Unconditional Eternal Security of Once Saved, Always Saved

[Revmitchell]

OK, we do not consider these quotes to be inspired by God, but they can surely be used to remove all doubt from our minds on what the apostles believed concerning this issue.

uh.....they weren't the Apostles.

 

[Brother Wayne]

Then you hold the position that the New Covenant was ratified by the blood...of the believer?

The believer was sanctified by his own blood?

What is the blood of the Covanent?..Jesus blood. By saying that the 'he' in this verse(26) is reffering to Christ you are saying that Christ was sanctified by his own blood.?? Had Christ any need of sactification? Just saying...



Anyway, I realize little, incomplete posts like this don't do justice to the subject, maybe I will get time someday to compile a more complete post.

 

[Darrell C]

What is the blood of the Covanent?..Jesus blood. By saying that the 'he' in this verse(26) is reffering to Christ you are saying that Christ was sanctified by his own blood.?? Had Christ any need of sactification? Just saying...



Anyway, I realize little, incomplete posts like this don't do justice to the subject, maybe I will get time someday to compile a more complete post.

Well, you may have a gift which I do not...slow to speak, lol. I am a windbag for sure.

But we are all on a journey (those of us that attend to the word of God with more than a passing interest) to be taught of God, and to understansd his word properly. I think most of us are sincere in the positions we hold, and sincerely want to be used of God to teach others. And we do not want to get it wrong, right?

This is one of the issues that has divided the Church for Millennia, and the debate rages on. What we have to be careful of is indoctrination by the group we fellowship. This may sound terrible, but the majority of believers adhere to what their Church teaches, and this a rather shallow understanding of their doctrine. If some people actually knew what their Church taught...they would probably leave, lol.

Okay, onto the statement:

What is the blood of the Covanent?..Jesus blood. By saying that the 'he' in this verse(26) is reffering to Christ you are saying that Christ was sanctified by his own blood.?? Had Christ any need of sactification? Just saying...

Let's look at it again:



Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)


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?


Let's break this up a little:


"...who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing,"


The comma here, "covenant, wherewith" is unfortunate, just as the chapter breaks between chs. 3 & 4 and 5 & 6 are unfortunate. In order to keep 6:1-6 in context, one cannot exclude 5:12 - 6:12. This is a bit offtopic but since I have gone this far, might as well finish this thought (just be glad we are not talking in person...lol): the writer begins showing that Christ our HIgh Priest is better than the Levitaical Priesthood, His being likened to that of Melchisadec (in that primarily Melchisadec was not of the Levitical Priesthood, yet was better-the whole point being that it would be unthinkable in the mind of a Judaizer that there could be a priest that was better than the Levitical Priesthood). He has to stop in the middle of his teaching and basically take them to task for their ignorance. "I want to teach you about Christ our High Priest...but I cannot!"

And the charge against them is that they are lazy listeners. He cannot expound upon Christ because they are like babes concerning Christ found in the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament.

Anyway, sorry for the rabbit trail, let me try this again:



"...who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing,"


The comma is unfortunate. I think the NKJV does a little better:



Hebrews 10:29

New King James Version (NKJV)


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?


This is not the only place where their is debate concerning who is referred to here. In ch.5 v.11 there is, incredibly, a debate as to whether it is Christ or Melchisadec who is spoken of:



Hebrews 5:11
King James Version (KJV)


11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.


But, if we look at this, we see...


Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)


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?


...that in view is blood which santifies. It is called the blood of the covenant, and with the context dealing primarily with sacrifice and atonement, it is reasonable to consider this the blood of Christ which ratified the New Covenant.

What the one here is doing (and keep in mind that these actions are not of a born-again, persevering saint) is despising the New Covenant and the blood of Christ in preference to the sacrificial system if the Levitical Economy.

He is also insulting the Spirit of Grace, the Holy Spirit, Who seeks to convict all of sin, righteousness, and judgment. In the words of the old-school preachers...he is shunning the wooing of the Holy Spirit.

Now we can see an occasion where an unbeliever (clearly not saved) is sanctified, and I don't have a problem with those that see the sinner of v.26 as the subject associated with the sanctification, but I myself see this as clearly speaking of Christ. That instance is found here:




1 Corinthians 7:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.


Regardless of who or Who one sees as sanctified, it does not preclude that the person, the sinner, is lost, having never been saved. And if we keep the focus of the teaching in view, we will see clearly that it is not a born-again believer in view, but a lost person that has resisted the Holy Spirit and despised the death of Christ, favoring instead to continue in Judaism.

This is the "forsaking of the brethren" that is spoken of in v. 25. Not poor Church attendance, no matter how the Pastors want to raise attendance...lol.


The many comparisons of Christ and the New Covenant with the First Covenant indicate that the First, or Mosaic Covenant has been abrogated by the New.

Consider:



Hebrews 10:26-29

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.


Those in view are considered adversaries, whereas scripture teaches that those that are truly in the Church that are sinning are to be led back. That is by us, by the way. For example:



Galatians 6:1

King James Version (KJV)

6 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


Yet the writer of Hebrews writes them off? Not at all. He is speaking about those that have done exactly what those in the wilderness have done:



Hebrews 3:12

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.


