Debunking Unconditional Eternal Security: Hebrews 10:39

[vooks]

Ok well my original post debunked the op. Your response was quite frankly rather sophomoric and actually showed the "shallow" understanding you have of hermeneutics, scripture as a whole, and particularly the Hebrews passage. I have made an attempt to show you where you have erred. Your response has exposed you on this issue.

You may sing debunked anthem till rapture but if you are ill prepared enough to demonstrate the same, you are not worth my while.

The subject is Hebrews 10:39.
The objective is to demonstrate that this is a terrible proof text for eternal security heresy.
Your job is to agree or disagree with my position on Hebrews 10:39, and not hurl irrelevant scriptures my way

So simple it hurts

 

[Internet Theologian]

There is no bigger nonsense than claiming that those who abandon their faith were never in faith in the first place.

1 John rejects your doctrine and shows you yourself don't abide in the truth. You call truth nonsense.

This simply implies that NOBODY presently can claim to be in faith for whereas they may be in faith,tomorrow they may depart from faith!

Scripture shows a differing story than yours.

Allow me to ask you a simple question. Are you Elect? Is there any possibility for you to renounce your faith?

All elect will remain in Christ by His authority and will never denounce the faith. Your hybrid version of elect, well they can do anything you want them to do, after all you created them.

 

[vooks]

1 John rejects your doctrine and shows you yourself don't abide in the truth. You call truth nonsense.

1 John is as good as saying 'the bible says'
You will need to give specific verses and then allow us to examine them

Scripture shows a differing story than yours.

It's in e thing to say 'scriptures say', it is another to point how and where. Vagueness is a hobby for the purveyors of heresies

All elect will remain in Christ by His authority and will never denounce the faith. Your hybrid version of elect, well they can do anything you want them to do, after all you created them.

Are you Elect?

 

[Internet Theologian]

1 John is as good as saying 'the bible says'
You will need to give specific verses and then allow us to examine them

I specified it prior, but that is not to say you won't wrest the truth given to fit into your error.

It's in e thing to say 'scriptures say', it is another to point how and where. Vagueness is a hobby for the purveyors of heresies

Yes, your OP was quite vague and fits your premise. You were and are all over the place.

Are you Elect?

All truly converted are elect.

 

[Darrell C]

There is no bigger nonsense than claiming that those who abandon their faith were never in faith in the first place.

Sure there is: there's the nonsense of making unbelievers believers so one can try to teach the false doctrine of loss of salvation.

Every single passage it is clearly shown that they are unbelievers. And the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) never address the passages that say without question that unbelievers are eternally secure. It is always a wresting of certain texts, and a redefining of Biblical terminology.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You have absolutely NOTHING on my commentary on Hebrews 10:39 and the 8 verses preceding it.

You can spam,digress,engage all the sideshows but I've done my job,communicated the truth.

God bless

I have the fact that you contradict the Writer with your view. You deny that we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, and teach believers who have been forever forgiven can then not receive forgiveness.

What is anyone supposed to do with that but feel sorry for the one who doesn't understand the passage?

And I do. Apparently you have sat under false teaching, and in just conversing with you it is quite clear you lack some fundamental understandings about some fundamental issues. For example, you are not familiar with Scripture enough to properly understand a passage dealing with sanctification. You deny Christ being sanctified as the basis for your imposing a redeemed quality to those who are clearly rejecting Christ. It is basically making the text say "If you rejecting unbelievers sin willfully there is no more a sacrifice left for you."

There was never a Sacrifice applied to them...because they are rejecting that sacrifice, just as Moses' Law was rejected by some. The parallel is drawn between the unbelievers of both Age and you insert the redeemed to be in view.

So I do indeed feel sorry for you.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You have absolutely NOTHING on my commentary on Hebrews 10:39 and the 8 verses preceding it.

You can spam,digress,engage all the sideshows but I've done my job,communicated the truth.

God bless

I will, though I know you will ignore everything said, come back to your commentary in this thread. But it will be one response, which, if you do not address my critique, and instead simply insult, will be the only response in the thread.

It doesn't make sense to try to help you when you respond to that help with insult and reiterated questions answered repeatedly.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Sure there is: there's the nonsense of making unbelievers believers so one can try to teach the false doctrine of loss of salvation.

Every single passage it is clearly shown that they are unbelievers. And the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) never address the passages that say without question that unbelievers are eternally secure. It is always a wresting of certain texts, and a redefining of Biblical terminology.


God bless.

Believers turned unbelievers. Apostates
I used to be a believer in Santa, now I'm not.
Is this all you can afford by way of rebuttal?

Your indoctrinated mind can't digest a believer departing from faith....it is well. You will get it some day Holy Spirit willing

 

[vooks]

I have the fact that you contradict the Writer with your view. You deny that we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, and teach believers who have been forever forgiven can then not receive forgiveness.

