Posted on 09/05/2001 2:47:45 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Chapter 10:14. He hath perfected, etc. The word simply means to complete, to finish, to perfect; and it depends on the context what that completion or perfection means. To perfect the sanctified or the expiated, or those atoned for, was completely to free them from the imputation of sin, to make them fully clear from guilt, or in other words, fully to take away their sins, which was never done by the sacrifices of the law, verse 11. This is the point here handled. Stuart gives the real meaning by the following free translation, -- "By one offering, then, he hath fully accomplished for ever what was needed by those for whom expiation is (was) made."Again, completely consistent with Henry, with Owen, with Darby, with the great Confessions, with just about every Calvinist I can find except for one very weak unexposited citation from Boettner. And Boettner is certainly no Calvin or Darby or Henry. The only person who does hold this position on 10:14 is you, an unpublished and anonymous source on an internet message board who claims absolute biblical authority and considers all in disagreement to be damned and that it is the height of your Christian love to condemn them ad infinitum. I note that Jerry and Uriel only affirmed it after you did and then with some reluctance. For the benefit of ccwoody and spudgin, I will again point out in the Perseverance thread wars over a year ago, none of you ever mentioned Hebrews 10. This theological "discovery" you've made in 10:14 dates from the time of your ridiculous "saved=sanctified" argument offered so weakly to RnMom.
The perfecting "for ever" by one offering in this verse, proves that "for ever," [Greek text omitted], in verse 12, is to be connected with the offering of one sacrifice, and not with the sitting on God's right hand; the verse may be thus rendered, --
12. "But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for perpetuity, (or, according to Beza and Stuart, 'one perpetual sacrifice for sins,') sat down on the right hand of God, henceforth waiting until his enemies be made his footstool."
Hey if you want to add another on to the large amout of Heresy you are building up for your self ?
Everyone take a LOOK at I John 2:19. Here doc gives out with some of his best teachings.
To explain. The defination of APOSTASY. It simply means to fall away. However doc has those people who left the church in I John 2:19 as APOSTATES. Where it is clearly shown that those people WERE NEVER PART OF THE CHURCH. So doc decided they are APOSTATES because they fell away from something they never were. Watch out for his Greek explantion which BTW is supported by NO ONE that I know of. You can't take one half of two basic parts that make up a word and tell everybody it is the meaning of the componded word. That is anybody but doc can't do that. For all you have to do is ask him he will tell you he can
So there is another for you to play your OLD WORN OUT LIMP RECORD for. For your response is in the same class as Rom 9 and John 6
Regards
don
This is our convention on these threads. Polemical friends and foes get flagged alike on the posts. But unless otherwise specified, the post is actually addressed to the first person named in the address block.
I had meant to include you in the same way in my post #14, BTW.
I have a couple questions on this..
Can a non-elect "believe the gospel"
Can a non elect "repent"?
I dont think that the Calvinists understand that this makes no sense to those that are not Calvinists..
Jerry and I had an exchange on this before...and I think he was trying to explain that the requirement was the same for both the "elect" and the "non elect"now that I could understand..But I thought that before you could repent or believe you had to be regenerated...???
Is there a "punishment" or "consequence" for a non elect person who does not follow that command?
I need no such help! In addition to a understanding of many of them, I also have a Word which you will not find anywhere in the Bible. In fact, I have more than one. But you seem to need to fall back continually upon the words of others for your faith.
If we examine this verse and then conclude that God can throw somebody who has been perfected forever into hell then we would be guilty of blasphemey. We would be trampling the Blood of Christ under our feet.
I would never dare to even conceive such a thought. It is totally alien to my entire being. Perfected forever means just that; perfected forever.
However, when you deny that Hebrews 10:14 teaches that those being sanctified - those who are perfected forever - can be thrown into hell, then you in fact blasphemey my Glorious Redeemer and trample His blood under foot.
You stand at an Eternal precipice with your position. I don't think you can even conceive how precarious your declarations against Hebrews 10:14 really are. You have a particular knowledge of Scripture that many Christians will never have this side of Paradise. In a very real sense you have more talents than any of the other professing people on this thread. This put you in a position to be even more thoughtful with Scripture than others.
The very real implication is that you should consider the Word of God first and any and every commentary secondary. However, you are putting the words [which you twist in many cases] of Reformers before the Word of God. You need to quit doing this.
In an absurd way, you are guilty of the same crime as the Wesleyans are. They deny what this scripture says because they, in a Scripture twisting zeal, make it fit to their doctrine. Well, you too have created a doctrine based upon others words and now twist Scripture to make it fit your doctrine. Never mind that your doctrine contains the correct language. If you can't even read simple and direct scripture passages, then you need to give yourself a serious spiritual examination. I want to laugh at the hysterical irony of this, but the seriousness of it has stopped me.
We can both consider your reply to this post your "last word" for the time being on this subject. I do not think at this point I shall respond to it.
You are correct. drot also thinks that lurkers don't email me for help.
Some do, some don't.
Now, the Scriptural question for you to ponder is this: "Who maketh thee to differ one from another?"
You are still carnally blinded to the truth of Hebrews 10:14. Heck, it isn't just the_doc, "an unpublished and anonymous source on an internet message board" who believes that Hebrews 10:14 is very clearly a passage on eternal security, it is the vast mass of Reformed Christendom. We are "perfected forever", and can be nothing less than secure. The fact that you still don't get this is very troubling indeed.
As for your contention that I only tagged along reluctantly, balderdash!
P.S. - Contrary to your earlier post, there is almost no one who holds to a Pauline authorship of the book of Hebrews. I am still rooting for Priscilla.
Last time I had a shotgun out was pheasant hunting a few years ago, with no success. I do a considerable amount of shooting (Rifle, pistol, black powder), but the hunting opportunities have been slim indeed. Get a couple of mourning doves for me. (And I would bet that you get good quail hunting in your neck of the woods as well.)
