Replies

Simply put, Paul there is describing the cessation of the Mosaic system of sacrifice, and if those Jews who had come to be among the Christians for a while, and had ample evidence of the truth of the faith, but at some point couldn't put up with the persecution, and opted to return to Judaism, the message is grim. If they go back to the shadow world of Moses, there is no further sacrifice they can look to for forgiveness of sin. Jesus is it. Like the last chance gas station at the edge of the desert, if they miss this, they will not make the crossing.

Demonstrably false; OSAS is a teaching of the Gentiles who abandoned the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Hebrews contradicts it; those who enter into the new covenant, Jew or Gentile, and sin willfully afterward can expect judgment, fiery indignation, and being devoured (imagine that for "the rapture").

As for Paul, he did not sign that letter, and he is a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Do you think Paul lied to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, all Israel. and sinned in the temple here ?

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

No. Not false. I understand some think the description of Paul's temple event negates the entire sense of the book of Hebrews, but the Temple sacrifice system has been ended, both by fact of history and by apostolic revelation in the book of Hebrews. This is really beyond contest. As I have a real job that demands my attention and don't have time to do a full exposition of Hebrews for you, I recommend you reread the entirety of the book in one sitting, takes notes, and make an outline of the development of the message, and see if the theme of the superiority of the New Covenant, especially with respect to the change in the sacrificial system, does not come through for you. In that New Covenant, there remains no other sacrifice besides Christ whereby we may seek forgiveness of sin. This is entirely consistent with the language of Chapter 10 as I and others here have proposed it to be understood.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, if you are only offering me your own personal reconciliation between Paul's temple event and the subject matter of the book of Hebrews, I do not see how this advances my understanding (or yours) of the official, infallible Roman position, as it appears to be absent from the discussion altogether. I would wager there is a diversity of opinion and that the matter of how to interpret this passage has not been rendered dogmatic.

For example, your private solution just offered (if I understand it correctly) is defective because it works too well. Tell me of any sin that isn't willful? Sin by definition is an act of will to run against the will of God. Anyone who knows the truth about Jesus and still sins is meeting the criteria stated in Hebrews 10. Any sin at all. A momentary flicker of lust. A split second of unjustified anger. Sin is sin, and all of it is done with consent of our will, or it wouldn't be sin. If you're driving a car and the brakes fail and you run over and kill a child, you didn't commit first degree murder, because your will was not involved. So everyone, upon committing their first post-conversion sin, would become irreversibly apostate, by your use of this passage. No confession, no seeking of forgiveness, can be allowed, if your private interpretation is correct. Nothing but judgment ahead, after the tiniest sin. An extremely fragile salvation indeed. Basically, Heaven will be a very lonely place. No one will make it. A "solution" that works too well.

Which is why it would then be necessary to massage it into something that works for Rome. And who knows how they might try to do that. I can't imagine any solution that would work under those terms. This is why it would be necessary to know the full, official, infallible, dogmatic position of the Roman magisterium on the matter. I am interested in your private views, but they don't inform me concerning the Roman solution to these problems. If we are going to have a meaningful contest between Rome and Biblical Christianity, Rome needs to show up.

BTW, this is no small matter to me personally. This passage in Hebrews has been greatly abused by some in my experience, leading some tender, Christ-loving souls to grave despair over sins they thought made them lost and unsaveable, based on this passage. It is a wretched thing to see, and such as feel the worst pain of it are often those most disposed to want desperately to please God. Like the apostles at the Lord's Supper, where Jesus tells them one will be a traitor, and those who loved Christ deeply felt great anxiety that they might be that traitor, whereas the actual traitor, Judas, just calmly did his evil deed. Those who would teach in the body of Christ have a serious obligation to not mess this sort of thing up. It can be devastating to the weak of conscience and ill-informed. Anyone with true pastoral love for the flock of Christ will not settle for a sound-bite solution to this problem.

Which again is why I am insisting on an official position that I can rely on as Rome's claimed infallible interpretation of this passage. Once I have that, then I will know whether and in what way it conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God. I will not be holding my breath while I wait.

Peace,

SR