Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Election

That one could have been sanctified in some way and remain lost? Hebrews 10:29, ". . . he was sanctified . . . ." Yes or no?

 

1 Peter 1:2, ". . . Elect according to . . . ."
Matthew 22:14, ". . . For many are called, but few are chosen {elect}. . . ."

 

Hmm. If not only one position can be understood from the word of God, that means one has some extra Biblical suppositions. Otherwise it is needed to cite the needed missing Scripture.

 

The context **Hebrews 10:26-29** does not support you view. The one that Paul is referring to as having been sanctified is the person that then:

has trampled under foot the Son of God,
and
has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant
and
has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Your saying that the person cannot have been sanctified by God is based on your reading into the text what you wish to find.instead of following what this text actually tells us. When you look at the verses that you referred to in your post you have actually provided one that support what I have said:
Mat 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

What this context is showing us is that the person is on Satan’s side, and knowingly so and this is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—an unpardonable sin.

 

So what do you think that the Holy Spirit was saying in these verses?
Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

So are you suggesting that that person who does these things 1] was never saved or 2] can not be lost?

 

Why do you think the context does not support me?

 

Because a reading of the text in context does not as I have shown you. If you wish to deny scripture that is your option but the bible does not support what you have said.
"Therefore, '....by which he was sanctified' cannot refer to the person who commits these sins (c.f. Matthew 12:31; 1 John 2:19) and therefore must refer to the 'Son of God'"

The better question is why do you think the context does support your view?

A point to consider as you ponder the question.
It would be unusual to apply this word to the Savior. It is true that he says John 17:19, “for their sakes I sanctify myself,” but there is no instance in which he says that he was sanctified by his own blood.The natural and proper meaning of the word rendered here “sanctified.” is commonly applied to Christians in the sense that they are made holy; see Act of the Apostles 20:32; Act of the Apostles 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2

 

I am not aware that you have shown me any such thing.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself on this. Please don't ask me again.
1. 'Son of God' is the nearest antecedent to 'by which he was sanctified' and there should be assumed, all other things being equal, to be the referent.
2. I do not believe that someone who has 'trampled the Son of God underfoot' and insulted the Spirit of grace can have been sanctified by God.

I am a bit non-plussed by this discussion. It was one that I had on the Puritan Board many years ago with Presbyterians who were trying to justify infant baptism. I never thought to be having it with fellow Baptists. The questions are: is the new covenant merely a 'renewal' of the Mosaic covenant, or is it genuinely new? Is baptism merely the new circumcision, or is it an ordinance solely for believers?
My understanding is that the Mosaic covenant was made with the physical descendants of Abraham via Isaac (Genesis 17:18-19; 21:12), but the new covenant with his spiritual descendants (Galatians 3:7, 29). This is in line with what Hebrews 10:15-17 says, in the very same chapter that we are considering. Therefore it is impossible that someone who has done the things described in Hebrews 10:29 can have been sanctified.
An article that I wrote on my blog summing up my discussions on the Puritan Board may perhaps be helpful: Circumcision and Baptism

But we are speaking of the blood of the new and everlasting covenant which is in Christ's blood (! Corinthians 11:25 etc., Hebrews 13:20). So far as John 17:19 is concerned, our Lord uttered those words very shortly before He did indeed shed His blood of the new covenant. With those words He set Himself apart to do so. As for the word 'sanctified,' of course it means made holy! But how can the person described in Hebrews 10:29 possibly have been 'made holy'????

 

Repeating a misinterpretation does not make a misinterpretation true.

Hebrews 10:29, ". . . ποσω G4214 Q-DSN δοκειτε G1380 V-PAI-2P χειρονος G5501 A-GSF αξιωθησεται G515 V-FPI-3S τιμωριας G5098 N-GSF ο G3588 T-NSM τον G3588 T-ASM υιον G5207 N-ASM του G3588 T-GSM θεου G2316 N-GSM καταπατησας G2662 V-AAP-NSM και G2532 CONJ το G3588 T-ASN αιμα G129 N-ASN της G3588 T-GSF διαθηκης G1242 N-GSF κοινον G2839 A-ASN ηγησαμενος G2233 V-ADP-NSM εν G1722 PREP ω G3739 R-DSN ηγιασθη G37 V-API-3S και G2532 CONJ το G3588 T-ASN πνευμα G4151 N-ASN της G3588 T-GSF χαριτος G5485 N-GSF ενυβρισας G1796 V-AAP-NSM; . . ."

 

Please show me the verse where Christ is sanctified by His blood. Martin you continue to ignore the context as it does not fit your theology. Why do you not trust what the Holy Spirit says? The context Hebrews 10 26-29 points to the person being the one sanctified not Christ Jesus. One is sanctified by the blood of Christ or do you not understand this. It is sad that you would rather hold to your philosophy than the biblical text.

The one who deserves the punishment does so for these things
1] he has trampled the Son of God underfoot
2] regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant
3] insulted the Spirit of grace

Although Christ Jesus inaugurated the covenant by his blood to sanctify those that believe in Him, His shed blood means nothing to the rebellious sinner.

Why do you ignore these truths?
It would be unusual to apply this word to the Savior. It is true that he says John 17:19, “for their sakes I sanctify myself,” but there is no instance in which he says that he was sanctified by his own blood.The natural and proper meaning of the word rendered here “sanctified.” is commonly applied to Christians in the sense that they are made holy; see Act of the Apostles 20:32; Act of the Apostles 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2

 

Thank you for proving me right.

 

@Silverhair,
Once again we have reached an impasse. I have given you my reasons for believing what I do and shown that I am supported by such an august figure as John Owen. I don't have anything else to offer you, and you have certainly not persuaded me. You have repeatedly pointed me to the context, but have been unable to tell me what the context is.

All this has nothing to do with Calvinism vs Arminianism; it is to do with whom the New Covenant is made. But I think I'll leave it there.

 

I understand what you are saying and that is your right to hold that view. But the context does not support your view. Also the standard dictionaries do not.

SANC'TIFIED, pp.
Made holy; consecrated; set apart for sacred services. Webster

sanctified G37
to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
a. consecrate things to God
b. dedicate people to God Thayer

To make holy, sanctify Complete Word Study Dictionary