'Forever forgiven' is a figment of your imagination bro. But what's worse is it is unscriptural

What is anyone supposed to do with that but feel sorry for the one who doesn't understand the passage?

The dumbfounded always have a scapegoat in hand

And I do. Apparently you have sat under false teaching, and in just conversing with you it is quite clear you lack some fundamental understandings about some fundamental issues.

You have imbibed heresies for so long that you mistake the truth for heresy

For example, you are not familiar with Scripture enough to properly understand a passage dealing with sanctification.

Christ needed his own UNSANCTIFIED blood to sanctify him?
Even a pagan would see through such shenanigans

You deny Christ being sanctified as the basis for your imposing a redeemed quality to those who are clearly rejecting Christ.

It's a tad silly misquoting me in replying to me. I did not deny Christ was sanctified but that he was not sanctified by His blood but by obedience, sanctification being nothing more that consecration for his assignment. The blood of the covenant serves one sole purpose; cleansing sinners

So Christ to you was a sinner who badly needed his own blood to make him holy? You worship a false Christ @Darrell C,
Lucifer must be having a ball at your delusion

It is basically making the text say "If you rejecting unbelievers sin willfully there is no more a sacrifice left for you."

Nope,it is a warning to believers against willful sinning,which together with other scriptures tears to shreds your nonsense of 'forever forgiven'

There was never a Sacrifice applied to them...because they are rejecting that sacrifice, just as Moses' Law was rejected by some.

Silly, they were once believers. Like you @Darrell C. Today you sing the blood,mtomorrow you may be competing with antichrist at opposing Christ.

You may believe in aliens and Chemtrails, 911 controlled demolition theory today, then tomorrow you may not. Does that mean you never believed?

The parallel is drawn between the unbelievers of both Age and you insert the redeemed to be in view.

Silly. They are currently unbelievers but they were believers. God only judged Israel after they believed him. The apostates once had a faith.
Do you know how silly it is to claim that apostates never had faith?

So I do indeed feel sorry for you.


God bless.

I weep for your willful ignorance

 

[vooks]

I will, though I know you will ignore everything said, come back to your commentary in this thread. But it will be one response, which, if you do not address my critique, and instead simply insult, will be the only response in the thread.

It doesn't make sense to try to help you when you respond to that help with insult and reiterated questions answered repeatedly.


God bless.

@Darrell C,
This thread was specifically made for those deluded enough to believe they their are 'forever forgiven', are 'perfected forever',and on the basis they can't apostasize or if they did, it'd be of negligible consequences and so forth. Whether you comment on this thread or not, there are those who will be quickened by Holy Spirit out of their stupor and for these,my joy is filled.

So stop deceiving yourself that you are punishing me by keeping off the thread, in fact, you can go ahead and avoid it. They once shut their ears and ran at Stephen like mad. The truth elicits all sorts of things.

 

[Darrell C]

This thread was specifically made for those deluded enough to believe they their are 'forever forgiven',

So how will you be forgiven your sins, Vooks?


God bless.

 

[vooks]

So how will you be forgiven your sins, Vooks?


God bless.

@Darrell C,
Your future sins are forgiven?

 

[Darrell C]

@Darrell C,
Your future sins are forgiven?

Yes, Vooks.

That is what is meant by being made perfect by one offering for ever.

The context is dealing with the difference between the results of Christ's death and the results of the sacrifices under Law:

The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins...Christ's can and does, for ever.

That is the statement of the Word of God, and it cannot be removed. It is the clearest statement of Eternal Security in the entire Bible, in my opinion.

So our key verse is saying "You think it was rough on rejecters of the Law...you ain't seen nothing yet."

And what your interpretation does is cancel out the statement of the Writer, and ultimately, the Holy Spirit.

You are saying that those sanctified by that offering are not made perfect/complete forever.

So we have two statements, yours, and Scripture's. Guess which one I am going to stick with.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Yes, Vooks.

That is what is meant by being made perfect by one offering for ever.

For the record, please confirm that all your future sins are forgiven ere you commit them

 

[Darrell C]

I would prefer to believe in Unconditional Eternal Security.

No, actually you would not. If you did want to believe it, you would begin exegeting Scripture rather than inserting your own ideas when convenient.

I do not mean you then start reading Scripture taking for granted that Eternal Security is taught, but just what I said...exegesis rather than eisegesis.

And I have no idea why anyone would not want to believe it.

I can name several:

1. They were saved in denominations that teach loss of salvation, and to go against that would cast their own salvation experience into question.

2. Because of sin in their own lives, they live in constant guilt, and think that they perform works which remedy that sin.

3. They are not actually saved, have not the Spirit of God, thus cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Their salvation is works-based, rather than relational.

