There Are Sins...

[Zakuska]

Much Adeu has been made about BY's blood atonement preaching:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."

(Sermon by Brigham Young published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, 1856)

So are there sins that Christs Blood will not touch?

We've all heard of the unpardonable sin. (1 Jn. 5: 16-17; Matt. 12: 31) Apparently there is at least one sin that Christs Blood will not touch.

But what about a covenant breaker? Some one who has had God's Laws written in his heart and then goes against those laws?

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

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.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

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?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

So a believers sins are his and his alone everyone will be giving an account of their sins to God on Judgement day.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[rhinomelon]

I don't see where Hebrews talks about the blood of the man atoning for the sin of breaking the covenant with God. As far as I can see, there is no relation between Young's sermon and the point of the Hebrews passage. Young seems to be saying that if the man wants to be saved in the end, his own blood must atone. Hebrews is saying that the man who rejects the covenant is not going to be saved. His blood won't make a difference either way.

Any other thoughts? Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

The provocation.

[rhinomelon]

We've all heard of the unpardonable sin. (1 Jn. 5: 16-17; Matt. 12: 31) Apparently there is at least one sin that Christs Blood will not touch.

But what about a covenant breaker? Some one who has had God's Laws written in his heart and then goes against those laws?

Here is the crux of the issue. BY says that there are sins that Christ's blood can't/won't touch, but that a man's blood will touch. I don't see that anywhere in Scripture, in Hebrews or elsewhere. If you've committed the unpardonable sin, it's unpardonable, whether your blood is shed or not!

Take care

[Zakuska]

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Ask Phinehas how the Adulturers paid for their sin. Num 25:6-9

[Drewm777]

I think Pres. Young's sermon applies only to those who have their calling and election made sure.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. (D&C 132:26)

Apparently accountability for sins increases with the calling and election being made sure. I think the "mine appointment" has reference to the person appointed to seal such blessings on the heads of the saint (namely today, Gordon B. Hinckley). So, additional covenants and responsibilities and blessings are received.

I believe that's what President Young had reference to. As far as the connection between that and Hebrews, I think Hebrews has reference to sons of perdition and not those who may yet atone for their sins.

These doctrines, I might add, are "deep" and I'm not sure of what they mean or even if I understand them correctly.

[Drewm777]

If you've committed the unpardonable sin, it's unpardonable, whether your blood is shed or not!

Take care

The Scripture I quoted in D&C 132 says the same thing. There may still be atonement for all BUT those who commit murder and shed innocent blood. The next verse interpretes what that means by saying the innocent blood is Christ's. That is, they crucify Christ afresh. That's the murder they commit. D&C 132 does not leave any room for the salvation of such whatsoever.

[rhinomelon]

Ask Phinehas how the Adulturers paid for their sin. Num 25:6-9

I hope the wink is an acknowledgment of the weakness of your argument...

There is a big difference between Young's doctrine of blood atonement and just punishment for sin. Young's doctrine at least tries to be redemptive; punishing the man who was committing adultery with a woman outside of Israel was not redemptive, but punitive.

And I think Drew's made some good points here. As usual.

Take care, everyone

[Drewm777]

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what Pres. Young meant.

My understanding of scripture is that Christ's atonement is infinite. That means, if you ask me, that it covers all sin except that sin which is unpardonable.

D&C 132 would imply that it changes when someone enters into their calling and election being made sure. Then, they are more responsible personally for sin.

If that's the case, I think I'd rather not have my calling and election made sure just yet. I'm still enjoying sin a little too much. I pray that I can do better through God's grace.

[alter idem]

I think Pres. Young's comments on Blood Atonement are misunderstood. If anyone gets the belief that they can atone for their own sins, forget it. That's not a possibility. Scriptures teach that only Christ's blood spilt can atone for sin--because he was sinless. None of us are sinless therefore our blood spilt has no value.

I believe what Blood Atonement had to do with was gaining forgiveness. There are steps to receiving forgiveness and being able to have our sins blotted out through the atonement--so that we are not found guilty at the final judgement. One of those steps is "restitution". Some sins cannot be fully restored for in this life. A person is going to have to pay the consequences for their sins in the next life as well.

I believe the suggestion that some would be better off if their blood was spilt in this life has to do with this idea that they will have performed some bit of restitution if they lost their own life because of their sin. I guess they assume that this person will be farther along in restoring for the sin in the next life as they try to gain forgiveness against those they seriously wronged. But as far as I can see from the scriptures--all sins can be atoned for eventually--except of course, the sin against the Holy Ghost. Because this sin involves willfully and knowning rejecting Christ's atonement--which is the ONLY way to be saved.

[Zakuska]

But theres the problem... Christ died for us... but if we walk over his blood we have to die for ourself. Theres no one to do it for us.

I'm just glad Im not the judge.

[soren]

I think Pres. Young's comments on Blood Atonement are misunderstood. If anyone gets the belief that they can atone for their own sins, forget it. That's not a possibility. Scriptures teach that only Christ's blood spilt can atone for sin--because he was sinless. None of us are sinless therefore our blood spilt has no value.

I believe what Blood Atonement had to do with was gaining forgiveness. There are steps to receiving forgiveness and being able to have our sins blotted out through the atonement--so that we are not found guilty at the final judgement. One of those steps is "restitution". Some sins cannot be fully restored for in this life. A person is going to have to pay the consequences for their sins in the next life as well.

I believe the suggestion that some would be better off if their blood was spilt in this life has to do with this idea that they will have performed some bit of restitution if they lost their own life because of their sin. I guess they assume that this person will be farther along in restoring for the sin in the next life as they try to gain forgiveness against those they seriously wronged. But as far as I can see from the scriptures--all sins can be atoned for eventually--except of course, the sin against the Holy Ghost. Because this sin involves willfully and knowning rejecting Christ's atonement--which is the ONLY way to be saved.

