To: A.J.Armitage; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jean Chauvin
Instead, we shall close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Now the author has gone and done it. Yet one more fellow who sees the Eternal Security of the saints in Hebrews 10:14.
posted on 07/19/2002 8:46:56 AM PDT
CCWoody: Now the author has gone and done it. Yet one more fellow who sees the Eternal Security of the saints in Hebrews 10:14.
Let's see what he actually writes:
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 [Hebrews 10:10-14], above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must.
This is not the author's secret code for eternal security.
No, Woody, he's finding Limited Atonement in Hebrews 10. I don't object to the way he's using it to support his argument. I doubt he'd have much problem with my argument for sanctification either. We both use very much the same reasoning and application. I did enjoy reading his line of reasoning here overall. But this author has written his entire article to support limited atonement
, not eternal security
. In the TULIP, while all petals may be mutally supportive, the 'L' and 'P' are not used interchangably.
Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote
and try not to put your words in his mouth.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson