Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: George W. Bush; Jean Chauvin; drstevej

Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote and try not to put your words in his mouth.

I'm not putting "words in his mouth;" I'm simply reading them:

While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does verse 10 tell us? "We have been made holy," or, another translation would be, "We have been sanctified." The Greek language uses the perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it possible for them to become holy?

Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy? Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

But, enough mere simple reading of the author's words, let us ask two (drsteve & Jean) who were not a part of the original "discussion":

  1. Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

  2. Does the author see Eternal Security presented in Hebrews 10:14?


33 posted on 07/20/2002 3:28:34 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: CCWoody
The emphasis in the greek text of Hebrews 10:14 is on the ONE sacrifice of Jesus that has ENDURING impact and actually results in the REMOVAL OF SIN; in contrast to the REPETETIVE sacrifices of the Aaronic priests which can merely COVER sins for a SHORT TIME.

The placement of the word translated ONE at the beginning of the sentence emphasizes the contrast of one verses many sacrifices.

The sacrifice is the complete basis of our forgiveness and security. It is also the basis of our justification and sanctification (positional and progressive).

However, the blessings of his sacrifice become effective in the life of an elect individual at the point of regeneration. Saul, the persecutor of the church was elect prior to his conversion, he was not justified or sanctified at that time. However, once regenerated Paul was both positionally sanctified (teliow - perfect tense active voice verb) and was being sanctified practically (agiazw - present tense passive voice participle).

This passage does imply the eternal security of those for whom the work of Christ has been applied through regeneration. Christ is seated, the work of the cross is complete. The Holy Spirit is active applying those benefits to the elect at the time of His choosing.
39 posted on 07/20/2002 4:21:17 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: CCWoody; drstevej; Jean Chauvin
I can't imagine why you want to open this can of worms again. Dozens of bitter posts, countless conspiratorial FReepmails, Calvinists not speaking to each other to this day, Calvinists banned, etc.

And you really want to start up again? To what purpose?

If Jean and drsteve really want into the middle of all that, I don't particularly object. I suspect they're both too wise to tiptoe into a live minefield. And my own reading is pretty unswerving in any event.

Naturally, I've retained all the old threads and FRmails.
57 posted on 07/20/2002 6:57:09 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: CCWoody; drstevej; Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7
CCWoody: Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy? Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

Of course, the sanctification of believers was eternal, a perfect and one-time offering. And nothing else need be done for sanctification of believers under the New Covenant. And naturally, that means all those saved under the Old Covenant, were ultimately sanctified by Christ's sacrifice as well prior to the actual crucifixion.

This sanctification which you work so hard to minimize in Hebrews 10 to promote an Eternal Security (which is properly found elsewhere) is the very guarantee we have against the need for priests and religious ritual, a guarantee that we are santified as believers in Christ so that the Father can even hear our prayers to Him. Christ Himself sits at God's right hand and intercedes on our behalf with the Father but He could not intercede for us unless we had been sanctified by His own blood purchase of us, His Flock. This assurance of sanctification in Christ was important to early Jewish Christians so they knew that the Jewish rituals were ineffective and temple worship was no longer effective in any way. The naming of Christ as the High Priest was to assert His authority over that of the worldly High Priest and his hierarchy. And that same teaching applies as well to ancient Jewish high priests as it does to popes of all stripes. So the message here is both directly relevant to the ancient church and to the modern church and all those of all ages within the church.

I can never grasp why several of you wish to so diminish the message of assurance and the authority of Christ found in Hebrews 1-10 so you can insert Eternal Security, a doctrine so well-supported elsewhere in scripture. Of course our sanctification is as eternal as our salvation because without the sanctification we could have no salvation! But sanctification is not salvation. It wasn't under the Old Covenant and it isn't under the New Covenant. However, sanctification under the New Covenant is only effective for believers and all the sanctification performed under the Old Covenant was only meaningful for those who would eventually be redeemed by Christ's sacrifice.

Why is this simple teaching, found in the first nine chapters of Hebrews, so difficult? Why is it, Woody, that those of you with a fetish for inserting Eternal Security in Hebrews 10 have never managed to post any reference to Eternal Security in any other scripture passages? I certainly have posted on Perseverance from many other passages along the same lines as the great Baptist Confessions and the Westminster Confession and innumerable sermons and books. It's downright bizarre.

You pursue a ridulous contest of personalities over scripture. The very wording of your initial post was obviously baiting. In case you've forgotten, the real war banner of your crusade to impose Eternal Security in Hebrews 10 reads "sanctification=salvation". Yes, that is the very first post by the_doc to RnMomof7 on this entire topic. All else has followed from it. I will once again point out that sanctification is not a synonym of salvation. Salvation subsumes sanctification.

drstevej: The sacrifice is the complete basis of our forgiveness and security. It is also the basis of our justification and sanctification (positional and progressive).

Entirely true. But that is not what Hebrews 10 is teaching so directly. It is the elimination of all of types of external sanctification which is primary here in verses 10-14. One may observe that it supports that Christ's sacrifice was an eternal and one-time sacrifice. And of course it was. But we have hundreds of other scriptural assurances of Christ's sacrifice as effective to cleanse our sin with the Father. Hebrews 1-9 is very special and unique in its teachings, i.e. they are much more than merely another redundant statement of Christ's redemptive sacrifice for our sins. And His sacrifice was the sanctification of all believers, that which makes it even possible for the Father to hear our prayers, our very plea for forgiveness of sin. This follows the typology of sanctification under the Old Covenant, even as Christ fulfilled it and set it aside for the New Covenant in Him. The rituals were not anywhere considered effective unless the priest was sanctified in complete observance to God's scriptural commands.

A perfect, unblemished and one-time sacrifice of Christ to redeem the sins of believers, to set aside the Old Covenant, to establish Him as the High Priest, and sanctify all believers before the Father is not the same matter as Eternal Security (Perseverance), which deals with the ability of the Father to maintain His spiritual hold upon the Elect through all temptations and snares of hell and deliver them to heaven as Christ's flock, as He determined to do from the very foundation of the world.

drstevej: This passage does imply the eternal security of those for whom the work of Christ has been applied through regeneration. Christ is seated, the work of the cross is complete. The Holy Spirit is active applying those benefits to the elect at the time of His choosing.

I think you're sidestepping the question. Is Eternal Security explicity taught in Hebrews 10 or not?

I've yet to find any reference to the Holy Spirit applying Christ's blood to the believer or applying any benefits other than those described explicitly in scripture. These works of the Holy Spirit were the miraculous gifts of the early apostolic church (given for a period to establish Christ's church) and, to the believers who came after, bringing spiritual conviction upon sinners as they approach regeneration and repentance, the gifts of spiritual discernment and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Where do you find in scripture additional works of the Holy Spirit (applying Christ's blood or applying the benefits of salvation)?

As far as Woody's two questions to you and Jean, it appears you've answered "Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?" in the affirmative, more or less.

His other question was: "Does the author see Eternal Security presented in Hebrews 10:14?". So, is eternal security found in any part of this article, actually the original contention of Woody's post? I hope you can be a little more definitive about the author's writing than suggesting it is "implied".
96 posted on 07/21/2002 9:17:45 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: CCWoody
Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy?

The finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary made them holy.

Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

It is complete.

Like Jesus said "It is finished."

Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

Yes. How can they that have been sanctified and perfected by the Eternal Holy God be lost?

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

107 posted on 07/21/2002 3:19:40 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: CCWoody
I have been absent lately and my brain is hurting from trying to understand what the heck you two are arguing about on this thread.

Could you explain what the debate is over?
170 posted on 07/21/2002 11:27:44 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson