A Biblical Understanding Of The Trinity - The Classical Trinity Versus The Social Trinity

 The trinity is defined as there being one God in three persons, the Father, Son and Spirit. The most explicit affirmations of this doctrine is the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7, which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse was used by some early Christians as early as the 200s to defend the doctrine of the trinity and is found in many ancient Latin manuscripts. However, this article is not intended to further dwell on the case for the authencity of this verse. Nevertheless, the concept of the trinity is all over the rest of the Bible. We see the three persons mentioned in the great commission in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" and in the Pauline epistles in places such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.".

The trinity

However, there are differences among Christians how they understand the trinity. People are often put into two ”camps” on the trinity (although sometimes people have mixed models). The first model is the ”classical trinity”, while the second is the ”social trinity”. These two differ in some important areas, although neither side should view each other as heretical, as we are dealing with details of the trinity and not the entire concept itself. 

The differences between these two views mostly boils down to the issue of how the persons of the trinity are distinguished from each other. In the classical model, the persons of the trinity are distinguished from each other by their eternal relations of begetting and procession, however they share in the one divine will which they all share from the divine essence, while social trinitarianism distinguishes the persons through having distinct centers of volition, knowledge and emotion.

Both classical trinitarians and social trinitarians agree that essence answers to the word "what", while person to the word "who", being distinct subjects of action. However, they differ on this topic if will should be ascribed to person or essence. Thus, in the classical view, nature provides the capacity to will, while person is the agent who wills, while in social trinitarianism person providides both the capacity and is the agent who wills.

This article deals with these distinctions and examines which position is more Biblical.

One divine will or three divine wills?

A person must have a will to be a person; however, is that will an attribute of the essence of the person or a property of personality itself? This can sound complicated, so let me explain in more easy terms. The trinity is the doctrine that God is one in essence in three persons. Thus, the question then is on the topic if will belongs to the essence, or as a property of person itself.

Looking at the Bible for answers, it seems that the answer is that will belongs to essence, since the Bible always speaks of the will (singular) of God, not the wills (plural) of God. We see in the following scriptures examples:

1 Thessalonians 5:18

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

1 Peter 2:15

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

1 John 2:17

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Now, it is understandable that seeing only one will in the trinity may be concerning to some people who hold to the social trinity as it may feel like it erodes the distinctions of the persons without knowing more detail on this issue, as there are still three persons in the Trinity; thus, even though they share one will, they work distinctly (though inseparably) through that will. On this John Nelson Darby wrote:

The Spirit distributes to whom He will; but this is not separate from the will of the Father and the Son. They have not the same counsel but one counsel, mind, purpose, thought; yet they act distinctly in the manifestation of that counsel. The Father sends the Son, and the Son the Spirit.

I agree with Darby's statement, which reflects a classical understanding of the divine will in the trinity. We see an order in the trinity, as it is always the Father who sends the Son, and both the Father and Son who send the Holy Spirit. The persons of the trinity work inseparably but distinctly in every work in manifestation of the divine will. 

This understanding of the will in the trinity was also held by the Anabaptists of the early Reformation, among whom (as my previous articles show), eternal security was sometimes taught:

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, divine, incomprehensible, eternal, spiritual Being. We say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one will, one mind, one essence, one Being, and therefore the only true, living, almighty, and eternal God.” - The Waterlander Confession, Section II, 1577 AD

This does not deny the persons being distinct from each other. Each person is able to say "I" to the exclusion of one another. We can see the distinction of the persons in multiple places in the scripture. Jesus prays to the Father (Luke 23:34), the Father loves the Son (John 3:35), the Father sends the Son (1 John 4:14) and Jesus breathes forth the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).  The modalist concept of God, which asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely "modes" or "manifestations" of a single person, is entirely contrary to Scripture. The Bible clearly reveals the relational distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, as seen in passages where the Father loves the Son, the Son prays to the Father, and the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son. These interactions demonstrate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons who share one divine essence, not merely roles or masks assumed by one person. Modalism is a dangerous heresy as it denies the person of Jesus Christ, in whose person and work we believe for our salvation.

