Free Grace Theology In The Landmark Baptists - Ben M Bogard (1868 – 1951)

Courtesy of the Arkansas State Archives

Ben M Bogard (1868 – 1951) was an influential Landmark Baptist and the founder of the "American Baptist Association". He was a strong critic of the ecumenical movement, believing that Baptists only form the "bride of Christ", going to the radical of teaching that although non-Baptists are saved by faith, they are in a sense "lower rank" Christians. This is a highly controversial view and is often criticized as being an appropriation of the Roman Catholic view of apostolic succession. This "Baptist brider" view is something which I view as clearly anti-scriptural.

However, I often make a point of exploring the writings and ideas of past figures to understand their perspectives. While reading Bogard's debate with Eugene S. Smith, I noticed that, in some respects, his views on eternal security closely aligned with the Free Grace view of assurance and perseverance.

For example, when Eugene S. Smith accused Bogard of trying to preach comfort to Christians, instead of arguing like John MacArthur that "our sanctification is our ground of assurance", Bogard instead replied:

"Well,— now, my friend said Bogard preaches the doctrine of assurance and safety. Yes, sir. In Hebrews 6:18,19, where it says that by "two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong assurance — strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast." A thing that is sure is not uncertain. A thing that is sure, is not unstable. The idea of saying a thing is sure and yet not sure. I preach the doctrine of assurance, indeed I do. Why, he said, I preach, me and my people, Smith and his people preach the doctrine of scare"

Bogard also continues:

"I would be the most miserable man on earth if I thought that I might go to sleep tonight and wake up in the morning in hell, because maybe I did something wrong today, unforgiven"

However, Eugene S. Smith argued that those who fall into sin certainly lose their salvation, as he argued that God would be allowing sin to exist without consequence if people were eternally secure. Yet, Bogard replied that God will discipline those who fall into sin, thus eternal security does not mean that we are consequence free:

"How could he lose it? Well, you say, "Hold on here— won't God punish them? Won't some people die in sin?" Well, I believe that even a preacher sometimes may be put to death on account of sin. Wasn't Moses put to death because he sinned? Yes, sir, God said, "You shan't enter into Palestine because you sinned." But Moses went to heaven— he was punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh. In the ninth chapter of Mark we find Moses standing up there with Elijah, and Peter and James and John and he is up on the Mount of Transfiguration though he died in the wilderness on account of his sin. Uzza, one of God's men, touched the ark and was struck dead, but does he go to hell? Certainly not— God punishes in the flesh for the sins of the flesh and in I Corinthians 11:30, "For this cause some are weak and sickly among you and many sleep." In other words, people are punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh— even sometimes causing them to die and cutting off a career that was not finished because of their sins, like it was in the case of Moses"

Bogard even affirmed that Christians who fall into heresy may be saved:

"Well, some erred concerning the faith, made mistakes concerning the faith— don't say they lost salvation"

What I also found interesting was Bogard's understanding of Hebrews 6, as he denies both the Arminian loss of salvation view, and the Calvinist "false professors" view, instead he seems to take a position similar to Charles Ryrie, arguing that the passage is only a hypotethical:

"Hebrew six— "If they fell away after they once received the truth and tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come, it is impossible to renew them again, unto repentance." That's a fact. If they fall away— but the ninth verse said following "But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." There were some who thought they could fall from Grace and Paul said: "If you should fall away you never could get it back." That's all— like it is in the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, where it said that some said there is no resurrection. Paul said, "If there be no resurrection, your faith is vain." Did he mean to say that possibly there was no resurrection? Certainly not, but he took them at their own word and if you are right about this thing of there being no resurrection, then there is nothing in our religion at all, so if you are right about your idea of falling away from Grace, and you couldn't get it back again — but, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation though we thus speak."

Now, I think there are better ways to understand Hebrews 6, but it is interesting how Bogard does not take this passage as referring to false professors.

 

Thus, it seems like Bogard's understanding of salvation in some ways was close to Free Grace theology, nevertheless this does not mean he was always fully consistent or always agreed with Free Grace positions,  and there are a number of things which most Free Grace advocates would reject in Bogard's writings. Nevertheless, in some ways Bogard's views were similar to a Free Grace understanding of salvation, showing the emphasis on assurance in Baptist circles.

