she knows the truth.

Someone once said that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We would say, when you have a doctrine, everyone who believes something else is a heretic.

We should note that we ourselves are committed to understanding and promulgating biblical truth. So we don't have issue with Ms. Prata's main point. We do have an issue with her presumption.
--------------------------

How Did We Get the Canons of Dort? - by Daniel R. Hyde

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

If the reader came to read the author's insights into the details of the topic contained in the title, he will not find it. If the reader wanted to know why there was a dispute, it's not here. If the reader wanted to know why Arminius was wrong, the author does not tell us. 

He will not quote any part of the Canons or the Remonstrance. The high points of the story are important to him, but the reasons for these things isn't. The details are completely absent in favor of vague hints.

So, he doesn't tell us anything at all.

He does mention a couple of Bible passages in the context of how they were falsely preached, and quotes one verse, but otherwise he does not quote or reference the Bible. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Was the Cross Divine Child Abuse? - by ChrisB

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author wrestles with certain aspects of doctrine in a way that causes us to wonder what he really believes. Obviously the article is written to refute the idea of Jesus being subject to "child abuse," but some ancillary ideas are troublesome.

We have made note where the author's commentary becomes opaque, and in those places we explain our position.

If the author believes Jesus died in our place, or that the Father punished Jesus for our sins, or that Jesus was forsaken by the Father, or that Jesus paid for our sins, we must disagree. Those tenets of Reformism/Calvinism are quite false, as we have explained in other posts.

Lastly, the author does quote some Scripture, a happy departure from from what we typically see from these other so-called Bible teachers.

----------------------

4 Things We Added to the Bible - by ChrisB

Found here. Some interesting information.
------------------------------

I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. After college my nerdiness shifted some of its focus from science and science fiction to the scriptures. Yep, you can nerd out on the Bible. I haven't learned any esoteric secrets, but lately I've come to realize that a lot of what's rattling around in my head isn't exactly common knowledge, either, so we're going to start a series we'll call Bible 101. Some of the facts I'll share may only be interesting; others may have apologetic value or help us interpret the scriptures. Let's dive in by looking at things in our Bible that aren't actually in the inspired text.

Chapters

There's a more complicated history, but the chapter divisions we use now were developed in the 1200s by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. A tradition says he was reading as he rode on a mule, and whenever the mule stopped, he would mark a chapter division. And some of them feel that random, such as when the seventh day of the creation account gets bumped to chapter 2.

Chapter numbers allow us to say "Psalm 23" instead of "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" to refer to that psalm. But the downside is we tend to think of them as hard breaks in thought when they usually are not. We often start reading one chapter without thinking about what came before. John 14 flows out of John 13. Romans 8 is a response to Romans 7. We rarely read Romans through in one sitting, much less John, so my practice has become, wherever I left my bookmark, I back up and read the last paragraph before proceeding. This helps maintain a sense of the logical flow of the text.

Lay Musicians in the Church - Brittany Hurd

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------

We are going to get nit-picky. We are sorry for this, but this author engages in all sorts of presumptions without explaining them. And it takes her several paragraphs to even get to the subject. Although when she finally does get there, she offer some good practical advice.

She will quote a handful of Scriptures in over 2200 words, but will only once provide the full reference (i.e., book, chapter and verse.) So it the reader wants to look up the verse, well that will take a bit of searching.

We do commend the author for not rigidly holding to her chosen worship tradition. We do not commend her for her vague language, irrelevancies, or her presumptions about her audience.

-------------------------

Incarnation Anyway - by Mark Jonesapril

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

The author is going to grapple with a needless rhetorical adversary. The fact of the matter is that in the manifold wisdom and mercy of God, the Father sent His Son as a sacrifice to redeem mankind from death. Would the Father have sent Jesus if Adam hadn't sinned is a question with an unedifying answer, because Adam did sin and Jesus did come and die.

It is true that we benefit by gaining unencumbered fellowship with the Father. But is that any different than Adam’s pre-sin state? If Adam hadn't sinned, does that mean every single subsequent human would not have sinned? We can't know these things, and as such this all is a vain intellectual argument.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only five words of Scripture in 1200+ words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

Bad Worship Songs: Center - Bethel Music & Abbie Gamboa

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Center.

------------------

When God Answers the “Wrong” Prayer - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

We have had much to complain about in our blog when it comes to Ms. Lesley, so much so that we awarded her a label. For example, she obsesses over 1 Timothy 2:11 and what a woman is allowed to do and not do. She's developed a substantial list of do's and don'ts from this Scripture, almost all of which is based on a false idea.

This is what characterizes a lot of her teaching, false ideas. 

But today, we celebrate her for a comprehensive and accurate teaching about prayer. With one small caveat (which we will note below), we are pleased to be able to acknowledge that Ms. Lesley is capable of truly excellent work.

------------------------------

Before you Decree and Declare - Kuza

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

We recently commented on another article by this author and found his teaching to be suspect. However, the below article contains a lot of good information. 

We usually consider the follies of cessationism in our blog, but less often we examine claims of errant charismatics when the situation warrants it.  Less often because large portions of the blogosphere are devoted to examining charismatic teachers and doctrines, so we don't feel the need to add to that. This is why we recently introduced a new label, "bad charisma."

We have never been comfortable with the charismatic "decree and declare" practice, as if we somehow have the ability to create reality with our words. This is what some charismatics believe, mostly based on a handful of verses:  

“...calling those things which are not, as though they were” (Rom 4:17)

This verse is not about us, it refers to what God does.

You will also decree a thing, and it will be established for you; and light will shine on your ways. Job 22:28 NASB

Eliphaz the Temanite spoke these words, not Job. We would regard any statements made by Job's interlocuters as suspect and not worthy of repeating as if they were true.

The tongue has the power of life and death. Proverbs 18:21

Most people who quote this verse neglect to quote the entire thing:

Pr. 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.

In Scripture, the fruit of the tongue is generally regarded as a dangerous and negative thing, and the damage caused by the tongue is much more emphasized than any benefit it might have:

James 3:5 Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.

The last verse we have seen mentioned is:

Matthew 18:18, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The agreement of heaven is certainly a required part of this transaction. However, the unilateral decree/declaration we think is mistaken.

We therefore have little regard for those who would engage in this practice.

The author does a great job explaining this.

-------------------------

The Battle to Defeat Climate Change: The Dumbest, Most Incompetent War Ever Waged (With More at Stake Than Ever) - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author of this ironic yet colorblind complaint about the lack of progress regarding climate change tries to understand why there is a supposed lack of global organization and central command structure within the climate change movement.

He must be unaware of the

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos
• Paris Agreement
• Kyoto Protocol
• COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil
• Montreal Protocol
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Actually, the author doesn't have a problem with the climate change effort or its organization. In reality, he doesn't like the fact that everyone is not on board with The Agenda. 

The Agenda is the underlying continual effort to move the U.S. in particular, and the world in general, to replace or overthrow their governmental systems that do not coincide with one-world government, which which would be Socialism.

Climate change is simply a convenient issue to further the Leftist goal of implementing Socialism.

Power is the real goal. Centralized, global power. The unquestioned power over peoples' lives, decisions, religion, finances, and even children. The implementation of a system of government responsible for the deaths tens of millions of deaths.

The Left don't care about the climate. They care about power.

--------------------

Cessationism - Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?
• Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts.

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.

Chosen by Grace: Understanding the Doctrine of Election - Kuza

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

This is perhaps the most thorough explanation of the Reformist/Calvinist doctrine of election we have read. The author asks the right questions and tries to answer them. He acknowledges the confusion brought by the doctrine, and attempts to clarify.

Unfortunately, he fails. He fails because his entire explanation is built on presumption, that the doctrine is true. But that is the matter to be demonstrated. 

We are certainly delighted the author quotes Scripture. But he misuses or misinterprets almost all of this. Regretfully, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

Letter to the editor: Who would have thought a dictator would rule U.S. on 250th birthday?

