Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Election

Van I can understand your reluctance to look at a different view but when you ignore context it is not me you are disagreeing with but rather the Holy Spirit.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge G1922 of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy
who has trampled the Son of God underfoot,
counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing,
and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Van what do you think it means for someone to have "received the knowledge of the truth"? And please note it says they " sin willfully after" they have received this knowledge.

Note what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge G1922 of the truth. Logically if one has received this knowledge then they are already saved.

This is the intensified Greek form epi + gnôsis,G1922 which implies "full and experiential knowledge." {Ephesians 4:13, Colossians 1:9}

We also see the negative of receiving the knowledge:
2Ti 3:7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge G1922 of the truth.

So it is not me reading into the text Van, it is what the text tells us.

 

Van you are trying to make unrelated verses support your view. Look at what the context of Hebrews 10:26-29 shows you. Read my prior post, # 122

 

If you do not want to trust the Greek then that is your choice. The Greek does not support your view that it is only a general knowledge. If the author had intended that he would have used γνῶσις G1108 rather than ἐπίγνωσις G1922.

Here we have Henry Alford's comments on Heb 10:26
It is not of an act or of any number of acts of sin, that the Writer is speaking, which might be repented of and blotted out: but of a state of sin, in which a man is found when that day shall come) after the receiving (having received) the knowledge (“It is usually said that γνῶσις G1108 is the weaker word, ἐπίγνωσις G1922 the stronger: or, the former the more general, the latter the more special: or, the former the more quiescent, the latter the more active: the truth in all these is, that when ἐπίγνωσις G1922 is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false γνῶσις, G1108 but not of a false ἐπίγνωσις. G1922 And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself.”

Strong's no.: G1108 (γνῶσις)
Meaning: Knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

Strong's no.: G1922 (ἐπίγνωσις)
Meaning: Knowledge of a particular point (directed towards a particular object); perception, discernment, recognition, intuition.

 

Van as you said "3) I equate "knowledge of the truth" with understanding "the truth of the gospel."" which would be the correct understanding of this verse if the author had used γνῶσις, G1108 as it would indicate a basic knowledge of but not adherence to the object of that knowledge. But the author used ἐπίγνωσις. G1922 to indicate a commitment to the object of that knowledge.

What I have pointed out to you is supported by Greek scholars. Your continued denial of the truth of the text can only be because you wish to hold to a theological view rather that what the Holy Spirit is saying in the text. The Greek word used G1922 ἐπίγνωσις does not support your view. The issue is not those that hear the gospel and reject it but rather those that have believed and then later reject it so as to return to their former lifestyle or religion.

Knowledge (epignōsin). “Full knowledge,” as in Hebrews 6:4. Word Pictures in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson)

Hebrews 6:4

As touching those who were once enlightened (tous hapax phōtisthentas). First aorist passive articular participle (the once for all enlightened) of photizō, old and common verb (from phōs) as in Luke 11:36. The metaphorical sense here (cf. John 1:9; Ephesians 1:18; Hebrews 10:32) occurs in Polybius and Epictetus. The accusative case is due to anakainizein in Hebrews 6:6. Hapax here is “once for all,” not once upon a time (pote) and occurs again (Hebrews 9:7, Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 9:27, Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 12:26, Hebrews 12:27).

Tasted of the heavenly gift (geusamenous tēs dōreas tēs epouraniou). First aorist middle participle of geuō, old verb once with accusative (Hebrews 6:5, kalon rēma, dunameis), usually with genitive (Hebrews 2:9) as here.

Partakers of the Holy Ghost (metochous pneumatos hagiou). See Hebrews 3:14 for metochoi. These are all given as actual spiritual experiences.

