Once Saved Always Saved?

Do you interpret this as hypothetical or literal?

God’s wrath must be appeased by blood. Before Christ it was the blood of animals which covered sins, but could not forgive sins. The author did indicate that the Old Covenant was passing away and likely did when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. I’m just speculating here. While the Temple was still standing I wonder if there could have been some spiritual application still in effect. Their souls could have been reverted back to “covered” status rather than “forgiven” status by shedding the blood of an animal. The only way to return to “forgiven” status was to literally crucify Christ again. That’s why it would be impossible to lose salvation and get it back. This only could happen while the Temple was still standing.

 

In Hebrews 6:4 it says they had become partakers of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know how to understand that in any other way except that they were saved. The author is addressing Jewish Christians.

 

Why does it matter if the Temple was standing or not?

 

Election precedes calling

it is in our calling that we truly meet God

 

Because under the Old Covenant the blood of a sacrificed animal had some spiritual significance. If I go out into the woods and sacrifice a goat that blood outside of the Temple means nothing.

 

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

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.

How long is forever?... Now lets look at the sanctified ones!... This is my favorite scripture!

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

Brother Glen

 

In regard to partakers of the Holy Spirit, the word translated “partaker” can certainly refer to a saving partaking in Christ, as we read in Hebrews 3:14, yet it can also refer to a less than saving association or participation. See Luke 5:7 and Hebrews 1:9 - "comrades, companions," which describes one who shares with someone else as an associate in an undertaking. These Hebrews who fell away had obviously in some aspect shared in the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but in what way? There are other ministries of the Holy Spirit which precede receiving the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit, which only genuine believers receive. (Ephesians 1:13)

These certain individuals who fall short of obtaining salvation certainly may have become partakers of the Holy Spirit in his pre-salvation ministry, convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment to come by tasting the good word of God and temporarily responding to His drawing power which is intended to ultimately lead sinners to Christ, yet the writer of Hebrews does not use conclusive terms that these individuals were "indwelled by the Holy Spirit" or "sealed by the Holy Spirit." Genuine believers who have believed the gospel are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

Hebrews 6:9 sums it up for me. The writer is speaking to those truly saved (refers to them as BELOVED). He says that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people, He is convinced of better things concerning YOU. Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION. Thorns and briars and falling away permanently do not accompany salvation and are not fruits worthy of authentic repentance.

In regard to Hebrews 10:29, if the word 'sanctified' is used to describe saved people who lost their salvation, then we have a contradiction because the writer of Hebrews in verse 10 said "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and in verse 14, we read, "perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) So in Hebrews 10:10, we clearly read ..WE have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all and in Hebrews 10:14, we read - For by one offering He has perfected for all time THOSE who are sanctified. To go from sanctified back to un-sanctified would be in contradiction here.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved" and/or "lost their salvation." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

Strong's Concordance
hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Original Word: ἁγιάζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hagiazó
Phonetic Spelling: (hag-ee-ad'-zo)
Definition: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Usage: I make holy, treat as holy, set apart as holy, sanctify, hallow, purify.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse (and by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So, the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the seventh day was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), Moses saved the people after coming down off the mountain (Exodus 19:14), the priests and the Levites saved themselves (1 Chronicles 15:14), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36), the Son saved Himself (John 17:19) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to make believers/nominal Christians and not saved Hebrews: But WE are not OF THOSE who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

 

Neither does Puritan era reformed theology. The WCF clearly and deliberately asserts both when it states that God's sovereignty does not violate man's free will.

Leighton Flowers and the newer free will advocates do most certainly assert that for man to have a free will God must choose to put aside his sovereignty. That for them is a core belief. In addition to that you have modern Calvinists as well as Calvin and Luther themselves going too far the other way in asserting that man does not have a free will.

When I mention this on here that both are true most people on both sides call it inconsistent or wishy washy even though that is precisely the position taken by all the Puritan era theologians and including Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Hodge. The thread started with a video by Leighton Flowers who is becoming somewhat popular as an anti-Calvinist. I am trying to figure out how he handles this since it looks to me like he swings so far to the side of man's free will that I think he heads into Pelagianism. I'm not the one who has a problem with man's free will and God's sovereignty being in full operation and neither were the Puritans or the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I know what the determinist Calvinists believe, and I disagree with them but I am trying to figure out how the new anti-Calvinist free willers handle this. So far I don't think they do.

 

I don't believe in cases of being saved then lost.

 

You maybe be lost to other beliefs but you're never lost to God... Jesus Christ PAID the full price!... Brother Glen

 

Salvation is not probation.
Eternal life is not temporary life.
Jesus is the door. He is not a revolving door.

 

I agree with that statement. But do you think someone should examine themselves in order to evaluate if they are saved? And do you think that things like pursuing holiness and living like a Christian are optional for a Christian or essential. How would you assess someone who responded to an invitation or personal evangelism at one time but then never changed in any way?

 

@37818

So does sanctification precede faith/believing the Gospel ?

 

2 Corinthians 13:5 - Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith; test yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? Pursuing holiness and living like a Christian is what we are to strive for. If we claim to be a Christian, yet never pursue holiness and are living like the devil, then it's obvious we have failed the test. If we are truly born again then there will be change and we will grow in grace (some faster than others) and we will produce fruit (some more than others). Never changed in any way demonstrates there was no conversion.