spudgin to CCWoody: Your #49: Truly! I am frankly astounded, Woody, that you could even say this after all I've written on the topic. I myself used very much that same argument only two weeks ago with my Sunday school teacher, who is a four-pointer (does not accept Limited Atonement).
I absolutely affirm the Perseverance of the Saints (i.e. eternal security). You will find that I have repeatedly affirmed it hundreds of times on these threads. Literally, hundreds of times. There is no conceivable way that the precious blood of Christ, if shed for you, could be shed in vain. The Father would never allow the precious blood of His Son to have been shed for nothing. Not even one drop of our Saviour's blood was shed in vain. And it certainly was never wasted upon the hellbound. The Father would never permit it. There is real anger I often feel toward the Arminians, that they suggest that Christ's blood could have been shed in vain! If His blood was shed for you, you will endure to the end and spend eternity with God. If you did not, then Christ could not save anyone. If His blood was not shed for you, you can never even be in the presence of God as you would be so utterly unholy that the Father would cast you away for your unholiness. That is, in many ways, the real meaning of the sancification in Hebrews 10:14. Jesus set aside the Old Covenant, never satisfying to either men or to God, and offered Himself as the once-only and perfect sacrifice, the New Covenant, never to be repeated. He rose to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father to intercede for us and to be the only and eternal sanctification we can rely upon to approach the Father. It is that perfection of His sacrifice which sanctifies us forever (meaning as Calvin and Stuart pointed out: continuously, not eternally). That is what they read. As did Owen, Henry, Darby, Spurgeon and the great Confessions.
Fellows, don't you see that this verse tells us how we have escaped the bondage of the Old Covenant and how God included Gentiles in His plan? It's so wonderful. Please reconsider what you're saying and look again. There's someting truly wonderful in Hebrews 10:1-18. It's a beautiful promise to us as well as Paul's warning to Judaizers.
It seems very clear that you have somehow concluded that Hebrews 10:14 is the only support for Perseverance of the Saints in the entire Bible! I fully adhere to the TULIP. But, unlike doc and Jerry and Uriel, I find it where the scholars of the Reformation found it, where Calvin found it. Good grief! Until doc started in on RnMom over his "sanctified=saved" and went crazy over it, all three of them had found it elsewhere in the Bible too! The last several months, to read their (mostly doc's) comments, you'd think that 10:14 was the only place it was found in scripture. And Woody's remarks indicate that that is exactly what he's thinking. And it can easily be demonstrated that this tiff over 10:14 is more than a little strange considering their past posts on that very topic. Hebrews 10:14 is actually a very wonderful verse with its own special meaning within the context of Hebrews 10:1-18. Eternal security (Perseverance) certainly does not stand or fall upon this single verse. My concerns that someone would actually think so have finally been vindicated. The strangeness of the debate over that verse has actually led you (and probably many others) to conclude that Calvinists find their Eternal Security only in Hebrews 10:14. And it simply could not be further from the truth. It was not true during the Reformation. And it's not true today either.
Our eternal security, our assurance of the perseverance of the saints is strongly expressed elsewhere in scripture. Hebrews 10 lays out very beautifully the nature of our Saviour's sacrifice for us and the superiority of it over the vain Jewish temple ritual and demonstrates its eternal perfection, that it never needs or should be repeated. Think about it! Never to be repeated. Like the way the Romanists crucify Christ again and again in their blasphemous Mass. Because if it ever had to be repeated, that would demonstrate that Christ was not Christ and that His sacrifice did not sanctify Gentiles and Jews alike before God.
Though I'm not as fond of them as I am of Calvin's exposition, both Henry and especially Darby lay this out in a wonderful way. I would recommend you read Calvin and then Darby. You'll see more fully what a wonderful teaching Hebrews 10 contains.
Verses 1-10 The apostle having shown that the tabernacle, and ordinances of the covenant of Sinai, were only emblems and types of the gospel, concludes that the sacrifices the high priests offered continually, could not make the worshippers perfect, with respect to pardon, and the purifying of their consciences. But when "God manifested in the flesh," became the sacrifice, and his death upon the accursed tree the ransom, then the Sufferer being of infinite worth, his free-will sufferings were of infinite value. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must of his own will place himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so. The fountain of all that Christ has done for his people, is the sovereign will and grace of God. The righteousness brought in, and the sacrifice once offered by Christ, are of eternal power, and his salvation shall never be done away. They are of power to make all the comers thereunto perfect; they derive from the atoning blood, strength and motives for obedience, and inward comfort.
Verses 11-18 Under the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, full and final pardon is to be had. This makes a vast difference between the new covenant and the old one. Under the old, sacrifices must be often repeated, and after all, only pardon as to this world was to be obtained by them. Under the new, one Sacrifice is enough to procure for all nations and ages, spiritual pardon, or being freed from punishment in the world to come. Well might this be called a new covenant. Let none suppose that human inventions can avail those who put them in the place of the sacrifice of the Son of God. What then remains, but that we seek an interest in this Sacrifice by faith; and the seal of it to our souls, by the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience? So that by the law being written in our hearts, we may know that we are justified, and that God will no more remember our sins.
I need no such help! In addition to a understanding of many of them, I also have a Word which you will not find anywhere in the Bible. In fact, I have more than one. But you seem to need to fall back continually upon the words of others for your faith.
If we examine this verse and then conclude that God can throw somebody who has been perfected forever into hell then we would be guilty of blasphemey. We would be trampling the Blood of Christ under our feet.
I would never dare to even conceive such a thought. It is totally alien to my entire being. Perfected forever means just that; perfected forever.
However, when you deny that Hebrews 10:14 teaches that those being sanctified - those who are perfected forever - can be thrown into hell, then you in fact blasphemey my Glorious Redeemer and trample His blood under foot.
You stand at an Eternal precipice with your position. I don't think you can even conceive how precarious your declarations against Hebrews 10:14 really are. You have a particular knowledge of Scripture that many Christians will never have this side of Paradise. In a very real sense you have more talents than any of the other professing people on this thread. This put you in a position to be even more thoughtful with Scripture than others.
The very real implication is that you should consider the Word of God first and any and every commentary secondary. However, you are putting the words [which you twist in many cases] of Reformers before the Word of God. You need to quit doing this.
In an absurd way, you are guilty of the same crime as the Wesleyans are. They deny what this scripture says because they, in a Scripture twisting zeal, make it fit to their doctrine. Well, you too have created a doctrine based upon others words and now twist Scripture to make it fit your doctrine. Never mind that your doctrine contains the correct language. If you can't even read simple and direct scripture passages, then you need to give yourself a serious spiritual examination. I want to laugh at the hysterical irony of this, but the seriousness of it has stopped me.
We can both consider your reply to this post your "last word" for the time being on this subject. I do not think at this point I shall respond to it.