And then fell away (kai parapesontas). No “then” here, though the second aorist (effective) active participle of parapiptō, old verb to fall beside (aside), means that. Only here in N.T. In Galatians 5:4 we have tēs charitos exepesate (ye fell out of grace, to law, Paul means). Word Pictures in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson)



G1922 ἐπίγνωσις
epígnōsis; gen. epignṓseōs, fem. noun from epiginṓskō (G1921), to recognize. It is more intens. than gnṓsis (G1108), knowledge, because it expresses a more thorough participation in the acquiring of knowledge on the part of the learner. In the NT, it often refers to knowledge which very powerfully influences the form of religious life, a knowledge laying claim to personal involvement. When used as an obj. (Ephesians 1:17; Ephesians 4:13; Colossians 1:9-10; Colossians 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25; 2 Timothy 3:7; Titus 1:1; Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 1:2-3), it shows the relationship of the learner to the object of his knowledge (2Pe_1:8). Complete Word Study Dictionary

 

Van it is not me repeating the same view. I have provided comment from various scholars and dictionaries. I am not sure what else I could provide for you. If you are not willing to trust these than you will not trust anything that could be presented.

What have you provided to support your view? Your opinion. You can not argue with the Greek.
Van when I said you do not trust what the text says it is based on your refusal to actually trust what the text says.

These are the ones you are disagreeing with:

Calvins Complete Commentary [John Calvin]
New International Commentary on the New Testament [Joel B. Green]
Henry Alford's The Greek Testament [Henry Alford]
Word Pictures in the New Testament [A. T. Robertson]
You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide [Dr. Bob Utley]
Annotated Bible Old and New Testament [Arno Clement Gaebelein]

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [Noah Webster]
Complete Word Study Dictionary [Spiros Zodhiates]
Thayer's Unabridged Greek - english Lexicon [Thayer, Joseph Henry]

I can not provide a link for you as the text comes for a dictionary that is in my bible program, E-Sword.
{Thayer's Unabridged Greek - english Lexicon of the New Testament Thayer, Joseph Henry}

 

The next verse says God is talking about judging His people. Those that were sanctified did not become lost at any time.

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

 

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

Gill, why not?

"Ye stiffnecked,.... Or "hard necked", the same with , which is a character frequently given of this people, Exodus 32:9 and elsewhere, and is expressive of their obstinacy, stubbornness and refractoriness; who would not submit their necks to the yoke of God's law, and be obedient to his commands:

"and uncircumcised in heart and ears; for though they had the mark of circumcision in their flesh, of which they boasted; yet they had not the true circumcision of the heart; their hearts were not circumcised to fear and love the Lord, nor their ears to hear the word of the Lord and the Gospel of Christ; so that notwithstanding their confidence in carnal privileges, they were uncircumcised persons:

"ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah:

"and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit;

"and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill-treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse*: so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men, and acts with a purpose and will to convert them;

"since it does not appear that he was in these persons, and was acting in them, with a design to convert them; and if he was, it wilt be difficult to prove that they so resisted, and continued to resist, as that they were not hereafter converted;

"since it is certain that one of them, Saul, was really and truly converted, and how many more we know not. Though it will be allowed, that the Holy Ghost in the operations of his grace upon the heart in conversion may be resisted, that is, opposed; but not so as to be overcome or be hindered in, or be obliged to cease from, the work of conversion, insomuch that may come to nothing:

as your fathers did, so do ye; or as "your fathers were, so are ye"; as they were stiffnecked, self-willed, obstinate, and inflexible, so are ye; as they were uncircumcised in heart and ears, so are ye; and as they resisted the Spirit of God in his prophets, so do ye resist him in the apostles and ministers of the Gospel."

* Acts 7:52
"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?
and they have slain them which shewed before
of the coming of the Just One;
of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:"

 

Van you are arguing in circles. You dismiss the Greek out of hand and that is just your desire to hold to your non-biblical view. You can not argue that I should hold to the Greek for one verse and then say not to hold to the Greek for another. That is just foolishness on your part.

I have provided you with the information from scholars and you dismiss it so I will leave you to your unsupported opinion. Read what you said after "OTOH". You seem very confused with your position.

