-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Debunking Unconditional Eternal Security: Hebrews 10:39
- Thread starter vooks
- Start date
- Status
vooks
Active Member
He was sanctified FOR His special assignment on earth. Call it consecration. He was sanctified FROM every other being.
Here,
John 10:36 (KJV)
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 6:27 (KJV)
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
So, @Darrell C,every usage of Sanctify in John is all about assignment. Jesus is consecrated from all beings for His assignment, he sanctifies the disciple for their assignment.
You on the other hand insist he was set apart FROM sacrifices of the Law BY His blood. The blood was the causative. But EVERY instance of the blood is in view of its cleansing power, it sanctifies me, makes me holy to borrow your definition. The blood has one purpose; washing a sinner.
The subject of 'Sanctified by the blood of the covenant' can't possibly refer to angels or demons or cherubims or animals. ONLY men are meant. Jesus needed not his own blood for nothing; it was shed for men. You make Jesus a beneficiary of His sacrifice
Correct. So we have to understand what is meant when Scripture tells us that He was sanctified by God and sent into the world, and that He "sanctified Himself."
It has nothing to do with "being made holy" in the sense that He was unholy prior to that. Second, we don't necessarily impose a view that we, because we are sanctified, are Holy as He was.
Confusing this will allow one to impose something into Hebrews 10:28-29 that isn't there.
God bless.
vooks
Active Member
@Darrell C, I can see the care with which you avoid the part that says he was sanctified by the blood of the covenant.
I understand you dilemma. Either you stick with a nonsensical interpretation or your theology falls apart.
Jesus was sanctified, Israel sanctified themselves two days, the husband is sanctified....but who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant? You @Darrell C or Christ?
Or was it both of you who badly needed the blood for sanctification?
Why call it consecration? Why not leave the same word, sanctified...in it's proper place?
He was consecrated, and again we see the unending result of His being consecrated:
Hebrews 10:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
The writer is speaking of the same thing here: the Sacrifice of Christ. And again, that Sacrifice is set apart from the ongoing and continuing and incomplete sacrifices of the Law. It means no other sacrifice will ever be needed or accepted. "His flesh" refers to His Death. The "new and living way" is the contrast. "The "veil" stands in contrast to the veil of the Tabernacle/Temple, which men went through into the presence of God. At that time that was their only avenue of approach. What this is saying is that man's entrance to God is through the death/Sacrifice of Christ. which was made possible by God manifesting in flesh.
But, you are correct here in the underlying implication, He was set apart for "His assignment" (which was not really an assignment, because He chose of His Own Self to manifest in flesh, rather than an idea that He was given this task by Another (and the Father would be in view)). You are also correct to say that He was "set apart from every other being."
If you back up in the threads I already posted this in order to bring your attention to the meaning of the sanctification in view. Remember that you had the idea that if we say Christ is sanctified in Hebrews 10:29, then this would imply He would be receiving the same benefit we do from the Sacrifice.
That is not in view. What is in view is basically what you have said above.
The Sacrifice of Christ is that which is associated with the New Covenant that sanctifies. We do know that believers are sanctified, that is true, but Hebrews 10:29 is making a general statement, that those who are in view have counted the blood (the Sacrifice of Christ) which sanctifies as unholy.
Unlike your understanding imposes into it "The Blood which sanctified those who count the Sacrifice of Christ unholy."
That is not in the text. Furthermore, it stands in direct conflict what what is in the text, which is the opposite of those who believe to the saving of the soul, which is they have rejected New Covenant elements. You impose into it that they at one time did not do these things.
Just as little brotherly advice, Vooks, learn how to use Strong's Online Concordance. This is the greatest tool available to us to understand Scripture.
Consider:
Hebrews 7:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Look at the link. In view is...perfection/completion. This is a different word than that seen in the link in the previous quote dealing with consecration. And again, it is tied to His Sacrifice.
Here is a page where you can look at how many times the Writer uses this word. And when we also look at the variants used, we see that theme of perfection I have spoken to you about. As I said before, the first century audience, because they knew the language, would understand what the Writer was saying more clearly than someone reading a translation today. Most will see the translation of telos and it's variants and think of perfection in it's modern usage, which has nothing to do with what He is saying.
The primary point is that the Law and it's services were not perfect, were not...complete. Christ was made perfect as our Sacrifice, and through that Sacrifice. When we understand that, we understand what it means that He has been forevermore consecrated.
Now let's look at your statement again, and once more you impose your understanding into Scripture:
You completely miss what the Writer states.
Again you impose a "they" into it, and it is Christ in view. His Sacrifice. Not believers, not unbelievers, except through the fact that the Sacrifice of Christ does do this in regards to believers.
Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
The first thing we understand is that Hebrews was addressed to Hebrews, first and foremost. It is not a general Epistle without that theme.
Secondly, we see the contrast between the Law and the New Covenant.
Third, in view are rejecters. A similar statement would be "If those who bootlegged moonshine were punished before prohibition, how much sorer do you think they were punished after prohibition?"
Fourth, "he" is an insertion of the translators. It isn't in the text.
Here is a link where you can look at the original language which is translated. Beside "He was sanctified" you will see "Parse." Look at the "Tense, Voice," and "Mood."
Christ is the subject.
I would render it translated like this: "And counted Covenant Blood which Sanctifies unholy.," or, "And counted Covenant Blood wherein lies sanctification unholy."
Continued...
I think you are still confusing the terms. "The Blood" refers to His Sacrifice itself. His Blood is set apart from the sacrifices of Law over and over, Vooks.
In view are the sacrifice of the Law, which is seen in Hebrews 10:28 in "Moses' Law," and Christ's Sacrifice.
You are imposing "cause" in the sense that sanctification has already taken place, when in view is simply "His Blood which sanctifies they count (have counted) unholy."
You impose into this that, unlike what he does say, which is they have not embraced Christ, they have trod Him underfoot, they have not counted His Sacrifice holy, but unholy, and they have resisted the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Grace, the Comforter.
In your mind you are seeing them as having believed to the saving of the soul (person, not the immaterial element of man as many use the term soul), rather than what the Writer designates them as when he states "But we are not of them which draw back unto perdition but believe to the saving of the soul."
You have the writer contradicting Himself, because he designates a point in which someone can believe to the saving of the soul, which is contrasted with them that do not.
And again, we see the conflict in what you are saying. You are still trying to ascribe a "rendering of a holy designation," implying that I have suggested that Christ is being made holy here, when you, at the beginning of this post finally start to understand the usage of sanctification here, understanding that sanctification is a setting apart unto something.
I am not, and never have implied Christ is a Beneficiary, but the source of sanctification. You began with this imposition from the start, and now are starting to see what is really in view, but, because your soteriology is that of the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers/teachings)...
...you have not yet allowed yourself to be true to the text. You are putting what you want to believe before all else. You do not want to lose what, in your mind, makes it clear that the L.O.S.T. are correct.
Which is why you need to study Apostasy. You need to study all of the passages which right now you see as teaching the L.O.S.T. When you do that, you will see...you don't have a leg to stand on. Then, you will need to study the affirmation of Eternal Security which is taught by all of the Writers of the New Testament.
Starting with Christ Himself.
And when you do that, you will then find the faith of Christ, because you will then move from a "Christ saves but I maintain that salvation" to a "Christ Only Saves" understanding.
God bless.
It doesn't say "he was sanctified" at all.
And again we see why you are failing to grasp this passage as a whole: you do not allow the import of the surrounding text to help you balance what the Writer is saying.
As far as falling apart, I suggest you review your own posts and notice that before...you scoffed at the thought of Christ being sanctified. Now, you are beginning to see a broader understanding, and that is good. This will help you to better understand this passage, as well as the Book itself, as well as salvation in Christ itself.
Both. That is very clear in Scripture.
What do you think Christ means when He says "I sanctify Myself?"
Did He do that by coming into the world? No, that is already covered, because He was sanctified and sent into the World.
Did He do that by teaching truths?
No, Christ is set apart in one primary way...He died in the place of the sinner.
It is His death which "sanctifies" Him. That is what He is speaking about in John 17.