All quotes are taken from Smith-Bogard Debate. (1942, May 12-15). A Discussion Between Eugene S. Smith (Christian) and Ben M. Bogard (Baptist). Held in Dallas, Texas.

You Deny The New Birth! Answering Objections to Free Grace

Often brought forth by advocates of Reformed Theology is that Free Grace theology, by allowing for the possibility of perpetually carnal Christians to be saved, is denying the new birth. However, this argument is flawed as it is born from a rather unbiblical understanding of the two natures of the believer. 

The Bible does not teach that our old nature is changed or totally taken away at the moment we are born again. Instead, we are given a new nature which we are told to walk in. However, the old nature still remains in us, and we have the ability to choose in which nature we want to walk in. Notice how in Ephesians 4 Paul gives to saved Christians the command to walk in the in the new nature, as he writes:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

The fact that Paul is giving this as a command, implies that the Christian has a degree of choice to walk in either.  This distinction between the flesh nature and the spirit nature is put together clearly in Galatians 5:17 which reads: 

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Thus, we have two natures in us which are constantly in conflict, the reason why some Christians can be carnal is that we still have the flesh, and sometimes people unfortunately choose to live in the flesh rather than the new nature. We this happening in the book of Corinthians, where it names Christians who live carnally:

1 Corinthians 3

3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Notice how the same people who are called "carnal" are also called "brethren". Thus they were saved, despite walking in the flesh.  I like how the Baptist Evangelist and Pastor John R Rice described the conflict of our two natures, as he wrote:

Now a Christian should live a consecrated Christian life but that does not automatically follow.  People who are saved will find, like Paul, "When I would do good, evil is present with me . . . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:21,25). 

Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before. Some people who have truly been born again have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and some have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits. Some Christians have never learned to trust the Lord enough to bring tithes and offerings, and some have never learned to win souls. When a baby is born, he is not born grown. Being born is one thing; growing is another thing entirely.

So the thing to do is to take for granted that people are saved when they trust Christ for salvation. Then one should set out to teach them to read the Bible daily, to learn to pray about their daily needs, to confess their sins and failures and grow in grace day by day. It is as foolish to expect young Christians to be good Christians by themselves as it is to expect a child, born in the family, to automatically be a great credit to the family without any rearing—whether they are spiritual babes or physical babes. I assure you that unless people are taught to be consecrated Christians, taught to read the Bible and pray, they are not likely to be good Christians, even if they are truly born again.

SOURCE: Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions, by John R. Rice, pg. 76,77, Sword of the Lord Publishers; ISBN: 0-87398-157-X

However, do not believe something because a man said it. Test all doctrines by the scripture, which clearly shows the distinction of our two natures.

You can join my discord server at https://discord.gg/nPdj4286uP

Did All Baptists Teach Lordship Salvation Before Jack Hyles? Answering Thomas Ross

Thomas Ross is a contemporary Baptist theologian with a decent influence among especially Landmarkist Baptists. While some of his work is highly informative, and I found his defense of the Classical Nicene view of the Trinity particularly edifying. However, when it comes to soteriology and things such as Baptist Briderism, I strongly disagree with him.

Ross is a staunch proponent of Lordship Salvation and has asserted that any church identifying as Baptist while teaching Free Grace theology stands outside the true churches of Christ. He has argued that Baptists, before the rise of Jack Hyles in the 1950s, unanimously affirmed Lordship Salvation. However, this claim is historically inaccurate.

Adressing the argumentation

Ross in his article "Historic Baptist Doctrine, Receiving Christ as both Savior and Lord or the So-Called Lordship Salvation, and the So-Called Free Grace Gospel" quotes multiple Baptist confessions which do affirm Lordship salvation. However, this does not mean that everybody agreed with those confessions.   A notable example is Archibald MacLean (1733–1812), who wrote: "Now, when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections and pious exercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to a sinner's acceptance with God, it perverts the Apostle'3 doctrine upon this important subject, and makes justification to be at least " as it were by the works of the law." (The commission given by Jesus Christ to his apostles illustrated). Similar non-Lordship views seem to have been held by the Irish Baptist Alexander Carson (1776 – 1844), who argued that salvation is simply by faith, and not about the excellence/quality of the faith, stating: "They who speak of salvation being by faith, on account of the excellence of faith itself, are virtually on the same foundation with those who preach salvation directly by works." (Carson, Letters to the Author of “Evangelical Preaching,” 37; idem, Works 1:354.).

