Justification by Faith

"Justification by Faith;" the phrase is weighty alike with Scripture and with history. In Holy Scripture it is the main theme of two great dogmatic epistles, Romans and Galatians. In Christian history it was the potent watchword of the Reformation movement in its aspect as a vast spiritual upheaval of the church. It is not by any means the only great truth considered in the two epistles; we should woefully misread them if we allowed their message about justification by Faith to obscure their message about the Holy Ghost, and the strong relation between the two messages. It was not the only great truth which moved and animated the spiritual leaders of the Reformation. Nevertheless, such is the depth and dignity of this truth, and so central in some respects is its reference to other truths of our salvation, that we may fairly say that it was the message of St. Paul, and the truth that lay at the heart of the distinctive messages of the non-Pauline epistles too, and that it was the truth of the great Reformation of the Western church.

With reason, seeing things as he was led in a profound experience to see them, did Luther say that Justification by Faith was "the articles of a standing or a falling church." With reason does an illustrious representative of the older school of "higher" Anglicanism, a name to me ever bright and venerable, Edward Harold Browne, say that Justification by Faith is not only this, but also "the article of a standing or a failing soul."*

IMPORT OF THE TERMS Let us apply ourselves first to a study of the meaning of our terms. Here are two great terms before us, Justification and Faith. We shall, of course, consider in its place the which, in our title, links them, and ask how justification "by" Faith. But first, what is Justification, and then, what is Faith?

By derivation, no doubt, JUSTIFICATION means to make just, that is to say, to make conformable to a true standard. It would seem thus to mean a process by which wrong is corrected, and bad is made good, and good better, in the way of actual improvement of the thing or person justified. In one curious case, and, so far as I know, in that case only, the word has this meaning in actual use. "Justification" is a term of the printer's art. The compositor "justifies" a piece of typework when he, corrects, brings into perfect order, as to spaces between words and letters, and so on, the types which he has set up.

But this, as I have said, is a solitary case. In the use of words otherwise, universally, justification and justify mean something quite different from improvement of condition. They mean establishment of position as before a judge or jury, literal or figurative. They mean the winning of a favorable verdict in such a presence, or again (what is the same thing from another side) the utterance of that verdict, the sentence of acquittal, or the sentence of vindicated right, as the case may be.

I am thinking of the word not at all exclusively as a religious word. Take it in its common, everyday employment; it is always thus. To justify an opinion, to justify a course of conduct, to justify a statement, to justify a friend, what does it mean? Not to readjust and improve your thoughts, or your actions, or your words; not to educate your friend to be wiser or more able. No, but to win a verdict for thought, or action, or word, or friend, at some bar of judgment, as for example the bar of public opinion, or of common conscience. It is not to improve, but to vindicate.

Take a ready illustration to the same effect from Scripture, and,from a passage not of doctrine, but of public Israelite law: "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, their they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" (Deut. 25:1). Here it is obvious that the question is not one of moral improvement. The judges are not to make the righteous man better. They are to vindicate his position as satisfactory to the law.

Non-theological passages, it may be observed, and generally non-theological connections 'are of the greatest use in.determining the true, native meaning of theological terms. For with rare exceptions, which are for the most part matters of open history, as in the case of the Homousion, theological terms are terms of common thought, adapted to a special use, but in themselves unchanged. That is, they were thus used at first, in the simplicity of original truth. Later ages may have deflected that simplicity. It was so as a fact with our word justification, as we shall see immediately. But at first the word meant in religion precisely what it meant out of it. It meant the winning, or the consequent announcement, of a favorable verdict. Not the word, but the. application was altered when salvation was in question. It was indeed a new and glorious application. The verdict in question was the verdict not of a Hebrew court, nor of public opinion, but of the eternal judge of all the earth. But that left the meaning of the word the same.

JUSTIFICATION A "FORENSIC" TERM It is thus evident that the word justification, alike in religious and in common parlance, is a word connected with law. It has to do with acquittal, vindication, acceptance before a judgment seat. To use a technical term, it is a forensic word, a word of the law-courts (which in old Rome stood in the forum). In regard of "us men and our salvation" it stands related not so much, not so directly, to our need of spiritual revolution, amendment, purification, holiness, as to our need of getting, somehow--in spite of our guilt, our liability, our debt, our deserved condemnation--a sentence of acquittal, a sentence of acceptance, at the judgment seat of a holy God.

Not that it has nothing to do with our inward spiritual purification. It has intense and vital relations that way. But they are not direct relations. The direct concern of justification is with man's need of a divine deliverance, not from the power of his sin, but from its guilt.

MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS Here we must note accordingly two remarkable instances of misuse of the word justification in the history of Christian thought. The first is found in the theology of the School-men, the great thinkers of the Middle Ages in Western Christendom--Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and others.* To them justification appears to have meant much the same as regeneration, the great internal change in the state of our nature wrought by grace. The other instance appears in the sixteenth century, in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, a highly authoritative statement of Romanist belief and teaching. There justification is described (vi. c. 7) as "not the mere remission of sins but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man." In this remarkable sentence the Romanist theologians seem to combine the true account of the word, though imperfectly -stated, with the view of the Schoolmen. It is not too much to say that a careful review of the facts summarized above, as regards the secular use of the word justification, and the Scriptural use of it in the doctrine of salvation, is enough to negative these explanations. They are curious and memorable examples of misinterpretation of terms; that most fruitful source of further, wider and deeper error.

JUSTIFICATION NOT THE SAME AS PARDON The problem raised then, in religion, by the word Justification, is, How shall man be just before God? To use the words of our Eleventh Article, it is, How shall we be "accounted righteous before God?" In other words, How shall we, having sinned, having broken the holy Law, having violated the will of God, be treated, as to our acceptance before Him, as to our "peace with Him" (Rom. 5:1), as if we had not done so? Its question is not, directly, How shall I a sinner become holy, but, How shall I a sinner be received by my God, whom I have grieved, as if I had not grieved Him?

Here let us note, what will be clear on reflection, that justification means properly no less than this, the being received by Him as if we had not grieved Him. It is not only, the being forgiven by Him. We do indeed as sinners most urgently need forgiveness, the remission of our sins, the putting away of the holy vengeance of God upon our rebellion. But we need more. We need the voice which. says, not merely, you may go; you are let off your penalty; but, you may come; you are welcomed into My presence and fellowship. We shall see later how important this difference is in the practical problems of our full salvation. But one thing is evident at first sight, namely, that this is implied in the very word justification. For justification, in common speech, never means pardon. It means winning, or granting, a position of acceptance. "You are justified in taking this course of action," does not mean, you were wrong, yet you are forgiven. It means, you were right, and in the court of my opinion you have proved it. In religion accordingly our justification means not merely a grant of pardon, but a verdict in favor of our standing as satisfactory before the Judge.

THE SPECIAL PROBLEM OF OUR JUSTIFICATION Here in passing let Us notice that of course the word justification does not of itself imply that the justified person is a sinner. To see this as plainly as possible, recollect that God Himself is said to be justified, in Psalm 51:4, and Christ Himself, in I Tim. 3:16. In a human court of law, as we have seen above, it is the supreme duty of the judge to "justify the righteous" (Deut. 25:1), and the righteous only. In all such cases justification bears its perfectly proper meaning, unperplexed, crossed by no mystery or problem. But then, the moment we come to the concrete, practical question, how shall we be justified, and before God, or, to bring it closer home, how shall 1, I the sinner, be welcomed by my offended Lord as if I were satisfactory, then the thought of Justification presents itself to us in a new and most solemn aspect. The word keeps its meaning unshaken. But how about its application. Here am 1, guilty. To be justified is to be pronounced not guilty, to be vindicated and accepted by Lawgiver and Law. Is it possible? Is it not impossible?

Justification by Faith, in the actual case of our salvation, is thus a "short phrase." It means, in full, the acceptance of guilty sinners, before God, by Faith. Great is the problem so indicated. And great is the wonder and the glory of the solution given us by the grace of God. But to this solution we must advance by some further steps.

WHAT IS FAITH? We may now fitly approach our second great term, Faith, and ask ourselves, What does it mean? As with justification, so with Faith, we may best approach the answer by first asking, What does Faith mean in common life and speech? Take such phrases as, to have faith in a policy, faith in a remedy, faith in a political leader, or a military leader, faith in a lawyer, faith in a physician. Here the word Faith is used in a way obviously parallel to that in which, for example, our Lord uses it when He appeals to the Apostles, in the Gospels, to have faith in Him; as He did in the storm on the Lake. The use is parallel also to its habitual use in the epistles; for example, in Romans 4, where St. Paul makes so much of Abraham's faith, in close connection with the faith which he seeks to develop in us.

Now is it not plain that the word means, to all practical intents and purposes, trust, reliance? Is not this obvious without comment when A sick man sends for the physician in whom he has faith, and when the soldier follows, perhaps literally in utter darkness, the general in whom he has faith? Reliance upon thing or person supposed to be trustworthy, this is Faith.

PRACTICAL CONFIDENCE To note a further aspect of the word. Faith, in actual common use, tends to mean a practical confidence. Rarely, if ever, do we use it of a mere-opinion, however distinct, lying passive in the mind. To have faith in a commander does not mean merely to entertain a conviction, a belief, however positive, that he is skillful and competent. We may entertain such a belief about the commander of the enemy--with very unpleasant impressions on our minds in consequence. We may be confident that he is a great general in a sense the very opposite to a personal confidence in him. No, to have faith in a commander implies a view of him in which we either actually do, or are quite ready to, trust ourselves and our cause to his command. And just the same is true of faith in a divine Promise, faith in a divine Redeemer. It means a reliance, genuine and practical. It means a putting of ourselves and our needs, in personal reliance, into His hands.

Here, in passing, we observe that Faith accordingly always implies an element, more or less, of the dark, of the unknown. Where everything is, so to speak, visible to the heart and mind there scarcely can be Faith. I am on a dangerous piece of water, in a boat, with a skilled and experienced boatman. I cross it, not without tremor perhaps, but with faith. Here faith is exercised on a trustworthy and known object, the boatman. But it is exercised regarding what are more or less, to me, uncertain circumstances, the amount of peril, and the way to handle the boat in it. Were there no uncertain circumstances my opinion of the boatman would not be faith, but mere opinion; estimate, not reliance.

Our illustration suggests the remark that Faith, as concerned with our salvation, needs a certain and trustworthy Object, even Jesus Christ. Having Him, we have the right condition for exercising Faith, reliance in the dark, trust in His skill and power on our behalf in unknown or mysterious circumstances.

HEBREWS Xl:l NOT A DEFINITION It seems well to remark here on that great sentence, Heb. 11:1, sometimes quoted as a definition of Faith: "Now faith is certainty of things hoped for, proof of things not seen." If this is a definition, properly speaking, it must negative the simple definition of Faith which we have arrived at above, namely, reliance. For it leads us towards a totally different region of thought, and suggests, what many religious thinkers have held, that Faith is as it were a mysterious spiritual sense, a subtle power of touching and feeling the unseen and eternal, a "vision and a faculty divine," almost a "secondsight" in the soul. We on the contrary maintain that it is always the same thing in itself, whether concerned with common or with spiritual things, namely, reliance, reposed on a trustworthy object, and exercised more or less in the dark. The other view would look on Faith (in things spiritual) rather as a faculty in itself than as an attitude towards an Object. The thought is thus more engaged with Faith's own latent power than with the power and truth of a Promiser. Now on this I remark, first, that the words of Heb. 11:1 scarcely read like a definition at all. For a definition is a description which fits the thing defined and it alone, so that the thing is fixed and settled by the description. But the words "certainty of things hoped for, proof of things not seen," are not exclusively applicable to Faith. They would be equally fit to describe, for example, God's promises in their power. For they are able to make the hoped-for certain and the unseen visible.

And this is just what we take the words to mean as a description of Faith. They do not define Faith in itself; they describe it in its power. They are the sort of statement we make when we say, Knowledge is power. That is not a definition of knowledge, by any means. It is a description of it in one of its great effects.

The whole chapter, Heb. 11, illustrates this, and, as it seems to me, confirms our simple definition of Faith. Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses--they all treated the hoped-for and the unseen as solid and certain because they all relied upon the faithful Promiser. Their victories were mysteriously great, their lives were related vitally to the Unseen. But the action to this end was on their part sublimely simple. It was reliance on the Promiser. It was taking God at His Word.

I remember a friend of mine, many years ago, complaining of the skeptical irreverence of a then lecturer at Oxford, who asked his class for a definition of Faith. Heb. 11:1 was quoted as an answer, and he replied, "You could not have given me a worse definition." Now this teacher may have been really flippant. But I still think it possible that he meant no contempt of the Scripture. He may merely have objected, though with needless roughness, to a false use of the Scripture. He felt, I cannot but surmise, that Heb. 11:1 was really no definition at all.

DEFINITION AND EFFECT It is all-important to remember alike this simplicity of definition and this grandeur of effect in the matter of Faith. It is all-important in the great question of our salvation. Here on the one side is an action of the mind and will, in itself perfectly simple, capable of the very homeliest illustration. We all know what reliance means. Well, Faith is reliance. But then, when the reliance is directed upon an Object infinitely great and good, when it reposes upon God in Christ, upon Him in His promise, His fidelity, His love, upon His very Self, what is not this reliance in its effects? It is the creature laying hold upon the Creator. It is our reception of God Himself in His Word. So, it is the putting ourselves in the way of His own almighty action in the fulfilment of His Word, in the keeping of His promise.

"The virtue of Faith lies in the virtue of its Object." That Object, in this matter of justification, so the Scriptures assure us abundantly and with the utmost clearness, is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who died for us and rose again.

Here the simplest reliance, so it be sincere, is our point of contact with infinite resources. When lately the vast dam of the Nile was completed, with all its giant sluices, there needed but the touch of a finger on an electric button to swing majestically open the gates of the barrier and so to let through the Nile in all its mass and might. There was the simplest possible contact. But it was contact with forces and appliances adequate to control or liberate at pleasure the great river. So Faith, in reliance of the soul, the soul perhaps of the child, perhaps of the peasant, perhaps of the outcast, is only a reliant look, a reliant touch. But it sets up contact with JESUS CHRIST, in all His greatness, in His grace, merit, saving power, eternal love.

FAITH, NO MERIT One momentous issue from this reflection is as follows: We are here warned off from the temptation to erect Faith into a Saviour, to rest our reliance upon our Faith, if I may put it so. That is a real temptation to many. Hearing, and fully thinking, that to be justified we must have Faith, they, we, are soon occupied with an anxious analysis of our Faith.

Do I trust enough? Is my reliance satisfactory in kind and quantity? But if saving Faith is, in its essence, simply a reliant attitude, then the question of its effect and virtue is at once shifted to the question of the adequacy of its Object. The man then is drawn to ask, not, Do I rely enough? but, Is Jesus Christ great enough, and gracious enough, for me to rely upon? The introspective microscope is laid down. The soul's open eyes turn upward to the face of our Lord Jesus Christ; and Faith forgets itself in its own proper action. In other words, the man relies instinctively upon an Object seen to be so magnificently, so supremely, able to sustain him. His feet are on the Rock, and he knows it, not by feeling for his feet, but by feeling the Rock.

Here let us note that Faith, thus seen to be reliance, is obviously a thing as different as possible from merit. No one in common life thinks of a well-placed reliance as meritorious. It is right, but not righteous. It does not make a man deserving of rescue when, being in imminent danger, he implicitly accepts the guidance of his rescuer. And the man who, discovering himself, in the old-fashioned way (the way as old as David before Nathan, Isaiah in the vision, the publican in the temple, the jailor at Philippi, Augustine at Milan), to be a guilty sinner, whose "mouth is shut" before God, relies upon Christ as his all for pardon and peace, certainly does not merit anything for closing with his own salvation. He deserves nothing by the act of accepting all.

"God," says Richard Hooker, in that great "Discourse" of his on justification, "doth justify the believing man, yet not for the worthiness of his belief but for the worthiness of Him which is believed."* So it is not our attitude which we rely on. Our attitude is just our reliance. And reliance means the going out upon Another for repose.

Once for all let us remember that we may make the falsest use, even under the truest definitions, of both ideas, justification and Faith. We may think of either of them as the object of our hope, the ultimate cause of our salvation. So thought of, they are phantoms, nay, they are idols. Seen truly, they are but expressions for Jesus Christ our Lord as He is given and taken. justification is no Saviour, nor is Faith. justification by Faith-what is it? It is the acceptance of the guilty by reason of a Trusted Christ.

"BY" DEFINED So now we may take up the question of that middle and connective word in our title, "by." justification by Faith, what does it mean? This divine welcome of the guilty as if they were not guilty, by reliance upon Jesus Christ, what have we to think about this?

We have seen a moment ago that one meaning most certainly cannot be borne,by the word "by." It cannot mean "on account of," as if Faith were a valuable consideration which entitled us to justification. The surrendering rebel is not amnestied because of the valuable consideration of his surrender, but because of the grace of the sovereign or state which amnesties. On the other hand, his surrender is the necessary means to the amnesty becoming actually his. It is his only proper attitude (in a supposed case of unlawful rebellion) towards the offended power. That power cannot, in the nature of things, make peace with a subject who is in a wrong attitude towards it. It wishes him well, or it would not provide amnesty. But it cannot make peace with him while he declines the provision. Surrender is accordingly not the price paid,for peace, but it is nevertheless the open hand necessary to appropriate the gift of it.

In a fair measure this illustrates our word "by" in the matter of justification by Faith. Faith, reliance, is, from one side, just the sinful man's "coming in" to accept the sacred amnesty of God in Christ, taking at His Word his benignant King. It is the rebel's putting himself into right relations with his offended Lord in this great matter of forgiveness and acceptance. It is not a virtue, not a merit, but a proper means.

UNION WITH CHRIST The word "by," per, lends itself meantime to the expression of another aspect of the subject. One of the great problems attaching to the mighty truth of Christ our Righteousness, our Merit, our Acceptance, is that of the nexus, the bond, which so draws us and Him together that, not in fiction but in fact, our load can pass over to Him and His wealth to us. The New Testament largely teaches, what lies assuredly in the very nature of things, as it puts the facts of salvation before us, that we enter "into" Christ, we come to be "in" Him, we get part and lot in the life eternal, which is in Him alone, by Faith. "He gave power to become the sons of God, to them that believed on His Name." "Believing, we have life in His Name" (John 1:12; 20:31). Faith is our soul-contact with the Son of God, setting up (upon our side) that union with Him in His life of which Scripture is so full. And thus it is open to us, surely, to say that justification by Faith means, from one momentous aspect, justification be-cause of the Christ with whom through Faith we are made mysteriously but truly one. Believing, we are one with Him, one in the common life with which the living members live with the Head, by the power of His Spirit. One with Him in life, we are therefore, by no mere legal fiction but in vital fact, capable of oneness with Him in interest also.

THE MARRIAGE-BOND "Faith," says Bishop Hopkins of Derry, "is the marriage-bond between Christ and a believer; and therefore all the debts of the believer are chargeable upon Christ, and the righteousness of Christ is instated upon the believer. Indeed this union is a high and inscrutable mystery, yet plain it is that there is such a close, spiritual, and real union between Christ and a believer. So Faith is the way and means of our justification. By Faith we are united to Christ. By that union we truly have a righteousness. And upon that righteousness the justice as well as mercy of God is engaged to justify and acquit us."*

Below is an excellent summary of Sanctification.

http://members.citynet.net/morton/index.html

V. SANCTIFICATION Sanctification means to be set apart unto God for God's use; to be set apart from sin unto holiness. It is an act of God where He consecrates the believer unto Himself. The topic of sanctification (or holiness) is found over one thousand times in the scriptures. It is a doctrine the Holy Spirit wants believers to especially understand.

There are three distinct tenses of sanctification concerning New Testament salvation:

a. Positional, which refers to the initial act.

b. Progressive, which refers to the believer's present life.

c. Final, which refers to the completion of its work.

A. Positional Sanctification 1. This is the instantaneous sanctification the believer receives the moment he trusts Christ. At that time, Christ sets his soul apart from sin and imparts unto him His own holiness and righteousness. God's law, a reflection of His nature, demands that man be perfect and holy. This, however, is impossible for the natural man because he is by nature sinful and unholy (Romans 8:8; Ephesians 2:1-4). 2. God's work of sanctification supplies every moral virtue He requires man to have. When a person receives Christ, he gets all of Christ's moral virtues with Him—he meets all the law's requirements in Him (Romans 10:1-4).

3. When God looks at the position of a Christian, He sees the separated, sanctified, righteous, and perfect life of His son Jesus Christ. The saint need never fear of losing this standing before God because it is his union with Christ that brought it about. This union can never be broken (see Regeneration; Justification; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30, 6:11; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:3-4; Hebrews 2:11, 10:10,14, 13:12,21; 1 Peter 1:2).

4. Also, the instant one believes, his soul is cut loose from his flesh by a spiritual circumcision performed by Christ (Colossians 2:10-15). As a result, the believer is no longer a slave to his old, Adamic nature (though he can still yield to it); he is set free to serve his new righteous nature which is Christ's. The saint is now capable of living a holy life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:11-23; Colossians 3:1-4).

B. Progressive Sanctification 1. This tense speaks of how the Christian's present life is to become holier and more Christ like day by day. Since the believer's soul is sanctified in Christ, God expects this holiness to affect his behavior and be manifested in his daily walk. He wants him to follow his Savior and live a clean, separated life (Romans 12:1-4; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Galatians 5:22-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 4:1-7). 2. Before a person is saved it is impossible for him to live a holy life. However, after salvation he can; he has the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to assist him. The Spirit prompts him to live "...not conformed to this world...", but after Christ. "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him" (Colossians 2:6). See also: Romans 12:1-4, 16:19; 1 Corinthians 6:12-13, 19-20, 7:23; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17, 7:1; Philippians 2:15, 4:8; Colossians 3:5-15; 1 Thessalonians 5:5, 22-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 6:11-12; Hebrews 12:1-4; James 1:24-27, 4:4; 1 Peter 2:11-12, 24).

a. How To Resist Temptation And Live Above Sin 1. Every Christian knows what it means to be tempted. However, being tempted to sin is not a sin in itself. The Lord was tempted in all the areas we are, yet He did not sin (Hebrews 2:17-18). God will allow His people to be tempted for several reasons. Some of them are: to try their faith (1 Peter 1:7), to keep them humble and dependent on Him (1 Peter 5:6), to cause them to know the victory that is in Christ (Hebrews 2:18), and to enable them to win the crown of life (James 1:2-4, 12).

2. The Bible gives the believer some guidelines to follow concerning temptation.

a. He is to watch and pray that he enters not into it (Matthew 26:41).

b. He is to stay away from any thing or situation that may lead him into it (Romans 16:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:22).

c. And he is to be transformed from worldly thinking to godly thinking by the renewing of his mind (Romans 12:1-4).

3. Nevertheless, even after abiding in these guidelines, temptation may still come. The Christian can defend himself against it by following three scriptural principles. He should:

a. Follow his Savior's example and resist the Devil by rebuking him with scripture (Matthew 4:1-11; James 4:7).

b. Yield himself to God and reckon himself dead to sin (Romans 6:2-11; Galatians 2:19; 1 Peter 2:24).

c. Earnestly watch for the way of escape God has promised, taking it immediately once it is discovered (1 Corinthians 10:13).

4. If the believer will sincerely and prayerfully follow all three of these principles when he is tempted, he will, by the power of God, overcome the temptation. Furthermore, the experience he gains in dealing with it will make him stronger and better able to serve the Lord. However, if a believer gives in and does sin (and all Christians do at times), it is because he neglected one or more of the above means of defense.

5. When a Christian sins he must remember that God will by no means abandon of forsake him. He is still his Father no matter what happens! God will instantly forgive any believer when he confesses his disobedience as sin (1 John 1:8-10). He may have to pay in the flesh for the sin (reap what he has sown), but he will not suffer eternal condemnation. Though sin cannot break a saint's relationship with God, it can cause a break in fellowship until he confesses it as sin and forsakes it.

6. Finally, concerning doubtful things (thoughts and actions the believer is not certain about), the Holy Spirit has given some more principles to guide Christians.

a. Can the believer do the action he is thinking about in the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:20)?

b. Can he give thanks to God for it (Colossians 3:17)?

c. Can he do it with the belief that it pleases God (Romans 14:23)?

d. Would he like the Lord to find him doing it when He returns (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)?

The safest and surest way to deal with doubtful thoughts, actions, and circumstances is, "when in doubt, don't."

b. The Means Of Progressive Sanctification 1. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed to His Father that all believers be sanctified by the word of God (John 17:17). The scriptures can sanctify because they reveal God's nature and show the saint where he needs correction and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Before a believer can continue to live a godly life he must read, study, and submit himself to the Bible. By doing this the Holy Spirit will give him all he needs to live above sin.

C. Final Sanctification 1. This tense refers to a future event where God sanctifies the believer completely—body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). This will occur when Christ comes back for His people at the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Now, the believer's body is not yet sanctified, but in that glorious day it will be, making the him unable to sin! God will separate his body from iniquity, as his spirit is now, and his old nature will become literally dead to sin (Romans 6:7). This event is also called "...the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30; also see Adoption). When the Lord returns, all His saints will have a glorified body like His, completely and totally separated from sin (1 Corinthians 15:35-38; Philippians 3:21; Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).

This is the address to Timothy Morton's website

http://members.citynet.net/morton/index.html

Old Testament saints could lose their salvation, but New Testament saints cannot (due to Union with Christ) This is unproven. The Book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews (not Christians) thus, the passages in chapter 6 and 10 do represent loss of salvation in the Tribulation period (Rev.13, Matt.24) Actually, Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians. Hence Hebrews 10:25-29, particular emphasis on verse 26: "For if we go on sinning willfully after having come to a knowledge of the truth, there is no more sacrifice left for sins...He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 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, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" The contrast between verses 28 and 29 shows that this is referring to NT saints. As for the Tribulation period, I agree with Adam Clarke and the partial- and full-preterists: the Great Tribulation occurred in 70 A.D., when Jerusalem fell.

Well, then I could see that you reject out of hand my explanation.

While Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, it will have a doctrinal message after the Rapture and the Tributlation begins.

The Church will be removed and the so-called General epistles will take on a stronger role, as do the Pauline epistles for the Church today.

They do not reconcile them, they simply reject eternal security!

They do the same things that the Calvinists do with free will, acknowledge the passages exist then go on to ignore them.

I've yet to see an Unconditional Securist do justice to those passages that warn about apostasy and the like, whereas the Conditional Securist has no problem, logical or otherwise, in saying that saints are secure now yet may fall away in the future if they do not persevere in God's grace.

Well, that is not reconciling Predestination in Romans 8:28 nor Roman 8:38.

It does not explain the fact that you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Eph.4:30.

Denying eternal security is not reconciling it!

The only way to reconcile the two true statements is to rightly divide the Dispensations.

http://members.citynet.net/morton/disindex.htm Understanding Hebrews

Hebrews 3:6 and 14 is the first place the "Endurers" stop, but look at the whole passage. Verse 6 says "whose house are we IF we hold fast...unto the end." The "if" is the word pointed to by these people, "What "if" you don't hold out to the end" they say. First of all, do you find any reference to a blood washed, regenerated, Holy Spirit sealed Christian in the passage? Also, what is "the end" in both verses referring to? What makes you think it is the end of a person's life after reading Matthew 24:13-14? The "end" is the end of a period of time just like in Matthew 24:14. The "rest" in Heb. chapter 2 shows this to be true by illustrating how the Israelites in the wilderness had to endure in faith to the end of their wanderings before they could enter into God's rest—Canaan land (vs. 7-19). The "we" throughout the passage refers not to Christians but to Hebrews; "...whose house are we (Hebrews) if we (Hebrews) hold fast unto the end" (vs. 6); "for we (Hebrews) are made partakers of Christ if we (Hebrews) hold...unto the end" (vs. 14). See how keeping in mind who a book is written to clears things up? There is no reference to a born again Christian anywhere in the passage, neither is there any mention of anyone going to hell. The passage applies doctrinally to Hebrews in the Tribulation period enduring to the end of it in faith so they can enter into the promised land (Millennium) and partake of Christ. Don't allow those who refuse to rightly divide the Scriptures misapply them and talk you out of your security in Christ. Hebrews deals with Hebrews.

Obviously, someone in Hebrews 6:1-4 is in danger of losing his salvation, but again, it is not a born again Christian. Did you notice in verses 1-2 where the writer refers to the principles of the doctrines of Christ (repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment), that he does not mention ONE doctrine unique to salvation in the Church Age? Regeneration, the new nature, the Body of Christ, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, justification, imputation, etc., are not mentioned. How can one explain this? Simple, the writer is not referring to a regenerated Christian. He is again referring to Hebrews in another dispensational setup.

It is very likely Hebrews (at least the first 12 chapters) was written early in the book of Acts (probably before chapter 12; certainly before chapter 15) when no one knew much at all about a new birth or that a new, non Hebrew, dispensation was made possible at the cross. This explains a lot. The writer didn't mention Church Age doctrines because he didn't know of such things. He may have not even yet known Gentiles could be saved. Therefore, anybody who uses Hebrews to teach Gentile Church Age doctrine is ignorant of God's dispensational arrangments. At the time it was written, Hebrews applied to Jews who believed Christ was the Messiah before the Church Age doctrines were fully known and established in Acts 15. However, now, Hebrews speaks directly to Hebrews who will be alive during the Tribulation after the Church is gone. Remember, the Bible speaks to people of all ages; it is not limited to Fundamentalists in the Church Age.

If there is any doubt that Hebrews applies doctrinally in the Tribulation look at verse 11. There we find the characteristic "the end" again—the end of the Tribulation. When one realizes this the passage easily falls into place. The "those" in vs. 4 are saved people in the Tribulation sense, not the Church Age sense. If the saved person falls away in the Tribulation (takes the mark of the Beast, for instance), he forfeits his salvation and cannot get it back (Rev. 14:9-12)! Furthermore, if the Church goes through the Tribulation as many today claim, then a Christian must in some way be able to lose his salvation or else the Scriptures contradict! Thank God Christ's bride will not suffer this wrath (1 Thess. 1:10).

This passage in Hebrews fits perfectly with the other passages we have looked at concerning salvation after the Church Age (Matt. 5-7, 24-25; Heb. 3). The Hebrews that will be saved then will be decreed saved like those in the Old Testament. Each individual is in danger of losing his salvation if he doesn't do the right works or fails to endure to the end (vs. 11). If (remember "if" in Hebrews chapter 3?) he endures and does make it, he will become a partaker of Christ (3:14). The "powers of the world to come" (Mill.) will be the signs and wonders performed by the "two witnesses" and others during the Tribulation (Rev. 11). All the passages coincide. The writer of Hebrews says in 6:9 he is persuaded of better things of those who he wrote to at the time (around 35-40 A.D.), but the reason he says this is because of their works (vs. 10-11)! Works play an important part in the Tribulation, and we will deal more with salvation during that time shortly.

The third passage in Hebrews the Arminians and others use to prove a Christian can fall out of Christ and go to hell is in chapter 10. This passage gets heavy use by the "Endurers" because of the way it is worded, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." The Endurers point to this passage and glibly say, "See there? If a Christian sins willfully after he is saved he can lose his salvation and go to Hell!" Really? Are there any Born again Christians found anywhere in the passage? Is there any hint of a Spirit sealed believer being plucked out of Christ, unborn again, forsaken by Christ and God, severed from the Body of Christ, etc., and cast into the Lake of Fire? Nonsense. You couldn't find a regenerated Christian in the passage with a microscope. True, someone in the passage can lose his salvation, but, again, it is not anyone in the Body of Christ.

Though the Arminians wrest this passage to teach their saved-today, lost-tomorrow theology, the Fundamentalists fare little better. They either won't allow the person who sins to be a true believer but only one who had "knowledge" of the truth, or they "Greekify" the verses and force them to conform to Church Age doctrine. Concerning their first argument, verse 7 says the fallen man was "sanctified" by the blood of Christ. This speaks of more than just a head knowledge of Christ, the man was sanctified by Him. This is knowledge in the sense of experience.

Concerning the "Going to the original Greek" method of dealing with this passage, many will contend a Christian will not willfully sin habitually and appeal to the tense of some Greek word to "prove" it. But the passage says nothing about one habitually continuing in sin; it plainly says if one sins "wilfully"! One sin can be enough. (When the English Bible God has used for nearly 400 years (AV 1611) won't support these "scholars," they immediately run to the "Greek" to change it and usually distort the text so much they themselves can't make sense of it after they change it!)

Even though the text says nothing about someone sinning habitually, to say a Christian cannot willfully sin habitually is absurd; millions do it all the time. To say different is to deny a Christian his free will and pretend his old, Adamic nature is powerless. Every Christian is just as capable of sinning as a lost man because he still has the old nature of a dead, lost man in him! This fallen nature is not eradicated at conversion. True, every believer also has the new, righteous nature of Christ in him, but the old is still there to tug and pull for its own way. Because of his new nature, no Christian HAS TO sin at anytime, but he is always capable of sin until death or the rapture.

In general, Christians as a whole usually don't sin openly as much as lost people, however, sometimes they do, and some in an backslidden state will habitually sin more (visibly) than some lost people. Though every lost person is dead in sin and can only sin, the rebellious believer may do things a "moral" lost person deems immoral and would never do! Every believer should realize, however, open sin is just the outward manifestation of sin that has already occurred in the heart. A person's heart can harbor and entertain sin whether the sin is outwardly seen or not. Who can forget the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 5 where he brands the lustful person an adulterer and also 1 John 3:15 where the Holy Spirit calls the hater a murderer? Sins don't have to be outward to be sin; the secret sins of envy, jealously, pride, selfishness, greed, lust, hate, resentment, contempt, self-pity, self-will, worry, not content, etc., are sins all Christians entertain willingly to some degree and many habitually! All one has to do is talk to a few to find this out. Nevertheless, even with these wicked and vile sins, no Christian can lose his salvation. The difference is in the dispensations.

Now, since this passage doesn't doctrinally refer to Christians in the Church Age, where does it apply? Again, in the Tribulation period. This is clear from the Old Testament quotations found in verse 30 (Deut. 32:30-36) referring to the song of Moses sang after the exodus and in the Tribulation (Rev. 15:3). You didn't check the cross-references did you? Blindly following to interpretation of your favorite "scholar" and failing to personally compare Scripture with Scripture will lead to a "private interpretation" more times than not. Also, the mention of "his people" in a book called Hebrews should indicate to the most jaded eyes that the passage applies distinctly to Hebrews. The passage is clearly Jewish and can only deal with Jews in the Tribulation. Since there is no new birth in the Tribulation to regenerate and seal believers, a person then can be on the right path, taste of the heavenly gift, believe in Christ, be sanctified by the Christ's blood, have good works, etc., in essence be saved as much as anyone then can be and then "sin willfully" and loose all he had. Whether he denies Christ and His blood atonement, takes the mark of the Beast, or fails to continue in the required works (Matt. 25), he has fallen from his salvation. During this period people likely will be initially saved by faith alone, but each must continue in the right works and keep the commandments of God to stay saved. If one sins willfully in an area that can cost him his salvation, he has had it.

Verse 31 says "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," and it will be for the Hebrews who fall away in the Tribulation, but it is not fearful for a Christian. Every Christian is IN God's hand permanently, and no one can take him out (John 10)! Furthermore, every born again believer is a part of Christ's Body, and thus also a part of or connected to His hand! What speaks of terror and judgment to a rebellious Hebrew in the Tribulation speaks of peace and security to a believer in Christ. Again, the difference is in the dispensations.

The book of Hebrews loses much of its difficulty when one rightly divides it and does not force the distinctly Jewish passages to apply to a period where they do not belong. As we mentioned forcing these passages to doctrinally apply in the Church Age will either lead one to believe a Christian can lose his salvation or cause him to wrest them by his "private interpretation" to make them line up with his doctrine. Either way the Scriptures are misused. The "Endurers" are at least honest in trying to take the verses at face value, they just apply them to the wrong people. The Fundamentalists, however, refuse to take them as they stand, showing their infidelity, and change their obvious meaning by appealing to "the Greek" and "scholarship." The verses as they stand simply give them fits. Nevertheless, for one reason or another many of them will cling to their shallow and inconsistent "historical positions" rather than yield to the plain words of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the ethics of many Fundamentalists in their treatment of the Scriptures is often inferior to their Arminian counterparts.

Well, then I could see that you reject out of hand my explanation.

Since I reject Dispensationalism, your explanation didn't hold water with me, no.

While Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, it will have a doctrinal message after the Rapture and the Tributlation begins.

This entire statement is based in Dispensationalism, an eschatology that I do not hold to be true.

The Church will be removed and the so-called General epistles will take on a stronger role, as do the Pauline epistles for the Church today.

Where is this stated in the Bible?

First off, Romans 8:38-9 really doesn't work as a OSAS prooftext very well unless one is a Calvinist that thinks that God only loves certain people. As for rejecting eternal security, no. The issue isn't eternal security, it's Unconditional vs. Conditional security. And we reject Unconditional Eternal Security as unbiblical.

They do the same things that the Calvinists do with free will, acknowledge the passages exist then go on to ignore them.

Give me an example.

Well, that is not reconciling Predestination in Romans 8:28 nor Roman 8:38.

Romans 8:28 isn't a "golden chain" but a normative pattern, one; and two, Romans 8:38-9 says that nothing can separate us from God's love. Unless God doesn't love "the whole world" but only his elect, then some people that God loves will finally end up in Hell. It is no detriment to God or his glory that some of the people he wants saved "would" themselves "not."

It does not explain the fact that you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Eph.4:30.

Show me where the Bible says that the Seal of the Spirit cannot be broken. In fact, Eph. 4:30 warns us "not to grieve the Spirit" whereby we are sealed. There must be some real danger for that warning to be necessary, don't you think? Danger of what, though? Heaven can't be quantified so that 'rewards' matter, since it is eternal bliss to begin with; so what could it be?

Denying eternal security is not reconciling it!

We do not deny eternal security, we deny Unconditional Eternal Security.

The only way to reconcile the two true statements is to rightly divide the Dispensations.

Works for a Dispensationalist, I suppose, but since I think Dispensationalism is a horrid Calvinistic by-product with little Scriptural backing, it won't fly with me.

First off, the fact that it was written to Jewish Christians doesn't matter a whit; to say that because the book is called "Hebrews" that it doesn't apply to Gentiles is ridiculous: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free," etc. Second, the intended audience is more aptly described as "the body of faith," which means mostly the saved, but a few unsaved people as well. This does not mitigate the fact that the writer aims remarks at the whole body. Saying that all of the "apostasy" passages relate only to the unsaved is silly, since the various passages use such descriptors as "partakers of the Spirit," "sanctified by the blood of the Spirit" and so on.

Oy. Sorry, but there are far too many descriptors that apply only to regenerated Christians in order for this tripe that Hebrews' warnings are to Jews to work. And again, he assumes that Hebrews is dealing with ethnic Israel again after the Church has mysteriously vanished (incidentally, since the Rapture is when we meet Christ in the air, does that mean that there is a Third Coming when Jesus comes back for the Jews?).

Hebrews 3:6 and 14 is the first place the "Endurers" stop, but look at the whole passage. Verse 6 says "whose house are we IF we hold fast...unto the end."

But Christ as a Son over his own house] Moses was faithful as a servant IN the house; Jesus was faithful, as the first-born Son, OVER the house of which he is the Heir and Governor. Here, then, is the conclusion of the argument in reference to Christ's superiority over Moses. Moses did not found the house or family, Christ did; Moses was but in the house, or one of the family, Christ was over the house as its Ruler; Moses was but servant in the house, Christ was the Son and Heir; Moses was in the house of another, Christ in his own house.
It is well known to every learned reader that the pronoun autou, without an aspirate, signifies his simply; and that with the aspirate, autou, it signifies his own: the word being in this form a contraction, not uncommon, of eautou. If we read autou without the aspirate, then his must refer to God, #Heb 3:4.
But Christ as a Son over his (that is, God's) house: if we read autou, with the aspirate, as some editions do, then what is spoken refers to Christ; and the words above convey the same sense as those words, #Ac 20:28: Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Some editions read the word thus; and it is evident that the edition which our translators used had the word autou, his own, and not autou, his. The Spanish and London Polyglots have the same reading. From the most ancient MSS. we can get no help to determine which is to be preferred, as they are generally written without accents. The two first editions of the Greek Testament, that of Complutum, 1514, and that of Erasmus, 1516, have autou, his; and they are followed by most other editions: but the celebrated edition of Robert Stephens, 1550, has autou, his own. The reading is certainly important; but it belongs to one of those difficulties in criticism which, if the context or collateral evidence do not satisfactorily solve it, must remain in doubt; and every reader is at liberty to adopt which reading he thinks best.
Whose house are we] We Christians are his Church and family; he is our Father, Governor, and Head.
If we hold fast the confidence] We are now his Church, and shall continue to be such, and be acknowledged by him IF we maintain our Christian profession, thn parrhsian, that liberty of access to God, which we now have, and the rejoicing of the hope, i.e. of eternal life, which we shall receive at the resurrection of the dead. The word parrhsia, which is here translated confidence, and which signifies freedom of speech, liberty of access, &c., seems to be used here to distinguish an important Christian privilege. Under the old testament no man was permitted to approach to God: even the very mountain on which God published his laws must not be touched by man nor beast; and only the high priest was permitted to enter the holy of holies, and that only once a year, on the great day of atonement; and even then he must have the blood of the victim to propitiate the Divine justice. Under the Christian dispensation the way to the holiest is now laid open; and we have parrhsian, liberty of access, even to the holiest, by the blood of Jesus. Having such access unto God, by such a Mediator, we may obtain all that grace which is necessary to fit us for eternal glory; and, having the witness of his Spirit in our heart, we have a well grounded hope of endless felicity, and exult in the enjoyment of that hope. But IF we retain not the grace, we shall not inherit the glory.
Verse 7. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today] These words are quoted from #Ps 95:7; and as they were written by David, and attributed here to the Holy Ghost, it proves that David wrote, by the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. As these words were originally a warning to the Israelites not to provoke God, lest they should be excluded from that rest which he had promised them, the apostle uses them here to persuade the Christians in Palestine to hold fast their religious privileges, and, the grace they had received, lest they should come short of that state of future glory which Christ had prepared for them. The words strongly imply, as indeed does the whole epistle, the possibility of falling from the grace of God, and perishing everlastingly; and without this supposition these words, and all such like, which make more than two-thirds of the whole of Divine revelation, would have neither sense nor meaning. Why should God entreat man to receive his mercy, if he have rendered this impossible? Why should he exhort a believer to persevere, if it be impossible for him to fall away? What contemptible quibbling have men used to maintain a false and dangerous tenet against the whole tenor of the word of God! Angels fell-Adam fell-Solomon fell-and multitudes of believers have fallen, and, for aught we know, rose no more; and yet we are told that we cannot finally lose the benefits of our conversion! Satan preached this doctrine to our first parents; they believed him, sinned, and fell; and brought a whole world to ruin! (Clarke's Commentary)