4. They are young in the faith, ignorant of Scripture, and though saved, still have not learned how to study. Thus, their understanding of salvation in Christ does not replicate the expressed faith in Christ dying for them that the Spirit of God enlightened them to when He saved them. While this initial faith was generated in truth, the sin in their lives allows them to see their participation in salvation as something valid.

Once I put saving faith in Jesus Christ, nothing can change my eternal destiny.

That is true, and even the L.O.S.T. (Loss Of Salvation Teachers) believe this to be true of themselves, though they teach loss of salvation teachings.

They desperately want to warn others that they might lose their salvation, but do not actually believe this dreadful fate could happen to them.

I can return to a life of wickedness,die in unrepentance,and I will still be saved in the end.

And here is where your eisegesis begins: you impose a belief that Eternal Security equates to license to sin. I know of not one credible teacher of Eternal Security that endorses this false argument offered as an argument by the L.O.S.T.

In fact, I have myself mentioned several times in this visit to this this forum that those who do sin and fail to repent run the danger of the very same punishment exacted in the Old Testament under Law for sin: physical death.

You have to create false arguments like these to try to support an unbiblical view, and that is the case in every point of error of those who are seriously confused about what Scripture teaches.

I can even renounce my faith,die in unbelief and still enter God's kingdom.

Who teaches that?

Except the L.O.S.T.?

This is like Pre-Trib Rapture deniers saying that view does not motivate to holy living, when in fact, that view above all views does precisely that. If we believe Christ could call us out if this world at any moment...where is the logic in thinking the view endorses license for sin?

False arguments are part and parcel for the L.O.S.T.

The only loss is I would have some significantly lesser heavenly rewards or no rewards at all, but heaven I am not missing for nothing.

Just not the teaching of credible teachers of the Word of God. You will never find one to teach what you have just taught. While it might be true that equally immature believers have this impression, that does not mean it can be associated with the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

For the record, please confirm that all your future sins are forgiven ere you commit them

Yup.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Then of course there is Calvinist classic conundrum where God is solely charged with preserving the Elect right up to their destination.

And they are right on that point.

The apostates, those who fall away from their faith and salvation were never saved in the first place, they just thought they were, and they fooled everyone in the process including themselves! Their falling away prove that their conversion was spurious for the truly saved.

And if you bother to look at the context you will see that those who fall away in every passage are designated as unbelievers. The error is yours.

The Elect will finally fall away.

No-one teaches that except the L.O.S.T.

I can understand why this latter view is repulsive; it teaches eternal INsecurity,

The only insecurity belongs to those who do not actually trust in Christ's death as much as they profess to. It is ironic, no?

for we have no right to call nobody Elect today lest tomorrow they depart form faith and manifest their true colors.

Calvinists do not teach this. This is a construct of your own mind, a false argument to support your view.

So instead of calling the dropouts fakes while everyone can be one the next second, let's keep them in.

No idea what you are talking about. But this is what happens when someone creates false arguments not even endorsed by those of opposing view.

Again, as I said, I think this is cool and I can't see how anyone would not want to believe it. The only reason I reject the doctrine is because I believe the Word of God is clearly against it.

Just as you believe the Word of God denies sanctification in regards to the Person of Christ.

Your doctrine is not derived from Scripture, but simply reflects what you want to believe. You try to conform Scripture to your own beliefs. You are not alone in this Vooks.

I wish to examine a relatively common text used by proponents of this attractive theory in the book of Hebrews;

Hebrews 10:39 (KJV)
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

The argument derived from this is, the writer of Hebrews acknowledges existence of some who fall away and consequently perish, but by 'we are not' he excludes his Christian subjects from this.

Conclusion?
Believers can't or will not draw back, and those who draw back can't possibly be true believers

Where is the examination? There is no examination here.

You scoff at the very statement of the Writer, thus...you scoff at God.

How hard is it to understand that the Writer, after giving grave warning about rejecting Christ, states we are not like them?

Who are those that do draw back unto perdition? And if there is a drawing back unto perdition and a definite "believing to the saving of the soul," when would we expect that this believing to the saving of the soul takes place?

So, I exhort you to learn how to examine Scripture, rather than broadcasting your opinions in a public forum which, hopefully, you will one day look back on and regret. But, being ignorant of a very simple truth, that Christ does indeed save eternally, is not something that demands lack of relationship with Him. You are not alone in having a works-based mentality, many, if not most do. One day you might get to the place where you acknowledge that Christ actually saved you, but it may not sink in until you stand before Him.

But the choice is yours. It is just a matter of being obedient to the command to study.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

No, actually you would not. If you did want to believe it, you would begin exegeting Scripture rather than inserting your own ideas when convenient.

I tried but I was not about to uphold traditions of men at the expense of Holy Spirit. It is good that men learn to fear God, especially Christians

I do not mean you then start reading Scripture taking for granted that Eternal Security is taught, but just what I said...exegesis rather than eisegesis.

