Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: BadDog Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | RU saying some sanctified aren't saved? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63506 | ||
Joe, Thanks for your comments - good stuff to ruminate over. I'll address the last one 1st. If you look back at my previous response, I did respond to vs. 39 - destruction does NOT always refer to E. life destruction, and is often used in the NT to refer to temporal destruction, waste, etc. Before I answer your other comments, I have a question - I am aware of the theological concept of progressive sanctification (and agree that there isa distinction between sanctification that occurs to all believers at the new birth and prog. sanct.) But my question is whether or not you are saying that this passage here does say that these people were sanctified, yet that does NOT mean that they were regenerate!? Are you saying that one can be sanctified but not a Christian? Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
2 | What sort of judgment is this? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63476 | ||
Reformer Joe, Yours is clearly a reformed position, while mine is not (free grace). Hence w/ a different set of assumptions, we've arrived at some different conclusions here (though neither is Arminian). We are both saying something similar re. the eternal security of the believer, but while I view the believer as being in view here (and eternally secure), you say above that such a person must never have been Christ's in the 1st place. Now, my question: Is judgment always eternal judgment? And if not, then what sort of judgment is in view here? BTW, everyone should feel free to comment on this. Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
3 | Robert, so is it the fire 1 of damnation | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63452 | ||
Robert, Excellent points. This section probably does refer to apostacy... though I would say (not sure if you'd agree) that those believers who commit apostacy are saved... it's a free gift of ETERNAL life. My view is that this fire is NOT the fire of hell. It appears that you don't agree w/ that, but I'm not sure. So, let me ask again: "Is this 'consuming fire' the fire of hell/lake of fire - eternal damnation?" Thanks, Robert. Bob |
||||||
4 | Is the consuming fire in Heb. hell fire? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63353 | ||
Is this "consuming fire" one and the same as the fire of hell or the lake of fire? IMO, no. This is not referring to eternal damnation. I'd be interested in what others think, and why. | ||||||