Also, from a simple reading, I don't really see where you get an understanding of free will or election from any of that. For example,
And you son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: 'Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?' Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? And you, son of man, say to your people, the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' yet if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. none of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right, he shall surely live
Ok, a few things I notice about this passage. First of all, it is pretty much the nail in the coffin of any notion of eternal salvation achieved in this life. It is quite clear, even if you are righteous (or shall we say, "elect"?), your righteousness shall not deliver you if you transgress. Also, it even addresses quite clearly any apparent conflicts that this might have with other passages. For there is no passage anywhere that comes right out and says that once you are "saved" that this salvation is a guarantee that you can take to the bank. Some could be interpretted that way, but that is precisely the interpretation this passage warns against: "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live (i.e. even if some part of the Word of God says "do this and you will be saved"), yet if he trusts in his righteousness (i.e. committs the sin of presumption by believing that his salvation is ever assured before the Day of Judgement) and committs iniquity (i.e. sins again) none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die (so if you sin after professing Christ, then that sin will still condemn you to hell, unless you turn away from sin again). In other words, even if you think it says somewhere that there is a single irrevocable salvation granted to you that can never be renounced by you or revoked by God, you are mistaken. If once righteous, and then are wicked, only if you "restore the pledge" will you again be made righteous.
Also, notable from this passage is its complete lack of any mention of faith. Now, let us assume that by righteousness it means what we are made by God, and not what we do (a bit of a stretch IMHO). It is still clear that the path to death is through wicked deeds, and that to come back to the way of life requires deeds as well, at least in mitigation of the harm you have done ("gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity").
Well O well, this sounds suspiciously like salvation through ::gasp:: WORKS!!! At the very least salvation through avoiding certain works (i.e. iniquity).
Ok, so what have we here. This passage nails the coffin of "professional" Christians and stacks it right up next to the last one. First off, we have a reiteration that those who do not DO good will be cast into hell. Second of all, it clearly says that merely doing in Christ's name is insufficient, unless you do what is in the "will of my Father who is in heaven." So the suggestion that confessing that Jesus is the Christ consists merely of believing that this is the case, and maybe saying so, is nonsense.
So what then must our faith be? It must be hearing and receiving the Word of God, but it must also be obeying the Word of God. Then and only then will our faith be built "upon the rock" (hmm...rock...where else has that word been used? hint...Matthew 16:18...okay, not a very subtle hint). Otherwise, our faith will merely be built upon sand, and it will not survive the coming storm.
Hm, I guess if predestination-types had written this, it would read:
"If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, obviously he never really liked that sheep to begin with. And if he should come upon its wolf-mangled corpse, it will be merely be to his glory before the other sheep, whom he clearly liked better."
Or maybe:
"If a man has a hundred sheep, he really has 500, but doesn't let the other ones flock around, because he likes his hundred better."
I don't really have a lot to analyze into this passage, simply because it is so blindingly obvious. If there are any predestination believers who would like to explain to me what they think this passage means, I would sincerely like to know.
Here we see why men reject God, and no, it isn't because he secretly wants them to so that he can further his glory by standing on their smoldering corpses (remember: "says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked").
So why do they do it? Because they have done evil. By their sins, by their "evil deeds", by their WORKS, they have distorted their souls into caricatures which they can not bear to see in the mirror of his judgement. Like Adam and Eve, because they have tasted of the forbidden fruit, they hide from the Lord.
To assert that they reject God because he did not choose them to accept his is ludicrous. The God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" has selected all of his sheep, which is abundantly clear from the last passage. Salvation is offered to "whoever believes in him" and the Lord will leave his flock to search out the one who went astray. But he who "does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed."
Now, one might raise the objection that "whoever believes in him should not perish" contradicts the importance of deeds. Not so, for not a paragraph later it tells of the evil caused by deeds, and we have already heard from Christ himself that salvation comes to those who hear and DO. It does not say, "whoever only believes in him" and we have seen previously that "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live...in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die."
Ok, last one, it is getting late.
First of all, then, I urge tha supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quite a peaceful life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne out at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls, or costly attire but by good deeds as befits women who profess religion.
Just one final little note that even Paul
a. Believed that Christ's salvation was for ALL
b. Seemed to think for some reason that those who "profess religion" must adorn themselves with good deeds.
I would like to close with a simple passage quoted without analysis, which I have never yet heard anyone respond to, or even mention:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting...
Let no one say when he is tempted "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.
Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Fath...with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures...
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a miror, for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perserveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.
If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is in vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphas and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world...
What does it profit, my brethren, IF A MAN SAYS HE HAS FAITH BUT HAS NOT WORKS? CAN HIS FAITH SAVE HIM? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. YOU SEE THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE...For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
--James 1-2
Guess no one's made it that far, it's all the way back there at the end ; ) Oh, and finally (really, this time):
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1
May the blessings of God be with you all.
"Biblical Christian" is just another way of saying "Roman Catholic." ; )
P.S. The only time I see a lot of quail is when I am doing serious muzzleloader hunting for deer. I have the fattest deer corn eatin' quail you have ever seen.
Do you think GWB will pay attention to me when my first book comes out? Naw, he's bluffing. (He maintained that Spurgeon did not affirm that the doctrine of eternal security is taught in Hebrews 10:14--despite the fact that we showed him nine different statements to that effect in nine different Spurgeon sermons.)
This is supernaturally weird stuff.
I will probably catch some flack for this (I did earlier when I mentioned it), and am quick to admit that this is nothing more than a speculative guess without any substantiation.
He did answer in that post.
Interesting thought..but it does have a different tone than the other letters..I thought you were teasing..that is why I asked..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.