Here is an Old Testament passage speaking about God sanctifying Himself:
Ezekiel 38:17-23
King James Version (KJV)
17 Thus saith the Lord God; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?
18 And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord God, that my fury shall come up in my face.
19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
21 And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God: every man's sword shall be against his brother.
22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
23 Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord.
See the link, study the usage.
Or was it both of you who badly needed the blood for sanctification?
Again you impose an erroneous implication to me. Very important to you, not to see the truth, but vilify those who expose your doctrine, isn't it.
Put that aside, Vooks...study the text.
I don't think I have ever encountered an antagonist that so often says two things at the same time. But I can see you beginning to grasp a better understanding of sanctification, and guess what...
...we haven't even broached the issue of progressive and positional sanctification, lol.
But you need to get the basics down first, Vooks.
God bless.
vooks
Active Member
@Darrell C, you are desperate. I wrote sanctified a few words before consecrated. Have you ever suffered from dyslexia?
I was looking up the verse in ESV and I noted they use 'consecrated'
I can see you are busy googling and consulting. You just threw this up days after. The way of the transgressors is HARD!
Let's dismantle it
First, the word is totally different from the word sanctified
Read all about it
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/10-20.htm
[qyote]The writer is speaking of the same thing here: the Sacrifice of Christ.[/quote]
Yes he is talking about the sacrifice but not how the blood of the covenant sanctified the sacrifice of Jesus the sacrifice!
More nonsense. Jesus is set apart from incomplete sacrifices by his sacrifice.
True
Weed is defined as a plant growing where it is not supposed to be. You are busy explaining something nobody has disputed while ignoring the subject.
On trial is your claim that the blood of Jesus sanctified Jesus. Please try and intelligently defend this.
Defend your claims
In my very first post ere before you posted nothing, I said as much, I'm just repeating because you pretend not to see
Not if we said Christ is sanctified in Hebrews 10:29, but rather if we say Christ is sanctified by the blood of the covenant
Are you in any way insinuating that the correct reading is , 'blood of the covenant which sanctifies', and not 'blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified'?
I want you to be clear on this. Is the subject of sanctification on this particular verse indeterminate?
In other words, is this a translation problem?
I'm ignoring EVERYTHING else you say till you answer this
I'm ignoring EVERYTHING else you say till you answer this.
BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED
This is a mistranslation?
vooks
Active Member
You have turned the argument in another direction by claiming KJV mistranslated Hebrews 10:29. Let's dwell on that. What is the correct translation of this verse?
Is 'by which he was sanctified' wrong/weak translation?
I gave you my translation already.
Might be in the other thread, which makes me think we should just concentrate on/in one to limit confusion. Both are really tackling the same debate, so I will let you pick one or the other, and think that will help us in our discussion.
And I will just say, I don't necessarily say it is "translated wrong," because I think the KJV translators did a great job. However, "he" is an insertion, which is the result of their own theology. We have to keep in mind that it is difficult to translate without our Theology affecting the translation.
An example of what I would say was improperly translated would be found in Romans (and I would have to look for it, can't recall offhand where it is, if it bugs me enough I will) where the Spirit is called "it" rather than He.
Okay, it bugged me:
Romans 8:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
I view this as a translational error.
This is corrected by most translations, even the New King James.
God bless.
You are already ignoring what I say, Vooks, so the threat means very little.
Again, it is not so much a translational issue as an interpretive issue. I have no problem with a translation of "By which He was sanctified," because ultimately the context says that, and the surrounding text drives this home many times.
If it is put "By which he was sanctified," then it is error, because the subject is Christ, not the rejecter/s.
You see it as "Shall he be thought worthy...who hath been sanctified" and forget that the Son of God is mentioned after reference to the rejecter.
But as I said, I gave a translation that I think best fits the context of Hebrews 9-11. Again, if we miss the theme of perfection we miss something that a first century audience would have understood, but 21st century English speakers do not.
God bless.
You are already ignoring what I say, Vooks, so the threat means very little.
Again, it is not so much a translational issue as an interpretive issue. I have no problem with a translation of "By which He was sanctified," because ultimately the context says that, and the surrounding text drives this home many times.
