Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 | ||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 | ||||||