Van you said "Ask yourself, can a person believe in the truth of Christ without knowledge, specific knowledge, of the gospel? If the gospel is the power of God for salvation, is not knowledge of that gospel required prior to salvation? I could go on."
Van you have just supported what I have been saying to you and what the scholars have shown you. " precise and correct knowledge; used in the N. T. of the knowledge of things ethical and divine:" {Thayer's Unabridged Greek - english Lexicon of the New Testament}

You say that "receive the knowledge of the truth" is ambiguous" so would you consider this phrase to be ambiguous also:
John1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
or this one
John1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

 

Van you said "1) Material false statement, I do not dismiss the Greek, I embrace it." well if you did actually embrace the Greek then you would see the difference in the Greek words.

G1922 ἐπίγνωσις
epígnōsis; gen. epignṓseōs, fem. noun from epiginṓskō (G1921), to recognize. It is more intens. than gnṓsis (G1108), knowledge, because it expresses a more thorough participation in the acquiring of knowledge on the part of the learner. In the NT, it often refers to knowledge which very powerfully influences the form of religious life, a knowledge laying claim to personal involvement. When used as an obj. (Ephesians 1:17; Ephesians 4:13; Colossians 1:9-10; Colossians 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25; 2 Timothy 3:7; Titus 1:1; Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 1:2-3), it shows the relationship of the learner to the object of his knowledge (2Pe_1:8). Complete Word Study Dictionary

Van you are just arguing in circles. You just continue to deny the text. So we will just have to agree to disagree. I have provided various Greek scholars and dictionary information which you just ignore. You have provided nothing but your opinion in support of your view.

Van I do not disagree with 2Th 2:13 but what you fail to see is that it supports what I have been saying. That is the knowledge epígnōsis G1922 "precise and correct knowledge" that we see in Heb 10:26. Van what truth do you think those referred to in Heb 10:26 were denying?

Col 1:9 For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the {precise and correct} knowledge G1922 of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
Col 1:10 so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the {precise and correct} knowledge G1922 of God;

Rom 10:2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with {precise and correct} knowledge G1922

 

Do you understand the sermon to the Hebrews church and the point that the preacher is making to this church?
Before Hebrews 10:29, the preacher has been explaining to the listeners that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant as both the perfect, once for all, sacrifice, as well as the perfect High Priest, who is not in the Levitical line of Aaron.
He is addressing the listeners and reminding them that what they heard and saw, at Pentacost, and what they believed then is still true. If they change their minds, they will be going back to a failed system that cannot save them. Thus, the preacher is encouraging the listeners to persevere in their hope and the preacher is convinced that the listeners are indeed preserved by God to remain in hope to the very end.

*Hebrews 10:39*
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

Also, note that the speaker is making a distinction between how one is saved. If...one is saved by their own freewill choice, then one can unsave themselves by that same freewill choice in going back to the old ways of Judaism. However, if one is saved by their names having been written into the Will (New Covenant) as clearly stated in Hebrews 9, then the result is the preservation of their souls by virtue of the faith that God has given them (Hebrews 10:39).

You, and others who demand freewill, get tripped up in Hebrews because you can never know what your will is going to do. Like good Nazarenes and Wesleyans you must beat your will into submission and hope you don't turn apostate in the last hour. Such freewill thinking will result in a rollercoaster ride ranging from pride in the great job you've been doing to abject despair over the multiple failures that keep occurring. The idea that Jesus chose you and granted you faith that preserves you cannot fit since either Jesus must be the cause of your redemption or you must be the willful chooser of your salvation. Therefore, Hebrews is a sermon that causes you all kinds of anxiety as you fearfully go through your checklist to try ensure that you remain in the faith.

When I read Hebrews, I hear the preacher encouraging me and constantly reminding me that Jesus is greater than myself and Jesus will preserve me into eternity. My security is in knowing that Jesus has written my name in the Will and my inheritance comes at my glorification. My task is to persevere in the faith that Jesus has given me and the preacher is confident that this is exactly what will happen.

For those of you who are living in fear with this passage, I am sorry for the needless anxiety you carry.

 

In my view, it is both in salvation. But only being set apart in no salvation. Since in my view sanctification precedes salvation one is not saved then lost. Should you not agree, it does not change my view. I do not believe one can be saved and lost.