For Morloc on Hebrews 10:26

[Libby]

Dear Timothy and Iknowhim,

First of all I want to commend both of you for debating with kindness and respect for one another. Also, I'm so glad it didn't deteriorate into a debate on semantics. You both did a good job of presenting your viewpoint and scriptures and treating one another well.

In reviewing this debate I tried to stick with the original assertion, as follows:

For Morloc on Hebrews 10:26
iknowhim
My Friend,
                        Your interpretation of this scripture leads to a
                        conclusion that is illogical.
                        Here is the text
                        Heb 10:26-29
                        26   For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving
                        the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a
                        sacrifice for sins,
                        27   but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE
                        FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
                        28   Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies
                        without mercy on {the testimony of} two or three
                        witnesses.
                        29   How much severer punishment do you think he will
                        deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and
                        has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by
                        which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of
                        grace?
                        (NAU)

As I read this scripture, I can't help but conclude that it can apply only to those who have gone through the steps iknowhim would consider necessary to be "saved". Right there in verse 29 it says he was sanctified by the blood of Jesus, the blood which inaugurated the new covenant. It seems illogical to conclude Paul means non-believers.

These verses also show that it can't apply to those iknowhim thinks it applies to, namely Jews who still cling to the old covenant. Paul contrasts them in verses 28 (the Jews in the old covenant) and verse 29 (those set apart by the blood of Jesus, believers such as Paul himself).

As far as Christians still sacrificing at the Temple, Paul does so at the request of James and the elders. They all seem to still be observing some of the Jewish law. [Acts 21:17-26.] So that can't be who Paul is addressing.

As Timothy brought out, it was written for all believers, including to our day and I agree with that.

Reading this in context presented some interesting thoughts. If you read through to the end of the chapter, you can see that Paul is addressing brothers who in earlier days had "received the light", "stood their ground", were "publicly exposed to insult and persecution," "brothers" who "have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus." So many similar phrases describing the readers of Hebrews would seem to indicate that the writer is addressing persons who would be considered "saved". Verse 38 says "if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." And verse 39: "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

It is difficult for me to believe that Paul is talking about any other than true believers. Verse 38 calls them "my righteous one," and says that he "will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." These righteous ones who "shrink back....are destroyed."

Timothy has described them as "having come into a relationship with them"[the Father and the Son]. He also said, "One simply cannot apostasize except 1) of their own free will; 2) unless they were a worshiper of God." I agree with that.

The NIV cross-references Chapter 6:4-6 and the footnote reads: "The most common interpretations of this difficult passage are:
1. It refers to Christians who actually lose their salvation.
2. It is a hypothetical argument to warn immature Hebrew Christians (5:11-14) that they must progress to maturity (see v. 1) or else experience divine discipline or judgment (see vv. 7-8.)
3. It refers to professing Christians whose apostasy proves that their faith was not genuine (cf. 1 Jn 2:19). This view sees chs. 3-4 as a warning based on the rebellion of the Israelites in the desert. As Israel could not enter the promised land after spying out the region and tasting its fruit, so the professing Hebrew Christians would not be able to repent if they adamantly turned against "the light" they had received. According to this interpretation, such expressions as "enlightened," "tasted the heavenly gift" and "shared in the Holy Spirit" indicate that such persons had come under the influence of God's covenant blessings and had professed to turn from darkness to light but were in danger of a public and final rejection of Christ proving they had never been regenerated (see 10:26-31 and notes.)

The notes for 10:26-31 are: "That these verses are a warning to persons ("some," v25) deserting the Christian assembly is apparent from the Greek word gar ("for") at the beginning of v. 26. See notes on 6:4-8, where the same spiritual condition is discussed.

Interesting note for 10:26 explaining the phrase deliberately keep on sinning.Committing the sin of apostasy (see v. 20; see also note on 5:2). The OT background is Nu 15:27-31.

Since the NIV lists in its preface participants from at least five different countries and more than 13 Christian denominations, including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan....It is my conclusion that ,not all Christians believe in the once saved always saved teaching since they allow that a common interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 is that "it refers to Christians who actually lose their salvation."

Dina, I, too, had difficulty with the assertion that someone can "taste" the holy spirit but not have "eaten" it.

Again, I commend the debaters.

Love, Libby

[iknowhim]

[post deleted by moderator]

Greetings 'iknowhim,'

If you read the Guidelines for this section, you would already know that follow-up posts by either you or I are prohibited. We had seven days to make our case in the debate, and now the non-participants have their turn. There are no provisions for rebuttal or further discussion of this subject with non-participants of the debate itself. That is one of the caveats of taking this to debate. I thought you understood that when you began the debate, but if not, you should understand now.

I have deleted your post, per the Guidelines of this section of the forum.

--Timothy

[blindzebra]

In agreement with Libby's thoughts, I too commend the participants in this debate.

Mutual respect and willingness to hear the other point of view were demonstrated.   A really nice opportunity here for two to discuss in public without interruption.

I like this arrangement.  It is fair.

I am also honored to be able to add my thoughts, like a conclusion that is reached by a juror, after hearing the evidence and arguments presented in a case.

To sum up my thoughts regarding this;
"Once saved, always saved?"

I wish to briefly sum up my thoughts with an illustration:

To preface, there has been much recent discussion among the friends here, on the topic of marriage and mates.  This is most fortuitous, as it lends weight and prior thought has been given to the illustration here presented:


Marriage is a covenant, an agreement, that two parties willingly enter into.  Both parties enter with understanding of the agreement, and the mutual promise to uphold their respective parts or roles.  This is stated in front of witnesses, and is documented.  Written down on paper.  All may review this covenant, for it is made public record.  It is a public declaration.

The agreement is designed and stated to be binding, "until death do us part, for better or for worse..."

Therefore, it can be said that "Once married, always married." is to be held a true statement. ...in thoery.  There is not room, according to the covenant, for any other alternative.  None.

...with the exception of ONE thing...  

If, according to God's law, this "one thing" is commited by either party, then the innocent party is free to determine whether or not they wish to end the covenant, cancelling it, or even to seek reconciliation with the other party.
But the decision rightly rests soley with the innocent party to choose his or her course of action at this point.

Christians enter into a covenant relationship with God through Christ Jesus.  It is just like, or "as" a marriage agreement, in that we promise to love, honor and obey, until death.  God will indeed  forever uphold his end of the covenant for He is forever faithful and abides by his very own established law.  It is not possible for his to fail in this.

On the other hand.....WE can fail.  WE can wrongly take the course of action that would be in violation of that covenant...Should this occur, then God does have and retain every legal right to effectively end this covenant, cancelling it, declaring it null and void, and thus to divorce us from him.  God does hate a divorcing.  It will not make him rejoice.  But it can be done.
And He still remains righteous and true should He choose to take this action in such a circumstance.

Friends, Once married, always married?   ...it depends.
Friends, Once saved, always saved?   ...it depends.


On who?


US.

May we never fail to value and highly esteem the sacred priveldge that God has extended to each of us to enter into a precious covenant relationship with him.  He sealed this covenant not with the stroke of a pen, but with the precious and dear blood  of his only SON.
It is written in the blood of his SON!

How horrifying to think that we should ever esteem this as unremarkable, or of ordinary value.  It is highly sacred, as any marriage relationship must be valued, IF we expect it to last.

UNTIL DEATH DO US PART.

Only when we actually reach death, will we be able to say,"It has been accomplished, and the covenant is completed."  Christ completed his own course in thus the same manner, leaving us an example to follow.

with all due respect and deep love,
blindzebra

[peacebaby]

Great illustration, BZ. In the light of your analogy we can clearly see the mutually loving relationship our Creator and His Son desire with us. How blessed we are when we accept His free gift!
                                     *V*peacebaby

[blindzebra]

"Prove yourselves faithful even to death and I will give you the crown of life."
-Rev. 2:10