The "if" is the word pointed to by these people, "What "if" you don't hold out to the end" they say. First of all, do you find any reference to a blood washed, regenerated, Holy Spirit sealed Christian in the passage? Also, what is "the end" in both verses referring to? What makes you think it is the end of a person's life after reading Matthew 24:13-14? The "end" is the end of a period of time just like in Matthew 24:14.

What makes you think that Matthew 24:13-14 has anything to do with this passage? It is an assumption to think that "end" must mean "end of the Church Age."

This only proves my point. The Israelites had to endure to the end of the journey before admittance into their earthly Canaan, with possibility that they would not endure; since the OT is a shadow of the NT, what makes you think that Christians don't have a possibility that we wouldn't endure?

Again, he assumes that it refers to Jews and not Jewish Christians; I can put remarks in parentheses and call them Gospel too. I could make other remarks, but since we don't even have common ground on which to engage in debate, I will refrain.

There is no reference to a born again Christian anywhere in the passage, neither is there any mention of anyone going to hell.

The whole tenor refers to born-again Christians. How can someone "hold fast to the end" unless he's got something to cling to? And of course, consider 3:1, which clearly indicates its audience by such terms as "holy brethren," "partakers of a heavenly calling," and "consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." You don't think that Jews at any point in history can still be called Jews when their Apostle and High Priest is Jesus himself, do you?

The passage applies doctrinally to Hebrews in the Tribulation period enduring to the end of it in faith so they can enter into the promised land (Millennium) and partake of Christ.

More unsupported statements.

Don't allow those who refuse to rightly divide the Scriptures misapply them and talk you out of your security in Christ. Hebrews deals with Hebrews.

And I have a bridge to sell you in Georgia.

Actually, the only difficulty for an Arminian in this verse is what exactly it means to fall away.

[I]t is necessary to give my opinion of their design and meaning: 1. I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity. 2. They do not belong, nor are they applicable, to backsliders of any kind. 3. They belong to apostates from Christianity; to such as reject the whole Christian system, and its author, the Lord Jesus. 4. And to those of them only who join with the blaspheming Jews, call Christ an impostor, and vindicate his murderers in having crucified him as a malefactor; and thus they render their salvation impossible, by wilfully and maliciously rejecting the Lord that bought them. No man believing in the Lord Jesus as the great sacrifice for sin, and acknowledging Christianity as a Divine revelation, is here intended, though he may have unfortunately backslidden from any degree of the salvation of God. The design of these solemn words is evidently, First, to show the Hebrews that apostasy from the highest degrees of grace was possible; and that those who were highest in the favour of God might sin against him, lose it, and perish everlastingly. Secondly, to warn them against such an awful state of perdition, that they might not be led away, by either the persuasions or persecutions of their countrymen, from the truth of the heavenly doctrine which had been delivered to them. And, Thirdly, to point out the destruction which was shortly to come upon the Jewish nation. (Clarke's Commentary, Heb. 6:4)

"Partakers of the Holy Spirit." That is not a distinguishing mark that can be applied to Old Testament saints. "In the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh."

This is unfounded.

This explains a lot. The writer didn't mention Church Age doctrines because he didn't know of such things. He may have not even yet known Gentiles could be saved. Therefore, anybody who uses Hebrews to teach Gentile Church Age doctrine is ignorant of God's dispensational arrangments.

Now he's resorting to ad hominem attacks.

At the time it was written, Hebrews applied to Jews who believed Christ was the Messiah before the Church Age doctrines were fully known and established in Acts 15. However, now, Hebrews speaks directly to Hebrews who will be alive during the Tribulation after the Church is gone. Remember, the Bible speaks to people of all ages; it is not limited to Fundamentalists in the Church Age.

Hoo boy. More unfounded claims.

Regards the "Tribulation," Clarke says:

This chapter contains a prediction of the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the whole political constitution of the Jews; and is one of the most valuable portions of the new covenant Scriptures, with respect to the evidence which it furnishes of the truth of Christianity. Every thing which our Lord foretold should come on the temple, city, and people of the Jews, has been fulfilled in the most correct and astonishing manner; and witnessed by a writer who was present during the whole, who was himself a Jew, and is acknowledged to be an historian of indisputable veracity in all those transactions which concern the destruction of Jerusalem. Without having designed it, he has written a commentary on our Lord's words, and shown how every tittle was punctually fulfilled, though he knew nothing of the Scripture which contained this remarkable prophecy. His account will be frequently referred to in the course of these notes; as also the admirable work of Bishop Newton on the prophecies. ("Mt. 24 Intro.")

Furthermore, if the Church goes through the Tribulation as many today claim, then a Christian must in some way be able to lose his salvation or else the Scriptures contradict! Thank God Christ's bride will not suffer this wrath (1 Thess. 1:10).

What does 1 Th. 1:10 have to do with the fact that the Church has already been through the Tribulation?

And I thought the non-dispensational OSAS proponents were bad....yeesh.

Excuse me? "Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant" doesn't mean saved, now? You can be unregenerate and yet set apart to God by the blood of the Covenant (obviously the New Covenant, since the whole point of vv. 26-29 is contrasting the Old and the New Covenants). Ugh. I cut off the rest of my comments here, because I've already spent almost two hours typing this, and I have other things to do.

Well, then I could see that you reject out of hand my explanation. Since I reject Dispensationalism, your explanation didn't hold water with me, no.

Well that settles that doesn't it! :>)

While Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, it will have a doctrinal message after the Rapture and the Tributlation begins. This entire statement is based in Dispensationalism, an eschatology that I do not hold to be true.

See what I mean! Dispensationalism is 'rightly dividing'.

In fact, I am sure you are a 'Dispensationist' since you at least view there is a difference between the period of the Garden, the Period after the Fall, the Period before the Flood, the Period of the Law and the Period we now live in, the Period of Grace.

Those are just basic divisions that one has to make when reading the Bible.

The Church will be removed and the so-called General epistles will take on a stronger role, as do the Pauline epistles for the Church today. Where is this stated in the Bible?

It is 'stated' by viewing the Pauline Epistles as being for the Church, since they are addressed to churches since that was the mystery revealed to Paul (Eph.3)

The books of Hebrews and James, and Peter are not addressed to churches, but to the 'Hebrews' to the 'tribes' and 'to the strangers scattered'(1Pet.)

Clearly, the verses that state one can lose one's salvation and one cannot lose it (Rom.8:38-39) have to be reconciled, since Scripture cannot contradict itself. I've seen them reconciled more ably by the Conditional Securists than the Unconditional Securists; They do not reconcile them, they simply reject eternal security! First off, Romans 8:38-9 really doesn't work as a OSAS prooftext very well unless one is a Calvinist that thinks that God only loves certain people. As for rejecting eternal security, no. The issue isn't eternal security, it's Unconditional vs. Conditional security. And we reject Unconditional Eternal Security as unbiblical.

God only is going to keep certain people and it is those who He has predestinated!

What is a 'conditional security', what good is that?

Is that like the Calvinists notion of free will?

You are secure as long as you do not do anything wrong?

Some 'security'!

They do the same things that the Calvinists do with free will, acknowledge the passages exist then go on to ignore them. Give me an example.

Just did.

Calvinists know that free will is taught, so they have to use the term but in their theology ignore it.

You have definite statements that God will not lose those who are His And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand (Jn.10:28)

I see nothing that would indicate 'conditional security'.

Well, that is not reconciling Predestination in Romans 8:28 nor Roman 8:38. Romans 8:28 isn't a "golden chain" but a normative pattern, one; and two, Romans 8:38-9 says that nothing can separate us from God's love. Unless God doesn't love "the whole world" but only his elect, then some people that God loves will finally end up in Hell. It is no detriment to God or his glory that some of the people he wants saved "would" themselves "not."