Can you substantiate any of that from Young's own words? Young said, "There are sins for which the blood of Christ does not operate." The whole reason a man needs his blood spilled is because Christ's blood will not be applied to him, becasue, as Jedediah Grant put it "his sins are of too deep a dye." Any interpretation of Young and the other apostles who taught blood atonement that overlooks this point will go far astray from his intent. The most important, formalizing part of Young teaching, the glue that holds it together, is that Christ's blood is replaced by another human sacrifice. Thus he says:

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and [p.54] offer their lives to atone for their sins.

If we merely take Young at his word, we ca nsee that human sacrifice is the practice he prescribes. To reduce this to simple restitution (or capital punishment as I sometimes hear) is to completely miss Young's whole point, overlooking the formally sacrificial character of the teaching, based first on a denial that Christ's blood can cleanse certain deep sins (contra John 1:7), but that the own blood of a sinner can (contra the whole Mosaic law which demanded a spotless sacrifice, as observed in 1 Pet. 1:19).

If this sounds nasty, allow me to shine a still harsher light on it. If blood atonement were ever taken up in actual practice, what would be its consequence for the souls of those who engaged in it. Think about it concretely: a man has committed a crime and must turn to Christ for deliverance. ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:12) Yet because he believes in blood atonement, he does not do so. Believing Christâ??s blood will not operate for him, he relies on his own. He kneels down, has his throat cut from behind, and falls dead in unclean blood that has no power to save him. He has missed his recourse to the only cleansing that could have helped him. And now what if left for him? "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27) I know this is gruesome, but it is the conclusion blood atonement must lead to.

In lieu of Christ, blood atonement offers men a false means of salvation that inevitably draws them away from the true means of salvation that really exists for them, up the the very point of their very death. And that is the definition of a false gospel.

[Zakuska]

You've over looked some things in your simplistic reading...

According to even Paul. Christ's blood only covers our sins that we ignorantly commit, before becoming believers. (Rom. 5: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 13) Its also summarized by Christ on the cross... "Father forgive them... for they know not what they do".

But once your eyes have been opened its a whole new ball game, because you know the law that is written on your heart.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You've over looked some things in your simplistic reading...

According to even Paul. Christ's blood only covers our sins that we ignorantly commit, before becoming believers. (Rom. 5: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 13) Its also summarized by Christ on the cross... "Father forgive them... for they know not what they do".

But once your eyes have been opened its a whole new ball game, because you know the law that is written on your heart.

This seems to go hand in hand on the other thread entilted any blessing is by obediance. Particularly about Erik's posts.

[soren]

You've over looked some things in your simplistic reading...

Simple, but not simplistic.

According to even Paul. Christ's blood only covers our sins that we ignorantly commit, before becoming believers. (Rom. 5: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 13) Its also summarized by Christ on the cross... "Father forgive them... for they know not what they do".

But once your eyes have been opened its a whole new ball game, because you know the law that is written on your heart.

These verses teach that God firgive sins done in ignorance, it by no means implies that he only forgives such sins. That is a completely unwarranted addition. David was forgiven for knowingly murdering Urias after he had come to know God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Simple, but not simplistic.

These verses teach that God firgive sins done in ignorance, it by no means implies that he only forgives such sins. That is a completely unwarranted addition. David was forgiven for knowingly murdering Urias after he had come to know God.

Why did David have to go to hell?

[soren]

Why did David have to go to hell?

Which hell do you mean? Hell-hell or just the underworld?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which hell do you mean? Hell-hell or just the underworld?

According to the Bible, it says David's soul would be in hell for a while. How do you differentiate?

How bout them crusades!!!

[soren]

According to the Bible, it says David's soul would be in hell for a while. How do you differentiate?

How bout them crusades!!!

Because David and all the blessed who lived before Christ were in the underworld until he was glorified at the resurrection. The hell where they were - the land of the dead, of the underworld, spirit-prison - is not the same hell as outer darkness. I also believe in Purgatory, which is strictly speaking a part of Hell, except that the fire there serve the purpose of purifying, not tormenting.

I love them crusades!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

According to the Bible, it says David's soul would be in hell for a while. How do you differentiate?

How bout them crusades!!!

I love when people bring up David or the theif on the cross. 2 points that dont help out salvation by faith alone or the easy believeism, however you want to throw it down.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because David and all the blessed who lived before Christ were in the underworld until he was glorified at the resurrection. The hell where they were - the land of the dead, of the underworld, spirit-prison - is not the same hell as outer darkness. I also believe in Purgatory, which is strictly speaking a part of Hell, except that the fire there serve the purpose of purifying, not tormenting.

I love them crusades!

It is quit interesting here. How would one differentiate between just the grave and an actuall place of suffering?

[Tanyan]

Like the song I listened to years ago said - "Help Me I'm Falling" !. Do's and Do not's, Must and Must not's, to Fall or not to Fall in connection to entering the Kingdom of Heaven -http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[Tanyan]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

[soren]

I love when people bring up David or the theif on the cross. 2 points that dont help out salvation by faith alone or the easy believeism, however you want to throw it down.

I'm pushing Catholoicism, no faith alone in my credo. I do believe however in grace alone, which is to say that divine love in absolutely prevenient in all matters of salvation.

And there's nothing easy about believing.

It is quit interesting here. How would one differentiate between just the grave and an actuall place of suffering?

The same way as everything else ... context!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And there's nothing easy about believing.

The same way as everything else ... context!

Hmmmm. Yeah, were gonna need you to come in on Sunday. Mmmkay?

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how LoaP has taken it out of context?