It would be a lot easier if you led by example. All you are full of is wild claims and throwing tantrums when your bunk is called out. Not that I look to you as example, but your hypocrisy is appalling. Remove not just the log but the forest in your eyes @Darrell C

I can name several:

1. They were saved in denominations that teach loss of salvation, and to go against that would cast their own salvation experience into question.

I started as AN OSAS adherent. Took the nonsense like fish to water. Till Holy Spirit shell shocked me out of this heresy

2. Because of sin in their own lives, they live in constant guilt, and think that they perform works which remedy that sin.

I have seen all religious nutcases in my life, the scariest was one psycho who threatened to kill me without a care because he was forgiven ere he did it.

3. They are not actually saved, have not the Spirit of God, thus cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Their salvation is works-based, rather than relational.

A favorite scapegoat for heretics; 'our 'truth'(heresies) is spiritually discerned that's why he won't agree with us. SDAs, Jehovah's Witnesses all believe the outsiders lack the Spirit to help the, see things their way

4. They are young in the faith, ignorant of Scripture, and though saved, still have not learned how to study. Thus, their understanding of salvation in Christ does not replicate the expressed faith in Christ dying for them that the Spirit of God enlightened them to when He saved them. While this initial faith was generated in truth, the sin in their lives allows them to see their participation in salvation as something valid.

There is a good reason religious conversion rates are inversely related to age; the older you get, the more you believe what you have clung to all your life is right. @Darrell C, when last did you change your mind on a doctrine you had clung to for years?

That is true, and even the L.O.S.T. (Loss Of Salvation Teachers) believe this to be true of themselves, though they teach loss of salvation teachings.

They desperately want to warn others that they might lose their salvation, but do not actually believe this dreadful fate could happen to them.

Holy Spirit does the warning, my job is to point out this uncomfortable truth.

And here is where your eisegesis begins: you impose a belief that Eternal Security equates to license to sin.

And the mindless ramblings begin in earnest. Whether an OSAS heretic sins or not, they have zero incentive to shun sin because it is of zero consequence(save losing heavenly benefits)

I know of not one credible teacher of Eternal Security that endorses this false argument offered as an argument by the L.O.S.T.

They need not teach it, it is the ONLY logical conclusion. No Calvinist admits God is the author of sin yet this is Calvinism's logical conclusion. Most OSAS never think through the logical conclusion of their heresies. But thank God I'm here to help them out, peradventure they may receive some wisdom upon peeping into this. Helping men think is not easy, but it's not impossible

In fact, I have myself mentioned several times in this visit to this this forum that those who do sin and fail to repent run the danger of the very same punishment exacted in the Old Testament under Law for sin: physical death.

How kind of you!
The sinless @Darrell C will outlive Methuselah!

You have to create false arguments like these to try to support an unbiblical view, and that is the case in every point of error of those who are seriously confused about what Scripture teaches.

Your loyalty is not to Holy Spirit nor His inspiration but to your heresy...everything else MUST bow

This is like Pre-Trib Rapture deniers saying that view does not motivate to holy living, when in fact, that view above all views does precisely that.

Once you marry one heresy, you open yourself up to countless others!
The single reason I dumped pre-trib nonsense is because it was illogical, unscriptural and plain silly. I never bothered with its association with sin, I had enough proof that it was mega-bunk, and I'm allergic to bunk religion

If we believe Christ could call us out if this world at any moment...where is the logic in thinking the view endorses license for sin?

I'm more tickled by the Coming vs return silliness.

False arguments are part and parcel for the L.O.S.T.

OSAS will send more to hell than humanism in my estimation.

Just not the teaching of credible teachers of the Word of God.

I'd be more interested in scriptures than teachers

You will never find one to teach what you have just taught. While it might be true that equally immature believers have this impression, that does not mean it can be associated with the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.


Continued...

You won't find a shred of evidence for OSAS. Instead you will find a hodgepodge of out of context scriptures and suspension of reason and logic. Like all heresies, OSAS feeds on ignorance and spiritual blindness

 

[Darrell C]

For the record, please confirm that all your future sins are forgiven ere you commit them

For the record, please answer the question: how will your future sins be forgiven, Vooks?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, while we await brother Vooks' explanation as to how, when he sins in the future, he is going to receive forgiveness for that sin, let's take a pro-active stance on Eternal Security. We have to not only show the weakness and error of an opposing view, but show why our view is correct.

So just a quick one:


John 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Now, the L.O.S.T. are going to say, "This just means that men can't take them out of His Hand, but they can remove themselves," lol.

This denies what Christ states.

Now, let's see the Hand of God again:


Hebrews 10:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



Now the first thing to consider is the context. Here we have two entirely different actions by the same Hand.

Would anyone like to share why the context is different?


God bless.