Who is Sanctified in Hebrews 10:29?

[Darrell C]

Logic and @Darrell C are strange bedfellows.
I've been asking for a single scripture to the effect that Christ was sanctified BY his blood and so far you have just succedded in meandering all over

Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

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?


The word "he" is not in the original language, Vooks, it is an insertion of the translators, lol. And your argument hinges on that word. You refuse to understand the context because it interferes with what you want to believe.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In other words, "Has counted Covenant Blood which sanctifies unholy."

In view is the Covenant, we cannot remove that from the statement. It is the validation of the New Covenant.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

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?


The word "he" is not in the original language, Vooks, it is an insertion of the translators, lol. And your argument hinges on that word. You refuse to understand the context because it interferes with what you want to believe.


God bless.

You are desperate @Darrell C
1. There are two 'he' in the verse. Which is interpolated?
2. NONE of either is italicized. So exactly which 'original language' are you rambling about?
3. @Darrell C, do you know who the father of lies is?

Ps
You were tongue tied for 24 hours
Next after vigorous googling you blasphemed and concluded Jesus was sanctified by his own blood
Now you are not sure. It's neither Jesus nor the apostate

For how long will you resist the Holy Spirit?

 

[vooks]

In other words, "Has counted Covenant Blood which sanctifies unholy."

In view is the Covenant, we cannot remove that from the statement. It is the validation of the New Covenant.


God bless.

@Darrell C,
Jesus so badly required his own blood to make him holy?
I have yet to recover from such blatant heresy.
Mind you I have satanist friends and antitheists but this is the worst blasphemy I have ever come across

 

[vooks]

@Darrell C,
There is no scriptural evidence nowhere that Christ needed to be sanctified by his own blood, and neither is there any evidence that unbelievers are sanctified. This means that what you are frantically trying to avoid; final apostasy by a true believer as yourself is a possibility.

Please discard hapless theological and verbal gymnastics such as 'Christ was set apart from the covenant of the law by his own sacrifice' and contorting clear scriptures to your perdition.

I can see apostasy is scaring you stiff, but instead of heeding the warning, you are busy pretending it affects 'others' but not yourself. Your theology is one of denial. And it's dangerous because pretending it doesn't exist and wishing it away does not chase the possibility away.

I pray that your faith fails not, and that your friends and circles will not be pondering whether it was genuine in the first place or hoping He will pluck you out of fire latest just before you check out.

 

[Darrell C]

What was Christ before he was made or rendered holy by his blood?

You are still imposing an incorrect meaning to sanctified, Vooks.

How many times do you have to be told that Christ being sanctified is not a matter of Him being made righteous through that Sacrifice?

The sanctification simply refers to a rendering, or imputation of a position of set apart (in this context). The room of the Tabernacle was holy, was it righteous?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, let's turn your question around on you, for the purpose of exposing the ridiculous nature of it.

What was Christ, the Son of God, before God sanctified Him and sent Him into the world?

Here is the proof text:


John 10:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


We'll use your understanding and ask "What was Christ before He sanctified Himself?"

Here is the proof text:


John 17:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.



Answer both, Vooks, and do not ask me what the question is ten times again.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

You are still imposing an incorrect meaning to sanctified, Vooks.

How many times do you have to be told that Christ being sanctified is not a matter of Him being made righteous through that Sacrifice?

Because your definition of sanctification is being made holy. You have yet to offer another definition backed by scriptures

The sanctification simply refers to a rendering, or imputation of a position of set apart (in this context). The room of the Tabernacle was holy, was it righteous?
God bless.

Aha, you just redefined it?
So exactly what 'position of set apart was rendered on or imputed' on Jesus BY his blood of the covenant?

 

[vooks]

Okay, let's turn your question around on you, for the purpose of exposing the ridiculous nature of it.

What was Christ, the Son of God, before God sanctified Him and sent Him into the world?

Here is the proof text:


John 10:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


We'll use your understanding and ask "What was Christ before He sanctified Himself?"

Here is the proof text:


John 17:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.



Answer both, Vooks, and do not ask me what the question is ten times again.


God bless.