See the conclusion of Peter as he is led to expound upon Israel as a historical whole:



Acts 7:51

King James Version (KJV)

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


This is what the writer is speaking of in 10:29.


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?


In other words, he that was disobedient to the Law, the First Covenant, died without mercy under two or three witnesses, and that is tough. But, it is far worse for one to to reject the full knowledge of Christ's coming and that which He accomplished.

The contrast is between then (under the Law) and now (under grace).

And I will stop there. But there is so much to consider in Hebrews that just as you said, short posts won't do it justice. But, a great topic of study, so I hope that at the very least, these discussions will encourage you to dig around in Hebrews more than perhaps you have to this point. A great book. Called by some (including me) the "holy of Holies of the New Testament." The writers knowledge of the Law and the ability to make clear the difference between the two and the need to embrace Christ is phenominal.

God bless.

 

[12strings]

Here is a list of quotes made by some of the first apologists in the fist to centuries after Christ. I found most of these quotes from the Dictonary of Early Christian Beliefs that contains many quotes derived from the writtings of these men.

“We aught indeed to walk so holily and with so entire substantiality of our faith, as to be confident and secure in regard to our own conscience desiring that it may remain in us to the end. Yet we should not presume, for he who presumes, feels less apprehension, he who feels less apprehension takes less precaution, he who takes less precaution runs more risk. Fear is the foundation of salvation. Presumption is an impediment to fear. More useful then is it to apprehend that we may possibly fall, than to presume that we cannot, for apprehension will lead us to fear, fear to caution, and caution to salvation. On the other hand, if we presume, there will be neither fear nor caution to save us.” Tertullian

“Certain ones of those heretics who hold different opinions misuse these passages, they essentially destroy freewill by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” Origen

“I hold further that those of you who have confessed and known this man as Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation and have denied that this man is Christ and have not repented before death, you will by no means be saved.” Justin Martyr

“Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good deeds... and why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say? All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man. For it is in mans' power to disobey God and forfeit what is good.” Irenaeus

"Let us then practice righteousness so that we may be saved unto the end." Second Clement

“Since all things are seen and heard by God, let us fear him and forsake those wicked works that proceed from evil desires. By doing that thought his mercy we may be protected from the judgments to come for where can any of us flee from his mighty hand.” Clement of Rome

“God hath foreseen that faith, even after Baptist would be endangered. He saw that most persons would be lost again by soiling the wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their lamps.” Tertullian

OK, we do not consider these quotes to be inspired by God, but they can surely be used to remove all doubt from our minds on what the apostles believed concerning this issue. These men were writing the things that had been passed on to them from the apostles. Many of the men whose quotes I pasted above had first or secondhand teaching from the apostles. If the apostles believed in unconditional eternal security, why didn’t his close followers?

Just to show that quoting Church Fathers often proves very little:

Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”

Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear.”

Tertullian: “God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished.”

 

[OldRegular]

Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Just wanted to clarify that this verse isn't saying that we are sanctified once, but that Jesus sacrifice only needed to be done once. In the following verses the writer discusses how the Old Testament priests had to repeatedly offer sacrifices, but in the New Covenant the sacrifice only needed to be performed once for all mankind.




In all due respects, the 'who' there is NOT referring to Christ.

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?

Who is the first 'he' referring to?..The person who has fallen away. He has counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing. Any English student would disagree with you. However, I do understand your need to overlook proper language in order to protect your idea.

I believe you are correct. The "who" is referring to the believer, not Jesus Christ.

 

[MB]

Brother Wayne;
OSAS comes down to the meaning of eternal life. What is eternal is always going to be. Simply this is why we can't loose our Salvation because, if we could, it would not be eternal.

It doesn't mean as long as you believe because once you believe it you always will. You will not ever think of changing your mind because you will be fully convinced.

Oh I know there are those who claim to have lost there Salvation, but the truth is they never had it.

My Salvation to me is the greatest treasure anyone could ever have. Why on God's green earth would a man walk away from the greatest thing to ever happen to them.

You see those who claim to have lost there Salvation were only fooling them selves. Like Thomas he doubted that Christ was who He said He was so much that just before Christ final accsension Thomas had to touch Christ and feel the stab wound in His side before he could believe. Thomas was saved but he missed the wonderful hope the rest of us experince who believe and yet have not seen.
Salvation is the greatest treasure if you have it you know it and if you doubt it test your self. Read 2nd Peter and see if our Lord is dwelling inside of you.

If you find you are missing something then talk with the Lord about it.
MB

 

[Darrell C]

I believe you are correct. The "who" is referring to the believer, not Jesus Christ.

Hello OR,

Probably most see the reference to the individual, that's okay. It does not change the impact of the passage, and does not attribute salvation to the adversaries of God.

I would ask this, though: do you also agree with this statement:

Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Just wanted to clarify that this verse isn't saying that we are sanctified once, but that Jesus sacrifice only needed to be done once. In the following verses the writer discusses how the Old Testament priests had to repeatedly offer sacrifices, but in the New Covenant the sacrifice only needed to be performed once for all mankind.

Who is in view?

God bless.