However, what of the places in scripture where Jesus says to the Father ”not my will, but thine, be done”? This is explained by the incarnation, as when Jesus became a man, he took on a full human nature, including a human will. On this, Lewis Sperry Chafer writes:

The Scriptures declare that Christ possessed a human body, soul, and spirit, and that He experienced those emotions which belong to human existence. Much difficulty arises when the thought is entertained of two volitions—one divine and one human—in the one Person. Though this problem is difficult, it is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ, on the human side, possessed a will which was wholly surrendered to the will of His Father. The surrender of the will, while it obviates any possible conflict between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, does not at all serve to remove the human will from His unique Person. The human will was ever present regardless of the use He may have made of it. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology) 

Charles Ryrie also writes:

A similar error developed after Chalcedon that taught that Christ had only one will though conceding verbally that He had two natures. It is called monothelitism. This was condemned at the third council of Constantinople in 680. A study of errors should help clarify the truth and make us more careful how we express it. Semantics are very important in the statements of theology. (Ryrie, Basic Theology)

Eternal begetting and procession?

Eternal generation and procession are today often forgotten doctrines, however only in the last century it was commonly taught, and writers such as Ironside, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord among others. In the classical trinity, each person is distinguished from the other by their relations of origin, the Father as unbegotten, the Son as begotten and the Holy Spirit as proceeding. These eternal relations correspond to the order in which they work in creation, with the Father always sending the Son and not vice versa, and the Father and Son always sending the Holy Spirit and not vice versa. Here are some examples of writers who taught these doctrines:

Ironside in his commentary on Proverbs 8 sees it as confirming the doctrine of eternal generation:

This picture of creation implies the unity of the divine nature. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). God’s thoughts are above ours. Our best human language is a poor vehicle for the expression of such wondrous truths. Christ is eternally the Son, yet truly the Begotten.

This understanding of Proverbs 8 is also held by Scofield in his reference Bible:

[1] The Lord possessed me

That wisdom is more than the personification of an attribute of God, or of the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct adumbration of Christ, is sure to the devout mind. Prov 8:22-36 Jn 1:1-3 Col 1:17 can refer to nothing less than the Eternal Son of God.

Eternal generation was also defended by Walvoord and Chafer in their writings:

The theological term eternal generation implies that without beginning or ending, the Second Person is the manifestation of the Godhead. It is thus that the “only begotten Son” hath declared God to man (John 1:18). The Son said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world” (cosmos—John 17:6; cf. 1 John 1:2; 4:9). He was Only Begotten in the uniqueness of His begetting. In like manner, He was First Begotten, being first in point of time, as well as in His essential Being, above all others begotten. God gave to the world for its salvation Him who ever was His Son (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology) 

The very nature of procession points to its eternity. Procession like the eternal generation of Christ is not a matter of creation, commencement of existence, or analogous in any way with physical relationships common in the human realm. It proceeds rather from the very nature of the Godhead, being necessary to its existence. Without the Holy Spirit, the Godhead would not be what it is. The procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be compared to the incarnation, as the incarnation was not essential to deity, though it is essential to its manifestation, especially the attributes of love and righteousness as they combine in grace. (The Person of the Holy Spirit Part, John Walvoord)

This doctrine is explained in more detail by Charles Hodge:

The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son (1Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1998. p. 183)

However, is this scriptural? The most popular scriptures used to defend this idea come from the gospel of John, these are:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

John 3:16 is a very commonly used verse to defend the doctrine of eternal generation, this is due to the word "monogenes", which has been traditionally translated as "only begotten", which implies generation. However, in the modern day this has been questioned, and many today have attempted to argue that it should better be translated as "only-unique". However, I would myself hold to the King James translation of this verse, which states "only begotten". Now, there are also good evidences for translating it as only begotten as it is evident that the early church writers who spoke Greek natively, understood it as referring to being begotten. This is also the translation which the early versions such as the Peshitta and Jerome's Vulgate (both from the 400s) used.

The next verse, John 5:26 is also a very great text that demonstrates this doctrine, as it says: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself". Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation, generally argue that it is referencing only communication of the ability to grant life. However, what must be noticed is the first part of the verse, which states "For just as the Father has life in Himself". Thus, whatever "life in Himself" means at the end of the verse, must mean the same as at the beginning of the verse. If this is granted, this verse alone is sufficient to establish eternal generation.

These texts are not the only ones to establish this view, next we find Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 5:5, which also reference Jesus being begotten:

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)

Some may object that the word "today" is used, yet we must remember that this is spoken by God, Who is outside of time. The bible declares that with the Lord "one day is like a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8), thus the word "today" is not referencing a specific time in history, but eternity.  Now, Paul applied the text in Acts 13:33 to the resurrection, yet it must be carefully maintained that Christ did not become the Son of God when He rose from the dead, as Jesus is already called the Son prior (Matthew 14:33), but it was at the resurrection that he manifested being the Son of God.