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

This letter writer thinks he's pinned down the nefarious and eeeevil Trump. But like most leftists, the letter writer can't put together a coherent string of thoughts. 

This letter is a pretty good example of the left's unceasing obsession with taking out Trump. Not just to get him out of office, but to negate him, bankrupt him, destroy him, destroy his family, or even, kill him. 

This irrational hatred oozes from the letter writer's prose, so much so that he can't even see that he's being stupid. He so believes the Leftist narrative that he is unable to think rationally.

We are no great fan of Trump, but dictator? That's just dumb.

----------------------------

What is the purpose of Jesus interceding for us in heaven? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Gotquestions attempts to explain Jesus' intercession for us in terms of a courtroom scene. Such a scene is not found in Scripture. The whole scenario is a complete fiction. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We will explain below.

-------------------------

God’s Providence and the Privilege of Prayer - by CILAS MENEZES

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

We are going to do our best to untangle this mess. A lot of what the author writes is based on unstated underlying premises. He assumes we know these premises and agree with them. But for someone who is unacquainted with these things, the article reads as nothing but nonsense.

What are those premises? Well, they are all founded upon Reformist/Calvinist thought. This area of theology has some particular beliefs which come to bear on the author's thought processes, including:

• God is sovereign - This does not simply mean God is King of kings and ruler of the universe. It means God controls everything.
• Everything is pre-ordained - This is perhaps the extreme version of Reformism. Most Reformists will say that God did not create evil or sin. But the author does not make these exceptions.
• Obeying God's commands means we participate in what He has pre-ordained.

From these and other assumptions the author will make his conclusion, that prayer does not change God's mind because God has already made all the choices and lined up every event in everyone's lives.

We find this in one of the author's last statements:

"...the God who ordains all things has also ordained our prayers as a means to accomplish his perfect will." 

In what way has God ordained all things, and where do we find this in the Bible? Does this mean God ordains tornados? Sin? The devil? "All things" seems to be pretty inclusive, right? 

So if He indeed ordains all things, then the script is written. Every single molecule in the universe is doing exactly what it was planned to do. Every power and principality, every angel, every human, can only do the precise things that were ordained by God. Period.

Thus we are in the middle of an elaborate ruse. We think we are living out our lives, responsible for our choices, and trying to live virtuous, God-honoring lives. But we're not. Everything is pre-ordained, according to the author. So in reality, no one is responsible for one's actions. It's all pre-planned. 

In addition, the author doesn't quote a single Bible verse. We must say, this is one of the worst Bible teachings we have ever read. We must assign it the tag, "Bad Bible Teaching."

---------------------------

This 1 Passage of Scripture Left John Bevere Stunned, And He’s Finally Explaining Why - By James Lasher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------------
Mr. Lasher wrote this article about Mr. Bevere's 47 minute video (youtube link), but it's only about 400 words. 

We aren't inclined to view the entire video, however, based on Mr. Lasher's summation. The 20 minutes we did endure also dissuaded us, mostly because of Mr. Bevere'e emphatic, over-the-top presentation. 

The timing of the rapture is actually irrelevant to our Christian walk. End times doctrine does not come to bear on any aspect of our obligations or privileges as Christians. So the issue under discussion is actually an empty pursuit.

------------------------

Three Days and Nights In The Heart of the Earth by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------------

Mr. Ratliff wants to solve the problem of there not being enough days and nights between a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection. He does this by including extra time where Jesus was not dead but merely in the custody of the Jews and Romans. He extends this custody status all the way through to the resurrection, and thus claims the problem solved. 

We admire the novelty of his "solution," but even still, he fails to accommodate the prophesied "three days and three nights." We provide our more coherent alternative here.

We commented on Mr. Ratliff 's blog and provided our analysis, found below at the end, but for a response he simply reposted part of the article. Then he closed commenting. This tells us that Mr. Ratliff does not like to be disagreed with. A person with an unteachable spirit should not be teaching the Bible.

-----------------------