If it is put "By which he was sanctified," then it is error, because the subject is Christ, not the rejecter/s.
You see it as "Shall he be thought worthy...who hath been sanctified" and forget that the Son of God is mentioned after reference to the rejecter.
But as I said, I gave a translation that I think best fits the context of Hebrews 9-11. Again, if we miss the theme of perfection we miss something that a first century audience would have understood, but 21st century English speakers do not.
God bless.
Hebrews 10
29How 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?
I understand the two-way here. Most people recognize "which he was sanctified" as sinner. The "H" of "HE" would have been capitalized for Jesus.
For example:
Hebrews 1
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Those translators for Hebrews I think would have been picky about it.
On the other side.
John 17
17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
Lets make "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" to mean Jesus.
"The blood of the covenant by which Jesus was sanctified"
maybe we can change it further...
"The Cross by which Jesus was Sanctified"
26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean The Cross by which Jesus was Sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
For if WE go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.
It doesn't say IF THEY go on sinning AFTER REJECTING the knowledge of the truth.
He is talking to believers, his own congregation. And he is talking about a terrible judgment: a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
Then he explains how bad it is. All this is to describe how bad a punishment this is:
Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Even forcing the change of this bible passage, This is describing the above "FURY of FIRE":
29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean The Cross by which Jesus was Sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Even if we cut this passage OUT without context and left it forcing Jesus in,
There is still a element of one mistakenly regarding unclean which he was intended not to.
The only reason anything can be a sin is because you are against God's intention for you. Somewhere a command intended to be followed is disobeyed. The spirit of grace has been insulted.
It would be like if I were upset because some rock outside didn't say good morning.
The "he" would have been capitalized?
Could you show me "he" in the text?
Certainly a "he" is implied, however, if we are going to have it in there, what we cannot do is say that those rejecting truth are saved. That which they have rejected is what saves, that is the Writer's point.
One simple point I have made that is overlooked is the fact that in view is a contrast of the rejecter of the Law with the rejecter of the New Covenant:
Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Do you consider the one who rejected Moses' Law (the Covenant of Law) as a believer as well?
They receive punishment for unbelief. Just as is always seen in passages referring to Apostasy.
Not all of them:
Hebrews 1:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
You do not list which translation you are using, but, what I can say is that what is different here is that we do see "His" and "Himself" in the text.
That is not the case in Hebrews 10:29, that is a translational error, and it is likely ascribed to the Theology of the translators themselves.
Why not leave it as God gave it to us, and not try to write our Theology into it?
"Cross" is not in the text, though that is the implication of what the Writer says. You would be, if you did this, paraphrasing, not translating.
It does say that, lol:
Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
The Writer states what they are doing, and it is rejecting the Son of God, His Sacrifice, and resisting the Holy Ghost.
Not sure why this is not understood by so many.
You think people who reject the truth are saved?
The willful sin here is defined by the Writer in v.29. It is likened to the rejection of those who were under the Law. It says quite simply "Didn't turn out good for those who rejected the Law...but it will be worse for those who reject Christ."
Continued...
And that is why you cannot understand this passage, you fail to recognize that he is speaking to his people...Hebrews.
And since when do sinning Christians equate to an adversary of God?
He is speaking to an audience that is Hebrew, and just as he is not warning believers not to be unbelievers in Chs.3-4, he is not warning believers here, he is warning those among the Hebrews who reject the New Covenant.
No-one denies the punishment is more severe, but until you realize in view is apostasy that is compared to the apostasy of those under Law, you will imsert believers into this warning.
It's not a mistake...it's intentional. That's why he calls it willful sin.
And I have no idea what you are trying to say about cutting this passage out and leaving it "forcing Jesus in," lol, doesn't really make sense. No-one is cutting out anything, it's the insertion of a doctrinal position into the text which simply does not fit the context.
We would have the Writer saying sin is forgiven forever in Ch.9, then turning around and describing sin that cannot be forgiven.