I can only answer sensible questions

 

[Darrell C]

I can only answer sensible questions

Now, if you could just see that it is your reasoning behind the question, and repent of it, then you would stop asking questions like this, and perhaps go on to actually understand what your antagonist is sharing with you.

It is an unreasonable question. So go look at your own question and recognize it for what it is. This is what you are asking when you ask...

Jesus so badly required his own blood to make him holy?

God bless.

 

[vooks]

Now, if you could just see that it is your reasoning behind the question, and repent of it, then you would stop asking questions like this, and perhaps go on to actually understand what your antagonist is sharing with you.

It is an unreasonable question. So go look at your own question and recognize it for what it is. This is what you are asking when you ask...






God bless.

Ask your question and I will answer,mbut it is not my duty to pick your brains. If you can't ask direct questions then maybe you don't belong here

 

[vooks]

You know @Darrell C,
Given the word sanctified derives its meaning from the context, how about we consult the very Writer of Hebrews

Hebrews 13:12 (KJV)
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

The blood sanctifies men. So if you fantasize a different meaning to sanctify in the subject verse, the burden of proof quadruples. You have to walk me through scriptures where the blood of Jesus sanctified him.

And I can't stop emphasizing that ALL references to the Blood are without exception references to its sin cleansing power.....except this if your imagination is anything to go by

 

[Darrell C]

You know @Darrell C,
Given the word sanctified derives its meaning from the context, how about we consult the very Writer of Hebrews

Hebrews 13:12 (KJV)
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

The blood sanctifies men. So if you fantasize a different meaning to sanctify in the subject verse, the burden of proof quadruples. You have to walk me through scriptures where the blood of Jesus sanctified him.

And I can't stop emphasizing that ALL references to the Blood are without exception references to its sin cleansing power.....except this if your imagination is anything to go by

That's not the context of Hebrews 10, so, take your own advice and understand it...in it's context.

No-one denies we are sanctified by the Blood, which I why I have repeatedly presented this...


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Now, what you do, when you have those in Chapter Ten being sanctified by the Blood of Christ and then coming under eternal judgment (drawing back unto perdition) is...

...nullify what the Writer states here.

What this teaches is that we are sanctified once (for all is an insertion) and those who are sanctified by His Sacrifice are made perfect...

...for ever.

You negate this statement with your view.

Now, you say I deny that men are sanctified by His Blood, when I have repeatedly stated they are over and over. Hence we continue on this merry-go-round because you refuse to understand the context.

Hebrews 10 has one over-riding context, which is...

...remission (forgiveness) of sins.

The contrast is "The sacrifices of the Law cannot take away sin, and cannot make one complete in regard to remission of sin...

...but Christ's does, and furthermore...for ever."

But because you want to believe that Christ's Sacrifice is faulty, and that people can lose their salvation, you go in circles, making your antagonists repeat the same basic principles over and over.

If you want to believe you can lose your salvation, that is your choice, but, I will tell you that you will be held accountable for that teaching. You teach works-based faith which denies that Christ's Sacrifice does what Scripture states it does, which is save people. Christ bestows eternal life to believers, unlike your view, which simply makes Christ a starting point.

He is the Author and Finisher of our faith, my friend:


Hebrews 12:2

King James Version (KJV)

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

I have told you numerous times that you will understand this better if you actually learn what the Writer teaches about perfection. The word here is making the same statement we see in Hebrews 10, and here we are told Christ begins our faith (and that is through the Ministry of the Comforter, which the rejecters "do despite unto")and...

...He, not you, is the Completer.

It's really very simple, Vooks, and would have been understood by those who would have had this read to them, because they (1) would have understood the language of that day, and (2) would not have been injecting spurious false teachings that arose through the centuries, as you do.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

That's not the context of Hebrews 10, so, take your own advice and understand it...in it's context.

Ok

No-one denies we are sanctified by the Blood, which I why I have repeatedly presented this...

Ok

Now, what you do, when you have those in Chapter Ten being sanctified by the Blood of Christ and then coming under eternal judgment (drawing back unto perdition) is...

