Not By Works

Yes ... been shown the door.

Just so there is no misunderstanding.
Are you saying Jews are dead to the law, or they are not dead to the law?

First of all I am certainly not going to rely on Webster's dictionary.

Secondly you really did not respond to my comments on Hebrews 10:26 at all!!!

All BDAG shows me is the word takes its meaning from the surrounding text and where Hebrews 10:39 is referenced, "eternal" is not in view at all. It well known this word must be understood in context and for Hebrews 10:39 the best translation would be "ruin"

Again read in context Hebrews 10:35 ... rewards in view

35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.


3:18-19 (NKJV) And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Their turning from faith cost them their reward. Was the entire Exodus generation unregenerate? No! Moses was one who didn't enter the land. They were God's children, but in the midst of trial and persecution instead of trusting God they turned away.
We are to live and walk by faith.

The writer actually ends with words of comfort .... but you cannot see it because you read condemnation everywhere

Hebrews 10:39 (NKJV) But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

Which is similar to Hebrews 6:9

9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.

It is the "just" that can draw back, not to loose spiritual salvation because that IS impossible, but loss of rewards and ruin in this life.

"Saving the soul" meaning >>> preserving of the life.

So the writers of Hebrews once again is stating move forward in faith so that we are not ruined in this life and do not loose rewards in the next.

Actually what does NOT EXIST is a salvation that is precarious, insecure and dubious from some fickle God who needs help saving people.

The only sense of OSAS which is in scripture is salvation is secure, fixed eternally, irrevocable and sealed.

It is incomprehensible to me how anyone can think they can add to their salvation.

The bible is not a book of competing ideas… but you make it that way, sadly I might add.

You're trying to make the sanctified person in Hebrews 10:26-29 an unbelieving but sanctified person to keep the passage from saying God will damn the willfully sinning (ex)believer. God will declare an unclean, unbelieving spouse clean for contact by the believing spouse. But God never declares the willfully sinning person in the church clean. We are to have nothing to do with them because they are unclean, not declared clean for our contact:

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister c but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. - 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial b ? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
17Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing..." - 2 Corinthians 6:14-15,17


So we know Hebrews 10:26-29 can not be talking about a sanctified unbeliever in the church. There is no such thing. God does not sanctify such a person. The believer who was sanctified but who then tramples on the blood of Christ has no more sacrifice remaining (left over) to keep him sanctified. He will be damned along with the enemies of God.

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? - Hebrews 10:26-29

We already went over this numerous times and I throughly explained my position in post #19 in the Hebrews10v26 thread.

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/that-hebrews-10v26-thread.189675/#post-4132251

Like I said before, you can continue to ignore the CONTEXT of Hebrews 10 and remain satisfied with the contradiction between Hebrews 10:10,14 and 10:29 (according to your interpretation) if you wish, but count me out.

I'm not actually posting it for your benefit. You've made your determination to continue to believe what you do clear.
I'm posting for those, if any, who are reading this thread.

As I showed, I'm actually the one staying in context.
'Sanctified' is defined for us right in the passage as saved people (Hebrews 10:10,14).
It's not referring to the unbelieving willfully sinning unbeliever made clean by God for fellowship with the church. The unbelieving willfully sinning person in the church is never sanctified as clean for the sake of us believers (like an unbelieving spouse is). So we know it's not talking about that.

You are not only ignoring the context of Hebrews 10 that plainly tells us who the sanctified person is, but you are also inventing this imaginary and non-existent sanctified unbeliever who God says is not sanctified for contact with believers.

It's a contradiction to you because you can only see the passage through the osas presupposition that believers can never come under the judgment of God. And so you instantly dismiss any possibility that it can be talking about a saved sanctified believer who tramples on the blood of Christ by which he was made clean (saved-see vs.10,14) and as a result comes under the damnation of God's enemies.

That's the osas bias I was talking about. It colors everything you read in the Bible so you can't hear what it's actually saying and you invent ways to make it preserve your predetermined suppositions about osas. But what you should be doing is letting the passage speak for itself.

Are you still angry about John 3:16?

🙏🍕🍺

The Amplified did ok here, but I am typically Not a fan of the Amplified. Paraphrases often give what their opinion is to which the verses say. They are Kind of like a commentary rather than a translation. I know you don't but they are Dangerous really as a whole if one takes it as their main text in their devotion.

Anyway the posts here to which you are in disagreement with never said any different. To this point we agree. Sinning is a Participle a Verbal Noun. A state of being which is in the present tense like you shared, to which is being applied to the person pronoun"we". The "we" includes the writer and all to who is reading this letter.

Verse 26 starts with the word "for" which means what was stated previously needs to considered.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us (who having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water ) hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised, And let us (who having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water) consider one another (those who having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience)to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves (those who having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience) together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another (those who having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience) : and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
(Heb 10:22-25 KJV)

For (BECAUSE) if we (those who having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience) are sinning willfully AFTER (not denoting anytime after, just after) receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth (as in there was but is not anymore) no more sacrifice for sins,
(Heb 10:26)



For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost (experiencing salvation), And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come (experiencing salvation),, If they shall fall away (you can't fall away from somewhere unless you are in place to fall away from in the first place), to renew ( can't be renewed unless you have been made new) them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 6:4-6 KJV)


Amen. But the question would be what is habitual. Willful is obvious; but what is habitual? How often does one have to sin willfully that it would be exhibit that it is there habit.

