Featured Was Hebrews written to believers or unbelievers?

Absolutely true, but it is only because Christ will not abandon God's elect.

 

Unbelievers will not abandon Christ.

 

As long as you insist on John Calvin's doctrine of elect you will remain as blind as a bat. God will not give light to someone who rejects light. You do not even need a Bible to be a Calvinist, because it can teach anything you want it to. Calvinism exercises authority over it.

 

.

 

A premise of the OP link is that if a book was written to believers, or unbelievers then parts of the book are not relevant. This is a bogus view, calculated to nullify scripture. As KenH pointed out all scripture can have application to both believers and unbelievers. It may be informational, this is going to happen to unbelievers, or this is going to happen to believers, but it all can help us relate to God.

 

Are you saying that you reject the doctrine of the preservation of the saints?

Jude 1:24-25 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(emphasis mine)

 

There a several theories about who Hebrews was written for and why. One theory is that Jews who had become believers, or professing believers, were being persecuted, particularly those living near Rome and Nero. One avenue of escape would be to step back into Judaism, a protected religion in the Roman Empire. So this letter is addressing their travail. It stresses that Jesus, the Son of God is superior than the angels that brought the Old Covenant. It stresses the Jesus, the Son of God is a better messenger. It stresses that Jesus, the Son of God, is their true High Priest. And then it stresses therefore that they must remain faithful.

This view is presented in the "Immerse" version of the NLT at the start of the book of Hebrews.

 

The name “Hebrews” is not mentioned as the intended target audience of this letter.

“Hebrews” was added later as a title of the letter (not inspired) because of the obvious OT references throughout.

peace to you

 

Maybe the circle Carson and Moo are in contact with or acknowledge, but thousands upon thousands of dispensationalists (rightly or wrongly, that is beside the point now) only apply the term "Christians" to people saved during the church-age, and see Hebrews as addressed to tribulation-setting Hebrews who do not technically qualify as church-age "Christians" though they may be believers, because they would not be in the body of Christ.

So the statement of Carson and Moo is either utter ignorance of the doctrine of many, many believers, or just a snub.

 

The soteriology of Hebrews, which allows for loss of salvation, clashes with Pauline soteriology which teaches eternal security.
Hebrews is a tough nut to crack for me. Still studying and praying about it.
I know the answer is dispensational, but I still don't know how to solve a few remaining issues.

 

Dispensationalism is a false teaching. Any true Christian in that mess should flee from that false eschatology posthaste.

 

The book of Hebrews does no such thing. Anyone who claims that it does is falsely doing so.

 

"Moses or Christ: Paul's Reply to Dispensational Error" by Charles D. Alexander

Microsoft Word - MOSES OR CHRIST _C. D. Alexander_.docx (wsimg.com)

 

Hebrews is a recorded sermon to a Jewish church. In any church service you will have both Christian and non-Christian listening. You will have those who claim to be Christian, but are not (like Judas). Therefore the sermon is an exhortation to persevere to the end, explaining to the audience that Jesus is greater than anything they could turn to. Thus, the listener should consider Christ and their relationship to Christ. For the truly redeemed, the preacher is confident of their perseverance. But for those who are experiencing the Christian faith, but have no faith of their own, the preacher exhorts them not to drift, not to harden their hearts, not to stop their ears, not to leave lest they wind up like Esau who had no birthright or blessing because God gave him up to destruction.

 

Non-Dispensationalism is a false teaching. Any true Christian in that mess should flee from that false eschatology posthaste.

See how easy that is?

A more specific reproof would be more helpful.

 

I will read that, thanks.

 

LOL, apparently all Christianity was wrong before the mid1800s Americans got it right. That's just too funny.

 

Ok, this is the kind of stuff I came out of.
For example:
"Those who reject the true spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel 44:6-9"

Anytime one needlessly denies the literal sense of a passage, he denies scripture.
Certainly uncircumcised in heart is spiritual in nature. But God there also adds:
uncircumcised in flesh.

 

This was just the charge of the Papists against the Protestant reformation in the 1500s (and remains).

Dispensationalism was not a 19th century novelty.

IS DISPENSATIONALISM NEW?

 

Not true.
The author does say one thing that is accurate, however. "...when have two dispensational theologians ever agreed on everything?"
Dispensationalists butcher Daniel 9, Daniel 10, Daniel 11, and Daniel 12. They ignore the OT teachings that never teach a pre-trib rapture.They shove their cultural ideas into the text of scripture and attempt to take a square peg and fit it into a round hole. Having been raised in Dispensationalism it took decades for me to sift through the Bible and see how awful the exegesis is within dispensationalism. The idea that a Greek word, translated into Latin and thus translated to English as dispensation, which therefore makes the wacky interpretations of dispensationalists somehow accurate is as misleading as any conspiracy theory you can pick.
George, feel free to follow a wacky concoction of man since it doesn't change God's gracious salvation, but don't think for an instant that the Apostles taught such nonsense.