...nullify what the Writer states here.

it nullifies your confused misunderstanding of sanctification and the subject verses not the blessed and inspired Writer if Hebrews.
Anybody willfully sinning after conversion will not be forgiven. There is no more sacrifice from which to access covering for their sins. Sanctification does not cover willful sinning, especially apostasy. Think of circumcision which brought Jews under covenant. Willful sinning after circumcision saw the, mercilessly killed, and they could not appeal to circumcision nor sin offerings to save them. Open your eyes @Darrell C..how deep is your indoctrination?

What this teaches is that we are sanctified once (for all is an insertion) and those who are sanctified by His Sacrifice are made perfect...

...for ever.

You negate this statement with your view.

Again your confused misunderstanding of FOREVER is your bane. You suppose it means all possible and probable sins are pardoned. But the fact that we are warned severally against sin, hardening of heart 5 times in Hebrews including the subject verse means your comprehension of FOREVER should be subject to this. Instead, you antagonize the author and reduce him to an idiot blurting out warnings against improbable sins. You impute your inability to comprehend , your gross logic deficiency on him!

Now, you say I deny that men are sanctified by His Blood, when I have repeatedly stated they are over and over. Hence we continue on this merry-go-round because you refuse to understand the context.

You have claimed sanctification is being made holy. Jesus was sanctified by his blood. So he was made holy?
Upon realizing your folly, you engaged in verbal gymnastics. Now the blood did not make Jesus holy, it 'set him apart bla de bla. Wake up bro!

Hebrews 10 has one over-riding context, which is...

...remission (forgiveness) of sins.

And if I may add, BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST which is severally presented as superior into animal blood under OT

The contrast is "The sacrifices of the Law cannot take away sin, and cannot make one complete in regard to remission of sin...

...but Christ's does, and furthermore...for ever."

FOR EVER and still the author warns against sin SEVERALLY. Exegetes FOREVER with this in mind

But because you want to believe that Christ's Sacrifice is faulty, and that people can lose their salvation, you go in circles, making your antagonists repeat the same basic principles over and over.

But how can you accept this while you seek a license for sin!

If you want to believe you can lose your salvation, that is your choice, but, I will tell you that you will be held accountable for that teaching.

Holy Spirit is not an idiot to,warn against losing faith if it is impossible for me to lose my faith, and nor is He an idiot to encourage believers to hold on to faith by warning unbelievers of consequences of rejecting him

You teach works-based faith which denies that Christ's Sacrifice does what Scripture states it does, which is save people. Christ bestows eternal life to believers, unlike your view, which simply makes Christ a starting point.

You teach garbage that trivializes sin while Holy Spirit fires 5 warning against the same...your garbage quenches Holy Spirit

He is the Author and Finisher of our faith, my friend:

Meaning those who never finish he NEVER authored yet he holds them responsible for His not authoring?

I have told you numerous times that you will understand this better if you actually learn what the Writer teaches about perfection.

I r told you severally perfection in Hebrews is subject to Hebrews in its entirety!
You are perfect yet the next moment you are warned against dropping your faith, against sin and so forth

The word here is making the same statement we see in Hebrews 10, and here we are told Christ begins our faith (and that is through the Ministry of the Comforter, which the rejecters "do despite unto")and...

Yes He is the author. Does that mean He never authored the faith of hell fodder?
Proof texting is silly @Darrell C, very silly it annoys

...He, not you, is the Completer.

The 'rejecters', why did He not finish it?

It's really very simple, Vooks, and would have been understood by those who would have had this read to them, because they (1) would have understood the language of that day, and (2) would not have been injecting spurious false teachings that arose through the centuries, as you do.


God bless.

It's so simple @Darrell C, you can't please God without faith. So you are severally excited to hold on, because when you lose the one thing that please God, you will be hell fodder

 

[Darrell C]

And if I may add, BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST which is severally presented as superior into animal blood under OT

And this is the simple point you are missing, Vooks, they are not sanctified by the Blood of Christ...they have counted it unholy.

You can't do that and be saved.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

And this is the simple point you are missing, Vooks, they are not sanctified by the Blood of Christ...they have counted it unholy.