Once a day? I work out once a day. it is my Habit. It has become habitual in my life.

Once or twice a week? I go to Church once or twice a week it is my habit. It has become habitual in my life.

Couple times a year? I take communion a couple times a year (I would love to do it more, it means a lot to me). It is my habit. It has become habitual in my life.

Please follow along......
"But the just one shall live by faith;" "and if HE is drawing back," "My soul is not pleased in him." But we are not of those withdrawing to destruction, but of faith, to the preservation of the soul.
(Heb 10:38-39)

The word for drawing back is in the 3rd person singular. Proper grammar dictates if a word is used within the same sentence that a Noun or Adjective is used that is put forth in the singular that is the Subject, that the third person singular is reference to the subject. That would be the "just one" in the previous clause.
That is why most translation translate the passage with a "if he" or an "and if he" in relation to the word translated draws back. Because proper grammar dictates it. Incidentally the NET2's New Testament general letters is part of the work of one who is considered to be one of best Greek Scholars of our era. Daniel B. Wallace of the Dallas Seminary'. He would not have his name on it unless he approved. It is listed here along with numerous other translation that have that part of the translated properly.

But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.
(Heb 10:38 NET2)

"But the just shall live by faith;" "and if he draws back," "My soul is not pleased in him. But we are not of those withdrawing to destruction, but of faith, to the preservation of the soul.
(Heb 10:38-39 LITV)

But my just man liveth by faith: but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul.
(Heb 10:38 DRB)

But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.
(Heb 10:38 ASV)

But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.
(Heb 10:38 RV)

but my righteous one will live by faith, and if he turns back, my soul will take no pleasure in him."
(Heb 10:38 ISV)

But the just will live (by) faith; and if he should draw back, my soul is not delighting (in) him.
(Heb 10:38 GUV)

But My righteous one will live by faith. And if he draws-back, My soul is not well-pleased with him”.
(Heb 10:38 DLNT)

And it should also be noted that one can not draw back from something UNLESS THEY ARE IN A PLACE TO DRAW BACK FROM. And that place in which they were is the Just that was living by faith.

So with all that being stated one must reason that either you are right AND GOD through the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to use bad grammar and sentence structure. Which would make the text imperfect. Or you have been misunderstanding the text.

Sure it does. Sanctified is sanctified (set apart, made holy) in the context of the passages in Hebrews.

The context of the sanctified starts in 9:13.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh (The taking away of sin, Conscience purged from dead works, acts that cause death, sin): How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge (sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh (The taking away of sin, Conscience purged from dead works, acts that cause death, sin) your conscience (who we are, the old man, behold all things are new and of GOD) from dead works(Sin, acts that cause death. For he was manifested to taker away our sin) to serve the living God?
(Heb 9:13,14 KJV)

The purging of our conscience by the precious blood is the taking away of our sin, the old man. Behold all things are new and of GOD. A vessel made fit for Holy use through and of the Body of Christ!

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged (sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, The taking away of sin which it could not do, Conscience not being purged from dead works, sin to serve the Living God) should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins (purge the conscience, the inner man to the sanctifying of the flesh to serve the Living God).
(Heb 10:1-4)

By the which will we are sanctified (sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, The taking away of sin, The Consciences, the inner man being purged from dead works, sin to serve the Living God) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(Heb 10:10 KJV)

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
(Heb 10:14 KJV)

Sanctified, set apart, made holy conscience purged, Sin taken away, cleanse. A vessel made fit, Holy for Holy use. Is now perfected!

Perfected how?

Whereof (TO WHICH this perfectness) the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
(Heb 10:15,16)
We are Sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. Made holy, a vessel set apart for holy use to serve the living GOD. Perfected. God's Laws placed in the heart and mind to serve the living GOD



Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified (Sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. Made holy, a vessel set apart for holy use to serve the living GOD. Perfected. God's Laws placed in the heart and mind to serve the living GOD) , an unholy thing, and hath done despite UNTO the Spirit of grace?
(Heb 10:29 KJV)

.

Waiting....

Good one!!

There is a part of me that feels that way for sure.... hitting my head against the wall is not fun!!

We sang this song in Church today. What a Blessing, it is Whole Truth!

You have shown me your biased interpretation, but I have already proved my argument in the context of Hebrews 10 and by properly harmonizing scripture with scripture. You are not fooling me or any of my brothers and sisters in Christ on Christ Chat who are in the OSAS camp, but if you are satisfied with your contradiction of Hebrews 10:10,14 with Hebrews 10:29, then feel free to carry on with your biased agenda.

Your question was not HOW GOD SAVES PEOPLE in the O.T. the Same way he SAVED us in the N.T. Therefore it is nothing but ERROR.

If you want to Agree to Disagree, that is fine by me. I consider you theory of Theology, to be FALSE TEACHING.

He said that in the opening paragraph of post #126,100 .

In other words you attack him by calling him bias and say he is contradicting scripture because you do not have answer for his arguments either.