Another person who lived slightly later to note is Robert Govett (1813 – 1901) who although was influenced by the Plymouth Brethren, was also closely associated with British Baptists, and his conversion out of Anglicanism was primarily caused by him witnessing a Baptist baptism, also later being immersed in that same Baptist church. Robert Govett is often seen as an early Free Grace theologian, strongly emphasizing the distinction of reward and grace, arguing that true Christians can live carnally, as he states in the introduction of his book "enterance into the kingdom":

The propositions intended to be proved in the present pages are two. 

1. That eternal life is God's unconditional gift TO believers. 

2. That believers' participation in the kingdom OF Christ is conditional on their conduct, as good or evil. (Entrance into the kingdom)

Thus, Govett argued that while every believer will be saved even if they are carnal, yet their reward of the reign in the kingdom is by works, as he later stated:

In considering the difference between the conditions on which eternal life, and the kingdom of God respectively are set, the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the third chapter of Philippians is very important. Let us contemplate it then. 

However, Govett took these concepts too far by arguing that the millennium itself is a reward, which unfaithful believers would miss, although they would still get to enjoy the new earth in eternity. Nevertheless, Govett did not teach Lordship salvation as he taught that believers who did not have a clean conduct would spend eternity with God.

Even closer to our time, John R. Rice, a Baptist pastor who began his ministry in 1926, expressed views that align closely with Free Grace theology, well before Jack Hyles came to believe in similar ideas. Rice strongly affirmed the dual nature of the believer and the reality of carnal Christians, emphasizing that salvation does not automatically result in a transformed life without discipleship and spiritual growth. He wrote:

Now a Christian should live a consecrated Christian life but that does not automatically follow.  People who are saved will find, like Paul, "When I would do good, evil is present with me . . . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:21,25). 

Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before. Some people who have truly been born again have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and some have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits. Some Christians have never learned to trust the Lord enough to bring tithes and offerings, and some have never learned to win souls. When a baby is born, he is not born grown. Being born is one thing; growing is another thing entirely.

So the thing to do is to take for granted that people are saved when they trust Christ for salvation. Then one should set out to teach them to read the Bible daily, to learn to pray about their daily needs, to confess their sins and failures and grow in grace day by day. It is as foolish to expect young Christians to be good Christians by themselves as it is to expect a child, born in the family, to automatically be a great credit to the family without any rearing—whether they are spiritual babes or physical babes. I assure you that unless people are taught to be consecrated Christians, taught to read the Bible and pray, they are not likely to be good Christians, even if they are truly born again.

SOURCE: Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions, by John R. Rice, pg. 76,77, Sword of the Lord Publishers; ISBN: 0-87398-157-X

We should also note that the Scofield Reference Bible was very popular among many Baptists even before Jack Hyles. Scofield often held a Free Grace understanding of multiple topics, such as the possibility of a carnal Christians and not placing assurance in our sanctification. It would seem likely that countless individuals whose writings are not passed unto us would have been influenced by these views.

Thus, I believe Thomas Ross is oversimplifying the data by focusing too much on the Baptist confessions, as Baptists have always held to congregational church governance, thus churches often held to a wide range of beliefs due to their independence from each other. Thus, as we see today a mixture of views on salvation among Baptists, we also can see it in the past.

Did Catholicism And Orthodoxy Prohibit The Laity From Reading The Bible?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, at various points in history, placed restrictions on the laity’s access to the Bible in vernacular languages. While a few vernacular translations were produced, their widespread distribution was not permitted. Today, however, there is some skepticism surrounding this historical fact, but the sources on these matters remain clear. It is also often claimed that the Orthodox Church permitted vernacular translations at a time when Catholicism forbade them, yet this is not accurate. Indeed, both Western and Eastern authorities imposed restrictions on the unrestricted reading of the Bible, as seen in several ecclesiastical statements. The Council of Toulouse (1229) decreed:

We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books

Pope Innocentius III excommunicating the Albigensians (left),
Crusade against the Albigensians (right)
(British Library, Royal 16 G VI f. 374v)

Such the same was also stated by the council of Tarragona, which declared:

No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned

The council of Constance in the 1415s also condemned John Wyclif as "that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue". In fact, even as far as the 1800s when they had given some more room for translation, the Pope said thus:

"For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be ‘of one tongue and of the same speech’ [Gen. 11:1].” (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D)" 

Church historian Philip Schaff also points out similar occasions in the Western Church, noting that vernacular translations were banned by Pope Gregory VII in Bohemia:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

Allowing all Christians to read the Bible was also prohibited by the Eastern Orthodox council of Jerusalem, which states:

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.