A very strong text however comes from Micah 5:2, which reads in the King James:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Notice how clear this is, the goings forth of Jesus have been "from everlasting". Social trinitarians often try to retranslate the passage to say "from ancient days", thus arguing that it refers to the beginning of creation. However, the Hebrew word is "olam", which is the basic word translated as "everlasting" in most other places in the Old Testament. 

Another text which shows the doctrine of eternal generation is Proverbs 8:22-29, as Scofield and Ironside previously noted. The verse reads thus:

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

Notice how this describes being set up from "everlasting", and being "brought forth" before creation. Sometimes people argue that this personalization of wisdom in Proverbs 8 has nothing to do with Jesus, however the New Testament associates Jesus as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:30) and there is no sense in which God's literal wisdom was somehow "brought forth" or "set up from everlasting". This passage also combats Arianism (which claims that Jesus was created), because it says that Jesus was set up from everlasting (not at a point in time), as Ironside writes:

From this point on, the anointed eye loses sight of all else and is fixed on Christ; for it is He who is now presented for the contemplation of our souls. We see Christ as the uncreated Word, yet the begotten Son by eternal generation-titles admittedly paradoxical, but after all distinctly Scriptural.

Other texts which also imply eternal generation include Colossians 1:15, which calls Jesus the "image" of God, and Hebrews 1:3 which calls him the "brightness of his glory".

The eternal procession of the Spirit is also explicitly affirmed in John 15:26, which reads:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

However, it is also implicit that he proceeds from the Son also, as he is called the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" in Philippians 1:19 and Galatians 4:6, and it alings more closely with the order of the workings of the trinity, where Jesus breathes on the Apostles the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).

Read more

Since the trinity is a very major topic, this article only touches on the surface of the doctrine. There is an excellent article on the trinity made by Thomas Ross, where he gives a more detailed analysis of the classical trinity. Thomas Ross is an Independent Baptist writer, however he does not hold to Free Grace theology, thus I would not recommend all of his content as a whole, nor support his claims about the doctrine of salvation (see my article on the biblical basis of Free Grace theology). Nevertheless, you can read his article on the trinity here: The Trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

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.

Why the "Repent of sins" Gospel is Unbiblical

 The "repent of sins" gospel is popular in modern Christianity, and it has been taught by very major figures within Evangelicalism like John McArthur, Wyane Grudem, Billy Graham, R.C Sproul alongside many other Evangelicals. It refers to the view that to be saved, one must make the decision to turn from their sins and submit to Jesus Christ. The advocates of this view however still pay lip service to faith alone by saying that "turning from sins is not a work". However, this article will demonstrate how this view abuses the meaning of the word "repentance" and that turning from sins is not necessary for salvation.

Firstly, it is evident that turning from sins is a work, as the book of Jonah clearly says:

Jonah 3:10

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

However, the Bible often repeats that loving God and your neighbour fulfils the law (Matthew 5:17-20, Romans 13:8-10) and it is undeniable that submitting to God is an act of love. Thus, for one to make the claim that turning from sins in submission to God is a prerequisite of being saved, one is saying that one must keep the law to be saved. This is obviously in contradiction to Galatians 2:16, which reads:

Galatians 2:16

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It is biblically impossible to maintain thus that turning from sin is necessary for salvation. However, then the question arises, what is repentance? The Bible clearly makes repentance a condition of salvation (Acts 3:19), thus what does it mean?

Well, looking at the very basic definition, repentance (metanoia) comes from two Greek words which literally mean a "change of mind". The context determining what one is changing their mind about, and in a salvific context it is a change of mind about the gospel, going from unbelief to belief. This is supported by many Bible passages such as:

2 Timothy 2:25

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Luke 16:30-31

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. 

This is also supported by the usage of the term "metanoia" (repentance) within other Greek writings:

Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.): "And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance, to see whether they would change their minds…" (The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 3, transl. William Whiston)

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 A.D.): "These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and go back again after their evil desires." (Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, chapter 7, transl. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers)

Polycarp (69-155 A.D.): "The Proconsul said unto him, 'I have wild beasts ready; to those I will cast thee, unless thou repent.' He answered, 'Call for them, then: for we Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change [i.e. not to repent] from good to evil." (A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, transl. Temple Chevallier)

Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220 A.D.): "Now in Greek the word for repentance is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of The Writings of The Fathers Down to A.D. 325., vol. 7, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, transl. Peter Holmes, Against Marcion)

Thus, repentance is merely a synonym for believing, and not an additional requirement of turning from sins for salvation, as Charles Ryrie writes:

"This is what Peter meant by repentance when he was asked by the people what they should do in the light of his message (Acts 2:38). The word repent means, of course, to change one's mind about something. But what that something is is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context. . . . The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 175-176.)