You can't do that and be saved.


God bless.

And this is your willful ignorance; beliefs are not static. You told @Hark false doctrines don't necessarily make one an unbeliever because they may be holding them in all sincerity or something to that effect. By this I suppose you meant some beliefs within Christianith like say the pre-trib nonsense. I once believed it, but the Wisdom of Holy Spirit prevailed. Once I was a pre-trib heretic, now I'm not. I thought it was the truth, now I know it is a pack of silly lies that can only beguile simpletons. I mean it does not take Holy Spirit to see through the lies.

Let's move outside scriptures. We have Holocaust and we have Holocaust deniers.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a believer and a denier simultaneously, but you my start by believing in it as a factual historical event, and then change your mind and doubt it.

A simpleton may reason that you were never truly convinced of the event and that's why you changed your mind. His buddy may reason that your understanding of the historical event was flawed.

Regardless of these primates' insinuations, you once believed in Holocaust, now you don't. Bleating endlessly that one can't be a believer and denier in the Holocaust is a strawman. Nobody said you can, point is your current beliefs can't negate your historical beliefs. You WERE a believer in Holocaust, and you ARE a denier....WERE,ARE...WERE,ARE.

Now substitute Holocaust with Christianity. The apostate IS an unbeliever, but he WAS a believer. Is he a believer and an unbeliever? No.

Once again, in a desperate bid to resist Holy Spirit, you invent a believer-unbeliever absurdity, ascribe it to me, viciously attack it, and finally you claim victory and superiority of your position over mine.

We identify the apostate and the believer by their PRESENT state. But this does not negate their PAST states. Paul is a bond slave of Christ whereas he persecuted Him.

@Darrell C, I trust you were not born born again. Your conversion had a definite point while you were 'yet sinners'. At this point you must have accumulated enough information to save you. Can't believe what you don't know. If you can change your mind on certain doctrines,is it IMPOSSIBLE to change it on the fundamentals of Christianity?

 

[Darrell C]

And this is your willful ignorance; beliefs are not static. You told @Hark false doctrines don't necessarily make one an unbeliever because they may be holding them in all sincerity or something to that effect. By this I suppose you meant some beliefs within Christianith like say the pre-trib nonsense. I once believed it, but the Wisdom of Holy Spirit prevailed. Once I was a pre-trib heretic, now I'm not. I thought it was the truth, now I know it is a pack of silly lies that can only beguile simpletons. I mean it does not take Holy Spirit to see through the lies.

Could you show me a verse that teaches "beliefs are not static?"

In regards to the Pre-Trib Rapture, you act as though you actually contributed anything to that topic.

How exactly can the Church be raptured at the end of the Tribulation when this would leave no physical believers to have physical descendents who rebel against God?

But you are simply not able to follow a thought through. Once I get you to the point where you have to answer a question, you begin dodging again.

So here is the question again:

Are the sins you commit in the future forgiven already, or, was it only the sins you had committed up until salvation that were forgiven, and now the slate is clean, and boy...you better not sin.

Answer the question.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Let's move outside scriptures. We have Holocaust and we have Holocaust deniers.

This should be easy enough for you.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be a believer and a denier simultaneously, but you my start by believing in it as a factual historical event, and then change your mind and doubt it.

Not a good analogy, because we do not have a spiritual resurrection depending on whether we believe there was a holocaust or not.

A simpleton may reason that you were never truly convinced of the event and that's why you changed your mind. His buddy may reason that your understanding of the historical event was flawed.

And that is logical. I am told by Atheists on a frequent basis, "I used to be a Christian, but now I am not."

You know what the first question I ask them is?

"How is one saved?"

And they never know. Were they Christians once, Vooks?

Again, this is not a good analogy, so stop departing from Scripture.

Regardless of these primates' insinuations, you once believed in Holocaust, now you don't. Bleating endlessly that one can't be a believer and denier in the Holocaust is a strawman. Nobody said you can, point is your current beliefs can't negate your historical beliefs. You WERE a believer in Holocaust, and you ARE a denier....WERE,ARE...WERE,ARE.

