Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Morant61 | 69604 | ||
Greetings Hank! I would respectfully disagree that the context of Heb. 10 does not support the notion that 'receiving the knowledge of the truth' is synonymous with saving faith. For the following reasons: 1) All the five verses where this phrase is found use it in connection with saving faith, repentance, ect... See my previous post for that discussion. 2) Heb. 10:23 is a call to persevere in the faith, not to accept Christ. 3) Heb. 10:26, as you pointed out, uses the word 'we' as the subject of the clause. Was Paul writing to non-Christians or Christians? 4) Heb. 10:28-31 compares and contrasts rejecting Christ with rejecting the Law. 5) The one who is worthy of punishment in Heb. 10:29 is described as one who "was sanctified by the blood of the covenant". Believe me, it is not my intention to start another C/A debate! :-) But, I don't see anyway to make this passage a reference to someone who did not truely know Christ. Here is what the Bible Knowledge Commentary (a moderate Calvinist publication) says about this verse: ****************************************** Heb. 10:26-27: "The KJV translation here, ?if we sin willfully,? is superior to NIV?s if we deliberately keep on sinning, as the words ?keep on? overplay the Greek tense. As the context shows (cf. v. 23), the author was concerned here, as throughout the epistle, with the danger of defection from the faith. Most sin is ?deliberate,? but the writer was here influenced by the Old Testament?s teaching about sins of presumption (cf. Num. 15:29-31) which lay outside the sacrificial provisions of the Law. Apostasy from the faith would be such a ?willful? act and for those who commit it no sacrifice for sins is left (cf. Heb. 10:18). If the efficacious sacrifice of Christ should be renounced, there remained no other available sacrifice which could shield an apostate from God?s judgment by raging fire. A Christian who abandons ?the confidence [he] had at first? (3:14) puts himself on the side of God?s enemies and, as the writer had already said, is in effect ?crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace? (6:6). Such reprehensible conduct can scarcely be worthy of anything but God?s flaming indignation and retribution." AND Heb. 10:28-29: "In order to show that this is so, the writer then placed defection from the faith in the harshest possible light. An apostate from the New Covenant has trampled the Son of God underfoot and has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant (cf. ?blood of the eternal covenant,? 13:20) that sanctified him. The words ?sanctified him? refer to true Christians. Already the writer to the Hebrews has described them as ?made holy (Gr. sanctified¯) through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all? (10:10) and as ?made perfect forever? through this sanctifying work (v. 14). Some seek to evade this conclusion by suggesting that Christ is the One referred to here as ?sanctified? or that the person only claims to be sanctified. But these efforts are foreign to the writer?s thought and are so forced that they carry their own refutation. The author?s whole point lies in the seriousness of the act. To treat ?the blood of the covenant? (which actually sanctifies believers) as though it were an ?unholy? (koinon, ?common?) thing and to renounce its efficacy, is to commit a sin so heinous as to dwarf the fatal infractions of the Old Covenant. To this, an apostate adds the offense of insulting the Spirit of grace who originally wooed him to faith in Christ. This kind of spiritual rebellion clearly calls for a much worse punishment than the capital penalty that was inflicted under the Mosaic setup." *********************************************** Now, the 'out' that they adopt is to deny that the puishment is loss of salvation, but they do ackowledge that true Christians are being described in the passage. Just my two cents worth my friend! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Hank | 69640 | ||
Hi, Tim, and thanks warmly for your "two cents worth" all of which, even before inflation, have been worth considerably more than a coupla coppers to this forum :-) ..... Now to zoom in once again on this difficult passage, Hebrews 10:26. Let's quote it once more: "For if we go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." From the Believer's Bible Commentary (Art Farstad, Ed.; Thomas Nelson, Pub.): "Now the writer introduces his fourth grim warning. As in the previous cases, it is a warning against apostasy, here described as a deliberate sin. As has been indicated, there is considerable disagreement among Christians as to the real nature of this sin. The problem, in brief, is whether it refers to: [1] True Christians who subsequently turn away from Christ and are lost. [2] True Christians who backslide but who are still saved. [3] Those who profess to be Christians for a while, identify themselves with a local church, but then deliberately turn away from Christ. They were never truly born again, and now they never can be...... No matter which view we hold, there are admitted difficulties. We believe that the third view is the correct one because it is most consistent with the over-all teaching of Hebrews and of the entire NT. Here in verse 26 apostasy is defined as sinning deliberately AFTER receiving THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. Like Judas, the person has heard the gospel. He knows the way of salvation; he has even pretended to receive it; but then he deliberately repudiates it. For such a person THERE NO LONGER REMAINS A SACRIFICE FOR SINS. He has decisively and conclusively rejected the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. Therefore God has no other way of salvation to offer him. There is a sense in which all sin is willful, but the author here speaks of apostasy as a willful sin of extraordinary seriousness. The fact that the author uses WE in this passage does not necessarily mean that he includes himself. In verse 39 he definitely excludes himself and his fellow believers from those who draw back into perdition." ..... Well, Tim, toss two more cents in the kettle! And, as I've attempted to say in former posts, I believe the third view as outlined in this quoted commentary is the correct one. There is a similar-sounding passage found in Hebrews 6:4-6, but there the writer seems to be addressing a somewhat different situation and thus demanding a slightly different exegesis. But I don't mean to get on that right now. This one verse is enough for one post, and besides the 6:4-6 passage has been dealt with several times on the forum -- enough to get everyone confused at any rate :-) --Hank | ||||||
3 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Morant61 | 69642 | ||
Greetings Hank! You just caught me as I was heading to bed! :-) Thanks for throwing your pennies into the pot! ;-) Out of curiosity, may I ask how - under the 3rd view you outlined, could it be said of this person that he 'had been sanctified' in v. 29? If he had only heard the gospel, but had not really responded to it, could he be described as sanctified? Well, I've got to run! One thing is for sure, the multiple possibilities of some of these passages are enough to give anyone a headache! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Hank | 69643 | ||
Tim, here are two views of what "sanctified" means in Hebrews 10:29. Take your pick! [1] From the Believer's Bible Commentary: "He (the apostate) has COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT BY WHICH HE WAS SANCTIFIED A COMMON THING. He counts as useless the BLOOD of Christ which ratified the New Covenant. He had been set apart by this blood in a place of external privilege. Through his association with Christian people he had been sanctified, just as an unbelieving husband is sanctified by his believing wife (1 Cor.7:14). But that does not mean that he was saved."...... [2] From John MacArthur Study Bible: "SANCTIFIED: This refers to Christ, in that He was set apart unto God (cf.John 17:19). It cannot refer to the apostate, because only true believers are sanctified." ..... At all events, I don't see this passage as being in real conflict with the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, do you? To interpret it as if it denies the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer is to open more doors of controversy than it closes..... Oh, sometimes I wish I were a theologian, but down here in Arkansas they ain't nobody that speaks theologianese :-) --Hank | ||||||
5 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69705 | ||
Hank, I'm not following your reasoning in your last post. Both of those views seem to refute your position. The second one is merely a statement of what the "non-eternal-security-people" (what is the proper term for us anyway) believe: "because only true believers are sanctified." That's the point. As for the first one, the passage clearly states that it was "the blood of the covenant" that sanctified these people, not necessarily the company they keep. It would require a pretty large stretch of my imagination to conclude that the Hebrews writer is talking about sactification by association here, especially after mentioning that such people had forsaken the fellowship of the believers (v.25) in the first place. Am I completely missing the point? And what is the nature of this sanctification that he's talking about? I've found: -forgiveness (10:17-18) -perfection (10:14) -confidence before God (10:19-20) Hardly a description of an unbeliever. But the context of Hebrews 10:29 puzzles me even further. Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. This verse leads me to two contradicting conclusions. If those who are sanctified are perfected, he cannot be talking about unbelievers, can he? Thus, Hebrews 10:29 implies that a sanctified believer can "trample under foot the Son of God." But, 10:14 also says He has perfected them "for all time," implying that once a person is saved, there's nothing that could be done to reverse it. Also, as has been previously mentioned, 10:39 excludes the writer and his readers from the mix of those who "shrink back to distruction." However, because of 10:38, we cannot assume that the writer means to exclude all believers, stating clearly that if "MY RIGHTEOUS ONE" shrinks back, God has no pleasure in him. Are you sensing my confusion yet? So, in short, how can I make sense of all this? (By the way, I'm not trying to stir up trouble; I'm just trying to objectively hash through this issue by critiquing both sides of the issue and asking tough questions. As you can probably tell, I'm not a Bible scholar. I greatly appreciate all of the responses I've gotten from both sides. I apologize for the sometimes blunt tone; I mean nothing personally and have the utmost respect for my disagreeing forum companions.) God bless, David |
||||||
6 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Hank | 69784 | ||
Dear David: Please see my most recent post to Tim, ID #69783. And I -- personally I -- don't have a "position" on the issue of the eternal security of the believer, the perseverance of the saints. But the Bible does! That's what we're exploring on this thread, and I cited the references to give vent to the various views that are held on the apostate question of Hebrews 10. One of the references I posted offered three different and conflicting views. Now, when three views of a scriptural passage are promulgated, two things are possible: [1] That all of them are incorrect. [2] That if one is correct, the other two are incorrect. And as a corollary to these points, I would add that when an isolated passage of Scripture is interpreted in such a manner that the interpretation comes in conflict with a large number of other, perhaps clearer, passages of Scripture, then the interpretation is in error. Thus, David, in this instance, to interpret these verses in Hebrew 10 as a proof text that the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer is erroneous, is to misinterpret it, because there are numerous other passages that clearly teach otherwise. Many of these passages I have cited in two other posts in this thread. I trust I've helped to answer your question and speak to your concerns, David. If not, you know how to find me :-). God bless you, too, David. I love your name. It was the name of my son who died some years ago in an automobile accident. --Hank | ||||||