While it is true that translations such as the Augsburger Bible were created during this era, their distribution was tightly controlled, and the laity was largely restricted from having access to them.  This runs wastly contrary to scripture, which makes the reading of scripture extremely important "have ye not read" (Matthew 12:3). And while both Catholicism and Orthodoxy today allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, this aspect of their history remains a dark chapter, marked by a reluctance to fully embrace the accessibility of Scripture to all believers. 

Free Grace Theology In The Reformation Period

Some early Anabaptists taught eternal security.

The Reformation period (16th–17th centuries) was a major era of change within the history of Christianity, marked by debates on salvation, grace, and human responsibility. During this era which was caused by figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the concept of grace was a major issue of debate. While the mainstream Reformation movements emphasized that salvation required fruit to prove or maintain its authencity, there were also movements and theologians who advocated what can be termed "Free Grace Theology."

Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.

Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:

Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8

Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.

(This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.) 

However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)

However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold. 

However, an intriguing note is that Luther may have initially believed something close to Free Grace, as he in his early writings says:

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. (The Babylonian Captivity) 

However, some have posited that this is merely Luther being hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it is an intriguing possibility that maybe he started out closer to Free Grace theology, and later may have changed his mind? It is very clear that Luther was opposed to Free Grace ideas within his later writings, however his early stance seems more unclear. Nevertheless, later Lutheran confessions are explicitly hostile to Free Grace theology, and condemn those who taught it, giving the pejorative label "Antinomian":

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement,”Good works are necessary.” Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word “must” is here not in place, they protested.Agricola, as well as the later Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions “necessarium, necessary” and “duty, debitum

One of these individuals named by the book of Concord as denying that good works are necessary for the Christian was Johannes Agricola (1494 – 1566) who was initially a companion of Luther but became separated from his teaching.

However, Free Grace-like views were also later on advocated in the "Antinomian controversy" within the 1600s American Colonies. Cotton, the leading figure in the Antinomian controversy taught the doctrine of assurance, denying that good works are necessary for our assurance. Cotton and other "Antinomians" (also called "opinionists") protested to the idea that our assurance should be placed in any way (even subordinately) in our good works.

    "Trulie it is hard to perceive [between a temporary believer and a true believer] when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification"

Thus, while Free Grace theology was not the majority view in the Reformation, there certainly were advocates of such a view during this era.

 

 

A Critique Of "Eternal Faith" - Can Christians Apostasize?

King Solomon apostasized in 1 Kings 11

The belief that true Christians cannot apostasize is a hallmark of Reformed Theology. However, even among those who do not teach Lordship salvation, such as the NIFB (New Independent Fundamental Baptists), there are still proponents of the idea that apostasy is impossible for the Christian, and that all true Christians will persevere in the faith.

This article aims to demonstrate that true Christians, while capable of being deceived, can still remain saved. Although this perspective is unpopular today, it is biblically supported when we allow the Scripture to speak for itself.

The clearest example of a saved people apostasizing is the book of Galatians. We see this in the book of Galatians, which was written to the Galatians to try to correct their apostasy. We see this in many verses, where Paul calls them "bewitched":

Galatians 3:1-2

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Notice how despite being bewitched, they had still received the Holy Spirit? Now, some Arminian could argue that they lost the Holy Spirit, however Paul later on still calls them "brethren" in the present tense:

Galatians 6:1

6 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 

 This shows that despite their apostasy, Paul did not doubt the salvation of the Galatians. This same sentiment is moreover re-affirmed in the Second Epistle To Timothy, where Paul writes:

2 Timothy 2:13

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

The "we" is referring to Christians, since Paul includes himself in the statement.  Thus, Paul is saying that it is possible for Christian to "believe not", which is a reference to apostasy. But even in such a radical case, God abides faithful. 

Additionally, the Bible is full of examples of apostasy. Paul talks about "departing" from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), and we see it in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), which shows that some depart from the gospel after a accepting it. A major example in King Solomon, who also departed from God in the book of Kings. However, we know he was saved as God promised to discipline him (2 Samuel 7:14), which he does not do for unbelievers (Hebrews 12:8). 

Advocates of the claim that those who fall away were never true Christians often use 1 John 2:19, which reads:

1 John 2:19

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

This may sound persuasive at first sight, however one must look at this verse more carefully. The verse does not say they were never of us, but uses a simple past tense "were not of us". The "us" is referring to the believing community. This verse merely states that prior to them leaving the community of believers externally and visibly, they had already apostasized in their inner being, and if they hadn't they wouldn't have left the Christian community. However, nowhere does this verse imply that they were "never" of us, the simple past tense just requires that at some point prior to their apostasy they had already apostasized in their heart, being "not of us".

Did Jesus Take His Blood To Heaven? (Hebrews 9:12)

Paul the Apostle

While it has been a common doctrine that Jesus took his blood to heaven, this has been today critiqued especially by those who come from the line of Robert Thieme, who believed that the literal blood of Christ had nothing to do with the atonement, but was purely symbolic. As a corollary doctrine, he also denied that Jesus' blood was taken to heaven.

The debate centers around Hebrews 9:12, which reads:

Hebrews 9:12

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

This verse has often been understood as Jesus taking his blood to heaven to sprinkle it in the holy place, thus fulfilling the Old Testament type layed out in Leviticus 16:

Leviticus 16:14

14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

Evangelists of the past generally shared this view, as the Bible teacher M.R. DeHaan (1891 – December 13, 1965) wrote in his book "The Tabernacle":

M.R. DeHaan

The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute.  He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:

"But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

The Bible also makes plain when He accomplished this. On the morning of the resurrection He meets Mary at the tomb. As soon as Mary recognized Him, she prostrated herself upon Him, and would have kissed His feet, but with shocking suddenness, Jesus emphatically says to her: "Touch me not"; and then He proceeds immediately to give the reason why Mary is not permitted to touch Him at all.

"For I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

Literally the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Touch me not; for I now am about to ascend unto my Father."  We can understand this action when we remember the the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done. And here in the record of the meeting with Mary we have the fulfillment of this type. Here Mary meets her great High Priest, just arisen from the tomb, but before He had entered the holy of holies with the reconciling blood. And so He says to her, "TOUCH ME NOT."

The TABERNACLE, by M.R. DeHaan, M.D., ISBN 0-310-23491-3, page 129.

The objection raised by those who deny that Jesus took his blood to heaven is based on their interpretation of the Greek word dia (which they argue should be translated as "through" in this context). They contend that it does not imply Jesus taking his blood to heaven but rather that the "holy place" mentioned refers to the cross itself. However, the usage of dia (often translated as "by" or "through") in this context is instrumental, indicating the means of Jesus' enterance into holy place, not excluding the act of Jesus taking his blood into heaven. It is essential to understand the verse as referring to Jesus taking his blood to heaven to fulfill the Old Testament typology. If Jesus had not taken his blood into the heavenly sanctuary, this typology would remain incomplete, leaving a significant aspect of Scripture’s redemptive narrative unfulfilled.

Further support for the historicity of this event (as already noted by DeHaan) is from John 20:17, where Jesus does not let Mary touch him because he is not yet ascended. If this were the same ascension as in the book of Acts, it would not make sense why Jesus would then allow Thomas to touch him (John 20:24-27). This contradiction is easily solved by the fact that before the ascension in Acts 2, Jesus had already prior gone to heaven to apply his blood to the mercy seat. Those who deny this event, often argue that John 20:17 should instead be translated as "hold" (NIV) or "cling" (NKJV) instead of the KJV rendering "touch", however this is a forced meaning of the word "ἅπτομαι", where it is very consistently translated instead as "touch" (such as in Matthew 8:3 Matthew 8:15 Matthew 9:20 Matthew 9:21 Matthew 9:29 Matthew 14:36 1 John 5:18 Luke 22:51). The translation "touch" is also supported by the ancient editions of the Bible such as the Latin Vulgate and the Peshitta. This lack of consistency is a strong mark of eisegesis (the forcing of one's views unto the Bible) rather than exegesis (taking your doctrine from the Bible), and it is sad that such eisegesis is being included in the translations themselves. 

In conclusion, it is Biblical to say that Jesus' actual blood was taken into heaven.