The point of Romans 8:28 is that once one gets into Christ they are predestinated to receive those things listed in Romans 8:28-29 and they cannot lose them.

The predestination is a certain act based on a contingent decision, faith in Christ.

It does not explain the fact that you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Eph.4:30. Show me where the Bible says that the Seal of the Spirit cannot be broken. In fact, Eph. 4:30 warns us "not to grieve the Spirit" whereby we are sealed. There must be some real danger for that warning to be necessary, don't you think? Danger of what, though? Heaven can't be quantified so that 'rewards' matter, since it is eternal bliss to begin with; so what could it be?

It says do not grieve the Spirit, it doesn't say that the Seal will be broken if you do!

The passage says you are sealed unto the day of Redemption, that is the redemption of your physical body in Romans 8!

Once a Christian believes his very body is now the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.3:16) and that is a permeant residence.

You can grieve or quench the Holy Spirit and walk in the flesh, but you cannot lose the Spirit as did Saul and Samson.

Denying eternal security is not reconciling it! We do not deny eternal security, we deny Unconditional Eternal Security.

That is like a Calvinist saying he is not denying free will!

We believe in 'free will' the free will to do exactly as God has preprogamned you to do!

A 'conditional security' is no security.

You never know when you will fall, and you are living moment to moment hoping you do not fall into sin that will damn you.

The only way to reconcile the two true statements is to rightly divide the Dispensations. Works for a Dispensationalist, I suppose, but since I think Dispensationalism is a horrid Calvinistic by-product with little Scriptural backing, it won't fly with me.

Gee 'Grammer' a bit cranky today aren't you!

Since the Calvinist reject us as Arminians and the Arminians reject us as Calvinists-I know what we are, we are Biblical!!!

With the book of Hebrews, the Bible begins to take on a Jewish twist again. With the thirteen books preceding it dealing with the Body of Christ, the Holy Spirit now begins to again address the Jews. As the title of the book is Hebrews, why would anyone think it applied doctrinally to Gentile Christians? Of course, there is much in the book a Christian can learn and profit from, but if he tries to apply it all doctrinally to the Church Age he will soon run into "contradictions." The writer of Hebrews is trying to convince both lost and saved Hebrews that the new covenant established by Christ's death is superior to the old covenant of the Law. The temptation of saved Hebrews backsliding back into the bondage of the Law is very great, and Paul wants to strengthen the hearers of this book in what Christ's redemption has done for them. First off, the fact that it was written to Jewish Christians doesn't matter a whit; to say that because the book is called "Hebrews" that it doesn't apply to Gentiles is ridiculous: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free," etc. Second, the intended audience is more aptly described as "the body of faith," which means mostly the saved, but a few unsaved people as well. This does not mitigate the fact that the writer aims remarks at the whole body. Saying that all of the "apostasy" passages relate only to the unsaved is silly, since the various passages use such descriptors as "partakers of the Spirit," "sanctified by the blood of the Spirit" and so on.

I can see your point, but when the Church is gone that Book as well as James and Peter will become more dominant, as the Church age epistles become less so.

Eph.Col. and Phil. are not for Tribulation saints.

Those are church age epistles representing the christian life.

The thought that Hebrews was written to both lost and saved people should not be strange to the reader, Paul addressed parts of other letters to lost people also (1 Cor. 15:4, etc.). The emphasis of Hebrews appears to apply to Hebrews in the Tribulation when Israel is again the main object of God's dealings. This is why the believers who believe a Christian can lose his salvation appeal to Hebrews as their "proof." There are passages in the book that do indicate someone can fall from salvation, but as we will see, they do not refer to a regenerated Christian. Oy. Sorry, but there are far too many descriptors that apply only to regenerated Christians in order for this tripe that Hebrews' warnings are to Jews to work. And again, he assumes that Hebrews is dealing with ethnic Israel again after the Church has mysteriously vanished (incidentally, since the Rapture is when we meet Christ in the air, does that mean that there is a Third Coming when Jesus comes back for the Jews?).

No, that is considered 'one' coming, in two stages.

Hebrews 3:6 and 14 is the first place the "Endurers" stop, but look at the whole passage. Verse 6 says "whose house are we IF we hold fast...unto the end." But Christ as a Son over his own house] Moses was faithful as a servant IN the house; Jesus was faithful, as the first-born Son, OVER the house of which he is the Heir and Governor. Here, then, is the conclusion of the argument in reference to Christ's superiority over Moses. Moses did not found the house or family, Christ did; Moses was but in the house, or one of the family, Christ was over the house as its Ruler; Moses was but servant in the house, Christ was the Son and Heir; Moses was in the house of another, Christ in his own house. It is well known to every learned reader that the pronoun autou, without an aspirate, signifies his simply; and that with the aspirate, autou, it signifies his own: the word being in this form a contraction, not uncommon, of eautou. If we read autou without the aspirate, then his must refer to God, #Heb 3:4.

Oh, come on now 'Grammer' don't go 'Greek' on me. Deal with the passage in English!

But Christ as a Son over his (that is, God's) house: if we read autou, with the aspirate, as some editions do, then what is spoken refers to Christ; and the words above convey the same sense as those words, #Ac 20:28: Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Some editions read the word thus; and it is evident that the edition which our translators used had the word autou, his own, and not autou, his. The Spanish and London Polyglots have the same reading. From the most ancient MSS. we can get no help to determine which is to be preferred, as they are generally written without accents. The two first editions of the Greek Testament, that of Complutum, 1514, and that of Erasmus, 1516, have autou, his; and they are followed by most other editions: but the celebrated edition of Robert Stephens, 1550, has autou, his own. The reading is certainly important; but it belongs to one of those difficulties in criticism which, if the context or collateral evidence do not satisfactorily solve it, must remain in doubt; and every reader is at liberty to adopt which reading he thinks best. Whose house are we] We Christians are his Church and family; he is our Father, Governor, and Head.

Gee, Grammer, you went a long way to say what?

We accept that, and....

If we hold fast the confidence] We are now his Church, and shall continue to be such, and be acknowledged by him IF we maintain our Christian profession, thn parrhsian, that liberty of access to God, which we now have, and the rejoicing of the hope, i.e. of eternal life, which we shall receive at the resurrection of the dead. The word parrhsia, which is here translated confidence, and which signifies freedom of speech, liberty of access, &c., seems to be used here to distinguish an important Christian privilege. Under the old testament no man was permitted to approach to God: even the very mountain on which God published his laws must not be touched by man nor beast; and only the high priest was permitted to enter the holy of holies, and that only once a year, on the great day of atonement; and even then he must have the blood of the victim to propitiate the Divine justice. Under the Christian dispensation the way to the holiest is now laid open; and we have parrhsian, liberty of access, even to the holiest, by the blood of Jesus. Having such access unto God, by such a Mediator, we may obtain all that grace which is necessary to fit us for eternal glory; and, having the witness of his Spirit in our heart, we have a well grounded hope of endless felicity, and exult in the enjoyment of that hope. But IF we retain not the grace, we shall not inherit the glory. Verse 7. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today] These words are quoted from #Ps 95:7; and as they were written by David, and attributed here to the Holy Ghost, it proves that David wrote, by the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. As these words were originally a warning to the Israelites not to provoke God, lest they should be excluded from that rest which he had promised them, the apostle uses them here to persuade the Christians in Palestine to hold fast their religious privileges, and, the grace they had received, lest they should come short of that state of future glory which Christ had prepared for them. The words strongly imply, as indeed does the whole epistle, the possibility of falling from the grace of God, and perishing everlastingly; and without this supposition these words, and all such like, which make more than two-thirds of the whole of Divine revelation, would have neither sense nor meaning. Why should God entreat man to receive his mercy, if he have rendered this impossible? Why should he exhort a believer to persevere, if it be impossible for him to fall away? What contemptible quibbling have men used to maintain a false and dangerous tenet against the whole tenor of the word of God! Angels fell-Adam fell-Solomon fell-and multitudes of believers have fallen, and, for aught we know, rose no more; and yet we are told that we cannot finally lose the benefits of our conversion! Satan preached this doctrine to our first parents; they believed him, sinned, and fell; and brought a whole world to ruin! (Clarke's Commentary)

Gee, the issue was so clear to Arminius that he admitted he could not state the case either way.

The Remonstrates left the issue open, acknowledging that were difficulties since there were passages that state both truths.

The Church is different then any other group (Old Testament) since we are Christs very Body and He cannot deny Himself. (2Tim.2:13)

Again, we are approaching the verse from a Dispensational view.