 

So we should reject the "repent of sins" gospel, whic his a disguised form of works salvation. 

If you want more information on the same topic, I recommend these videos:

• What is Repentance for Salvation? (Turning From Sins v. Faith Alone)
• The "Repent of Your Sins" False Gospel EXPOSED
• Repentance and Salvation | Soteriology 1
• What does REPENT mean in the Bible?
• What is Repentance 01 | Calvary of Tampa with Trent Dudley

A Critique of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The oldest painting of Mary

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life even after Jesus was born. This teaching is emphasized in the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church and the Assyrian church of the East, however it is also taught by some Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed individuals, with however less emphasis on it. 

However, this doctrine is explicitly contradictary to the bible itself, and has lead into the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage", which is a practice in direct violation to God's purpose in marriage. This doctrine has also been used to justify endless ascetism and to devalue marriage.

Scripturally, it is clearly said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:

Matthew 13:55-57

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

However, those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary often have a sneaky way around this by arguing that the Greek word translated brother "adelphos" can refer to some other relatives, like cousins. However, although they may cite some Greek places where this usage did exist, it was an exceptionally rare usage of the word. In fact, the word "adelphos" literally means 'from the same womb'.

Additionally, there are extra details which suggest that Mary did indeed have children after Jesus, such as Matthew 1:25:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

The word "till" means that a change happened after this time, aka, after Jesus was born she and Joseph had a totally normal marriage. Additionally, the usage of the term "firstborn" may imply that Mary had children later on, as with a "first" it is often implied that a "second" also exist. Though admitedly the usage of the term "firstborn" is a more implicit argument.

Nevertheless, they will object that the Greek word "heos" does not necessarily mean "till" in the same way as in English, however again, this view relies on a non-normative use of the term. The most basic and normal usage of the word is to be used to refer to a change in a point of time, such as in the following verses:

Matthew 2:9

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Matthew 2:13

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Matthew 2:15

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

One could provide many more examples, but these three verses all use the same Greek word "heos", where it is used clearly to denote a change in time. One must read a very unusual usage of the word to support the claim that Jesus never had genetic brothers and sisters.

But as a third point, and the most dangerous point is the doctrine of a "Josephite marriage" which this doctrine has created. The claim is that since Joseph and Mary abstained within their own marriage, it serves as an example people can follow. However, this is in the most explicit terms condemned by the Bible, where Paul says:

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The Bible in the most direct terms says that abstinence in marriage cannot be done except for a time with prayer and fasting, because that opens doors for Satan to tempt you and destroy that marriage, and as Paul previously wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:3 "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.", there is no room for permanent and absolute abstinence. The "Josephite marriage" is not a virtue, but it is directly condemned by Paul the apostle as something that cannot be done. This also serves as a strong reason why the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect, as it would be condemned by Paul's writings.

The perpetual virginity of Mary also directly attacks Jesus' full humanity, due to the doctrine of "virginitas in partu", which is the claim that Jesus did not exit the womb of Mary in the same manner humans do, but instead existed the womb miraculously so that Mary's hymen was not broken and so she did not experience labour. This however distances Jesus from the ordinary human experience of human birth, and thus seems to diminish Jesus' human experience, which seems to conflict with the emphasis on Jesus' full human experience in the Bible:

Philippians 2:7

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Hebrews 2:17-18

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually first found in Gnostic and heretical pseudo-gospels such as the gospel of James. Among early heretical writings to mention the doctrine are:

1. The Gospel of James (Made by the Encratites, who believed that marriage is sin)
2. The Gospel of Peter (Made by an unknown sect, but is known to be heretical)
3. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Made by an unknown Gnostic sect)

In fact, the earliest non-Gnostic person to explicitly mention this doctrine (Tertullian) rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary in his writings:

Tertullian (155 AD – c. 220 AD)

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. (On the Flesh of Christ)

 However, due to the influence of these pseudographical gospels, ascetic philosophy and the growth of the monastic tradition, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary became mainstream.