And the primary problem with the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers/teachings) is that they erroneously designate those clearly shown to be unbelievers (in this passage those in view reject the New Covenant provision, which is Christ, the Sacrifice of Christ, and the Ministry of the Spirit) as believers.
So let me ask you a question, Utilyan, is this...
Hebrews 3:12-14
King James Version (KJV)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
...speak of believers losing their salvation?
Have no clue as to what you are trying to say.
God bless.
Yes you can fall, You get warned repeatedly.
Hebrews 4
1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
11Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Even if you just pin this as a warning to unbelievers, you got this new issue of unbelievers LABOURING and Working towards that rest.
Falling can't happen from the bottom. If you never had it you never lost it. If you never rose you can't fall.
The whole Eternal Security is an easy game cause your looking at over 150 bible verses against it. We are just talking about one of them.
I don't know what warm fuzzy feeling or high you got. Scripture tells us God can assure you personally, Face to Face, and tell you that you will be saved, and if you sin , your out of there.
Vice versa too. God can tell you that you will surely be damned, to your face. And you change your ways, repent, live justly.....and you are saved.
You can't look at this from the perspective of a criminal who's worried about the penalties of a crime.
A good parent looks at the suffering and motives that punk you around to commit the crime in the first place.
Its because God loves you he isn't going to let a sin slip past him.
Hebrews 4
1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
11Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Even if you just pin this as a warning to unbelievers, you got this new issue of unbelievers LABOURING and Working towards that rest.
Falling can't happen from the bottom. If you never had it you never lost it. If you never rose you can't fall.
The whole Eternal Security is an easy game cause your looking at over 150 bible verses against it. We are just talking about one of them.
I don't know what warm fuzzy feeling or high you got. Scripture tells us God can assure you personally, Face to Face, and tell you that you will be saved, and if you sin , your out of there.
Vice versa too. God can tell you that you will surely be damned, to your face. And you change your ways, repent, live justly.....and you are saved.
You can't look at this from the perspective of a criminal who's worried about the penalties of a crime.
A good parent looks at the suffering and motives that punk you around to commit the crime in the first place.
Its because God loves you he isn't going to let a sin slip past him.
Not much time so just going to address this portion for now, where you are not really understanding the statement you just presented.
You say...
...so let me share with you the fundamental error of your reasoning: they are not laboring to enter into that Rest if they have already entered into it, which is exactly what he says here...
Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
The warning is to a Hebrew audience, not a Christian one. Certainly the Epistle is meant to be circulated among believers, but, the writer is warning here of unbelief in those who are associated with the believers.
Here he says "we who have believed do enter into rest." The contrast is made with National Israel in the Wilderness, and he just spent an entire chapter (Ch.3) warning those of the current day (those he writes to) not to be unbelievers as they were in the Provocation (Rebellion).
You can back up to see this:
Hebrews 3:12; 16-19
King James Version (KJV)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Now, we continue this into the next Chapter:
Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
In other words, "They did not enter into rest (which you have to remember was a temporal rest, the Land), let us (this modern generation of Hebrew People) therefore (remember this is a key word directing us back to a previous statement) fear not entering into Rest because you come short of it (do not reach that rest as the example of Chapter 3 shows they did not)."
And why did they not enter into rest? Unbelief.
That is the same warning he is giving to his Hebrew audience.
Your doctrinal position imposes a maintaining of a "faithful walk," which is not in the text. In view is unbelief, and you can't make unbelievers those who lose their salvation. Fall away? Yes. But we do not ascribe a saving experience to those who are apostate.
Now notice what he says next:
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Unto us (modern audience) was preached the Gospel (which is the revealed will of God, we do not see the Revelation of the Mystery of Christ given to the Children of Israel in the Wilderness)...just like it was to them (the Children of Israel who fell in the Wilderness).
But what was lacking, Utilyan?
Faith.
They did not have faith in the revealed will of God.
Now notice his statement, which nullifies your doctrine:
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Those who have believed...do enter the Rest of Christ.
The reason for not entering is...unbelief.
So we see again that those clearly described as unbelievers are ascribed a condition which the very text has just told you they did not have. They are not believers, they are being warned not be unbelieving, as those who fell in the Wilderness were.