The "rest" in Heb. chapter 2 shows this to be true by illustrating how the Israelites in the wilderness had to endure in faith to the end of their wanderings before they could enter into God's rest—Canaan land (vs. 7-19). This only proves my point. The Israelites had to endure to the end of the journey before admittance into their earthly Canaan, with possibility that they would not endure; since the OT is a shadow of the NT, what makes you think that Christians don't have a possibility that we wouldn't endure?

Because we, unlike the Old Testament, are Christ's body, and are indwelt by Him and the Holy Spirit and the Father.

The "we" throughout the passage refers not to Christians but to Hebrews; "...whose house are we (Hebrews) if we (Hebrews) hold fast unto the end" (vs. 6); "for we (Hebrews) are made partakers of Christ if we (Hebrews) hold...unto the end" (vs. 14). Again, he assumes that it refers to Jews and not Jewish Christians; I can put remarks in parentheses and call them Gospel too. I could make other remarks, but since we don't even have common ground on which to engage in debate, I will refrain.

Thank you Brother!

There is no reference to a born again Christian anywhere in the passage, neither is there any mention of anyone going to hell. The whole tenor refers to born-again Christians. How can someone "hold fast to the end" unless he's got something to cling to? And of course, consider 3:1, which clearly indicates its audience by such terms as "holy brethren," "partakers of a heavenly calling," and "consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." You don't think that Jews at any point in history can still be called Jews when their Apostle and High Priest is Jesus himself, do you? The passage applies doctrinally to Hebrews in the Tribulation period enduring to the end of it in faith so they can enter into the promised land (Millennium) and partake of Christ. More unsupported statements. Don't allow those who refuse to rightly divide the Scriptures misapply them and talk you out of your security in Christ. Hebrews deals with Hebrews. And I have a bridge to sell you in Georgia.

If it is as solid as Morton's interpretation I will take it!

The next controversial passage is in chapter 6, and here the "Security-deniers" have a field day. The passage "For it is impossible...if they fall away to renew them again unto repentance..." (vs. 4-6) is often quoted by the "Arminians," but they have bitten of more than they can chew. The passage clearly says it is "impossible" to renew again those who fall away, but all the Endurers claim one can be saved again after he falls away. Actually, the only difficulty for an Arminian in this verse is what exactly it means to fall away. [I]t is necessary to give my opinion of their design and meaning: 1. I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity. 2. They do not belong, nor are they applicable, to backsliders of any kind. 3. They belong to apostates from Christianity; to such as reject the whole Christian system, and its author, the Lord Jesus. 4. And to those of them only who join with the blaspheming Jews, call Christ an impostor, and vindicate his murderers in having crucified him as a malefactor; and thus they render their salvation impossible, by wilfully and maliciously rejecting the Lord that bought them. No man believing in the Lord Jesus as the great sacrifice for sin, and acknowledging Christianity as a Divine revelation, is here intended, though he may have unfortunately backslidden from any degree of the salvation of God. The design of these solemn words is evidently, First, to show the Hebrews that apostasy from the highest degrees of grace was possible; and that those who were highest in the favour of God might sin against him, lose it, and perish everlastingly. Secondly, to warn them against such an awful state of perdition, that they might not be led away, by either the persuasions or persecutions of their countrymen, from the truth of the heavenly doctrine which had been delivered to them. And, Thirdly, to point out the destruction which was shortly to come upon the Jewish nation. (Clarke's Commentary, Heb. 6:4) Obviously, someone in Hebrews 6:1-4 is in danger of losing his salvation, but again, it is not a born again Christian. Did you notice in verses 1-2 where the writer refers to the principles of the doctrines of Christ (repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment), that he does not mention ONE doctrine unique to salvation in the Church Age? "Partakers of the Holy Spirit." That is not a distinguishing mark that can be applied to Old Testament saints. "In the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." It is very likely Hebrews (at least the first 12 chapters) was written early in the book of Acts (probably before chapter 12; certainly before chapter 15) when no one knew much at all about a new birth or that a new, non Hebrew, dispensation was made possible at the cross. This is unfounded. This explains a lot. The writer didn't mention Church Age doctrines because he didn't know of such things. He may have not even yet known Gentiles could be saved. Therefore, anybody who uses Hebrews to teach Gentile Church Age doctrine is ignorant of God's dispensational arrangments. Now he's resorting to ad hominem attacks. At the time it was written, Hebrews applied to Jews who believed Christ was the Messiah before the Church Age doctrines were fully known and established in Acts 15. However, now, Hebrews speaks directly to Hebrews who will be alive during the Tribulation after the Church is gone. Remember, the Bible speaks to people of all ages; it is not limited to Fundamentalists in the Church Age. Hoo boy. More unfounded claims. If there is any doubt that Hebrews applies doctrinally in the Tribulation look at verse 11. There we find the characteristic "the end" again—the end of the Tribulation. When one realizes this the passage easily falls into place. The "those" in vs. 4 are saved people in the Tribulation sense, not the Church Age sense. If the saved person falls away in the Tribulation (takes the mark of the Beast, for instance), he forfeits his salvation and cannot get it back (Rev. 14:9-12)! Regards the "Tribulation," Clarke says: This chapter contains a prediction of the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the whole political constitution of the Jews; and is one of the most valuable portions of the new covenant Scriptures, with respect to the evidence which it furnishes of the truth of Christianity. Every thing which our Lord foretold should come on the temple, city, and people of the Jews, has been fulfilled in the most correct and astonishing manner; and witnessed by a writer who was present during the whole, who was himself a Jew, and is acknowledged to be an historian of indisputable veracity in all those transactions which concern the destruction of Jerusalem. Without having designed it, he has written a commentary on our Lord's words, and shown how every tittle was punctually fulfilled, though he knew nothing of the Scripture which contained this remarkable prophecy. His account will be frequently referred to in the course of these notes; as also the admirable work of Bishop Newton on the prophecies. ("Mt. 24 Intro.") Furthermore, if the Church goes through the Tribulation as many today claim, then a Christian must in some way be able to lose his salvation or else the Scriptures contradict! Thank God Christ's bride will not suffer this wrath (1 Thess. 1:10). What does 1 Th. 1:10 have to do with the fact that the Church has already been through the Tribulation? This passage in Hebrews fits perfectly with the other passages we have looked at concerning salvation after the Church Age (Matt. 5-7, 24-25; Heb. 3). The Hebrews that will be saved then will be decreed saved like those in the Old Testament. Each individual is in danger of losing his salvation if he doesn't do the right works or fails to endure to the end (vs. 11). If (remember "if" in Hebrews chapter 3?) he endures and does make it, he will become a partaker of Christ (3:14). The "powers of the world to come" (Mill.) will be the signs and wonders performed by the "two witnesses" and others during the Tribulation (Rev. 11). All the passages coincide. The writer of Hebrews says in 6:9 he is persuaded of better things of those who he wrote to at the time (around 35-40 A.D.), but the reason he says this is because of their works (vs. 10-11)! Works play an important part in the Tribulation, and we will deal more with salvation during that time shortly. And I thought the non-dispensational OSAS proponents were bad....yeesh. The third passage in Hebrews the Arminians and others use to prove a Christian can fall out of Christ and go to hell is in chapter 10. This passage gets heavy use by the "Endurers" because of the way it is worded, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." The Endurers point to this passage and glibly say, "See there? If a Christian sins willfully after he is saved he can lose his salvation and go to Hell!" Really? Are there any Born again Christians found anywhere in the passage? Is there any hint of a Spirit sealed believer being plucked out of Christ, unborn again, forsaken by Christ and God, severed from the Body of Christ, etc., and cast into the Lake of Fire? Nonsense. You couldn't find a regenerated Christian in the passage with a microscope. True, someone in the passage can lose his salvation, but, again, it is not anyone in the Body of Christ. Excuse me? "Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant" doesn't mean saved, now? You can be unregenerate and yet set apart to God by the blood of the Covenant (obviously the New Covenant, since the whole point of vv. 26-29 is contrasting the Old and the New Covenants). Ugh. I cut off the rest of my comments here, because I've already spent almost two hours typing this, and I have other things to do.

Being a christian is unique, while all saints are saved, all are not members of the Church.

That was the mystery revealed to Paul (Eph.3:3-6)

I am sorry that you felt you had to give such a long reply.

It was not really necessary, since you reject Dispensationalism.

However, Arminus saw Predestination as a crucial doctrine and while he saw verses that gave him pause regarding eternal security, did not reject it, as likewise the Remonstrants also stated in their statement.

I thank you for the time you took to make a reply.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

ARTICLE 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

. . . continued in apost