Irrelevant...people are not born again concerning the Holocaust, and regeneration does not fail to produce fruit.

This is an absurd analogy, lol.

Now substitute Holocaust with Christianity. The apostate IS an unbeliever, but he WAS a believer. Is he a believer and an unbeliever? No.

You can't...substitute belief in the holocaust with Christianity.

You throw around theological words you simply don't understand. Sure, you can google apostasy, and tell me you know what it means. But I am going to go one further: produce passages that actually speak about Apostasy, and lets see who the Apostates are.

I dare you...




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Once again, in a desperate bid to resist Holy Spirit, you invent a believer-unbeliever absurdity, ascribe it to me, viciously attack it, and finally you claim victory and superiority of your position over mine.

It's right there in the texts, my friend, every passage that speaks of one coming under eternal judgment clearly shows they are unbelievers.

They are those that draw back unto perdition, and the Writer states quite clearly...

"...we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

Two groups, amigo.

Your doctrine has only one.

We identify the apostate and the believer by their PRESENT state. But this does not negate their PAST states. Paul is a bond slave of Christ whereas he persecuted Him.

Let's look at the state of Apostates:



2 Thessalonians 2

King James Version (KJV)

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
alling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


This is the first group mentioned, and here is the second:



13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:


Now your doctrine demands that you might just be a part of the first group, because your doctrine denies that God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Stinks to be you, my friend.

@Darrell C, I trust you were not born born again. Your conversion had a definite point while you were 'yet sinners'. At this point you must have accumulated enough information to save you. Can't believe what you don't know. If you can change your mind on certain doctrines,is it IMPOSSIBLE to change it on the fundamentals of Christianity?

And what is the fundamental truth you are missing, Vooks?

I'll give you a hint...


John 3:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

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.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


But, I do you a disservice. I need to start a thread on Perfection. I can't expect you to understand Hebrews 10 when you have not yet understood what is meant by the completion Christ brought in regards to remission of sins, and that He, the Author and Completer of our faith, has made perfect those who are sanctified by His Blood.

So forgive me.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Could you show me a verse that teaches "beliefs are not static?"

I will, Acts 15. There was difference of opinion over whether circumcision and Moses was necessary for salvation. You know the rest of the story.

@Darrell C, ever since you got saved, have you changed your mind on any Christian doctrine? I'm not talking about learning new truths,but revising existing beliefs.

In regards to the Pre-Trib Rapture, you act as though you actually contributed anything to that topic.

Pre-trib is illogical load of nonsense which as I said, only simpletons and the extremely carnal believers who tremble at the very mention of the word persecution desperately cling to. They'll be in for a surprise

How exactly can the Church be raptured at the end of the Tribulation when this would leave no physical believers to have physical descendents who rebel against God?

First, let me say that EVERY eschatological view, from preterism to dispensationalism has inherent weaknesses. Occam's razor tells me the one with LEAST assumptions is probably the correct one. Pre-trib has immensely crazy assumptions and semantics, it's an insult to my intelligence. I'd have to slash my thinking by half to even consider it. It's a miracle that I held on to it for that long.

Secondly, our knowledge is not perfect. This is not just with regard to eschatology but even our very understanding of God. So there is always room for me to change my mind in the light of compelling new information. But more importantly, one should not boast of their knowledge lest it be in error. But even in this state of uncertainty, there are some simple logical and scriptural contradictions that can make me dismiss a theory at once. Jesus coming is not Jesus returning? What are you smoking?

To your question how does a rapture leave the earth desolate?

But you are simply not able to follow a thought through. Once I get you to the point where you have to answer a question, you begin dodging again.

You have mastered the art of dithering and that's why it is nigh impossible to instill wisdom in you. This is your defense mechanism when your theory is threatened. I was there, I know it.

So here is the question again:

Are the sins you commit in the future forgiven already, or, was it only the sins you had committed up until salvation that were forgiven, and now the slate is clean, and boy...you better not sin.

Answer the question.


Continued...

The answer is simple. And I have said it. Go through my analogy and may Holy Spirit give you wisdom and sense.