The warning is to an Hebrew audience who are told "Don't make the same mistake they did."
God bless.
Not making the same mistakes is a good work. Rather "sola fide" version of Hebrews would not give a warning to unbelievers at all. Because since there is nothing they can do to be justified, and you won't justify them you would then walk the walk. Actually trust Jesus to handle THEM.
1 Timothy 4
10For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Now you might love women especially your Mama. That doesn't mean you only love your Mama.
16Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
The "sola fide" version there is no doing any of this. I don't require paying close attention, I don't require persevering, I most definitely can't and dare not attempt to ensure salvation. Since it can't be on me.
Imagine one walks up to us and asks "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Matthew 19
16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
Do you have a better reply then Christ? Because I plan answering exactly as Christ.
But it won't save you. Many atheists "don't make the same mistake" about many things, and it won't save them.
?
If you have a problem with Reformed Theology, go find someone who is a Reformed and argue your complaints with them.
You understand that the Solas are more than one, right? Each sola is specific to what it opposes. "Faith Alone" combats "Faith plus works." This is the temporal aspect that does not nullify the Eternal Perspective...Grace Alone.
Now, let's see faith in Hebrews:
Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Is faith the only element to the destruction of the unbelievers in the Wilderness?
No, we see that they received the Word of God, and not having faith, they did not enter into the rest they were promised, which was temporal, the Land itself.
The mistake in view, that they, the Hebrew People, must not make again...is to not have faith in the Word delivered unto them.
You think, seriously, that you are going to justify someone by walking the walk?
Not sure if this is more sarcasm or not, so I will just say...you are not trusting Christ with a works-based mentality.
You are trusting yourself, Utilyan.
The Gospel is true, you can actually trust Christ with your eternal destiny. You can trust that Christ died in your place, taking upon Himself...the penalty for your sin.
You need to learn to do this.
Not only does this not make sense in the context of debunking the debunkers of Eternal Security, it has nothing to do with what I posted.
Did you even read the post, Utilyan?
I notice you do not address the Scripture provided...at all. You want to back up and do that at this time?
Continued...
Apparently you have never actually read the Book of Hebrews.
He makes it very clear that Doctrine and faith are necessary. This is why he gives example of those who fell in the Wilderness, and didn't enter into the rest available to the People of God (Israel) in that day.
This is precisely what the Writer is saying over and over and...over.
You are not even close to being relevant to what the Book teaches.
And you don't want to know, because it interferes with what you want to believe.
So you think the Lord is teaching this man that he can have eternal life by keeping the Law? By keeping the commandments?
It is true that if one did that, they would have a claim to righteousness, and gain eternal life, but, what does Christ also teach, Utilyan?
Men can't do that.
That's why Christ died.
Paul nullifies your mentality in a single statement:
Romans 3:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
He also states...
Galatians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Now, how can you not see Sola Fide in Paul's statements?
You need to learn to actually trust Christ, Utilyan.
Galatians 2:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
I have a better reply than you. That's all I need.
You impose a teaching into Christ's statement that is not there. And that is what you do with all the teachings you think teach works-based salvation.
You rely on false arguments not even relevant to those of us that understand the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.
And you will be turning people away from the truth.
By telling men they can have eternal life by keeping the Commandments is contrary to the Gospel. It is contrary to the revelation of the Gospel.
And the fact is...you cannot keep the Commandments. When is the last time you offered up sacrifice for sin, Utilyan.
You can no more pick and choose from among the Commandments than you can pick and choose from New Testament revelation, and think you are understanding the Word of God.
You are not answering as Christ did, you are answering as Utilyan thinks men are saved. It is not the Gospel of Christ, it is the gospel of Utilyan, and it will not save you or any other man.
We are saved when we trust in Christ. We don't trust in Christ and hope we do the works necessary to then be saved.
Titus 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
God bless.
1 John 2:19King James Version (KJV)
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
If you're sincere in your heart when you accept Christ then you will not lose your salvation...otherwise that would make God out to be a liar! The holy spirit works in us to keep us walking the narrow path..sure we may stumble but we'll never fall..Christ is there to prop us up!
- Status