Heb 10:14 teaches eternal security

[gr8grace3]

My point is that if the Bible is your source of truth, the reality is that the Bible contains multiple verses that support both positions.

This is the point of my analogy. Eternal security or loss of salvation. There is no third option.(I would like to hear it if there was)

So there is nothing that supports the wrong option. Just as there is no evidence for guilt pertaining to an innocent man.

The bible doesn't contain verses that supports something that isn't truth. So if there is a third option, NOTHING would support eternal security or loss of salvation.

John 5:24.

 

[FreeGrace]

By coincidence, last night I started through the New Testament on my Kindle, highlighting verses that pretty clearly suggest OSAS and those that pretty clearly suggest OS-Not-AS. I didn't even get through the Gospel of John (my starting point) before I had a fair sampling of both.

Do you honestly believe that the Bible is so vague that it teaches both positions? These positions are diametrically opposed. How could Scripture teach 2 opposing ideas? How does that make sense?

Why not just admit that this is one of those doctrines for which a plausible argument can be made in either direction?

Such an idea leads to the conclusion that Scripture is internally contradicted. Is that your position?

Perhaps it makes me a lukewarm Christian, but both positions seem to me to have approximately equal biblical support.

I'm sure there are people who would argue the exact same thing for how to be saved in Scripture: by grace through faith apart from works, and by faith plus works. How does that help anyone understand God's Word.

Paul wrote that we are to be approved workmen, rightly dividing the Word of Truth in 2 Tim 2:15.

Which one is convincing to a particular believer is going to depend on his or her understanding of other doctrines and overall perspective on Jesus and His work. I don't believe a "correct" answer and a "wrong" answer can be derived from a "my Bible verses vs. your Bible verses" type of debate.

Your view is internally contradicted and helps no one.

Truth cannot go "both ways".

 

[Mike S]

This doesn't address the OP. Does Heb 10:14 teach or at least indicate eternal security or not? If not, please explain why not. Thanks.

I think you've been given the answer several time. Yes it addresses eternal security. What you understand it to be is up to you.

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree.

There are mysteries to our faith that I'm willing to live with.

Eternal security isn't one of the mysteries.

 

[FreeGrace]

There are about 33,000 different Christian denominations that disagree with you on at least one doctrinal issue. I'll leave their understand of God as a matter between them and God. For me, well, yes there are mysteries, and I'm not concerned about not having all the answers. For now we see as through a glass, darkly.

The issue of one's eternal security or insecurity is too important to not understand. The Bible does NOT teach both views. Or God's Word is contradicted.

 

[FreeGrace]

Obviously, there is truth. It may be OSAS, OS-Not-AS or perhaps some permutation that we don't presently grasp. My point is that if the Bible is your source of truth, the reality is that the Bible contains multiple verses that support both positions.

That simply is NOT possible. The truth is that only one position is true, and the view is only "seen as true, but not really true.

That's why we're to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Those who hold a contrary position are not going to be driven into submission by "your" Bible verses because they have "their" Bible verses, which happen to fit better with their understanding of other verses and doctrines and their overall Christian perspective.

The hope is that when truth is presented, the Holy Spirit will make that clear to all who truly desire to know the truth.

 

[gr8grace3]

Do you honestly believe that the Bible is so vague that it teaches both positions? These positions are diametrically opposed. How could Scripture teach 2 opposing ideas? How does that make sense?


Such an idea leads to the conclusion that Scripture is internally contradicted. Is that your position?


I'm sure there are people who would argue the exact same thing for how to be saved in Scripture: by grace through faith apart from works, and by faith plus works. How does that help anyone understand God's Word.

Paul wrote that we are to be approved workmen, rightly dividing the Word of Truth in 2 Tim 2:15.


Your view is internally contradicted and helps no one.

Truth cannot go "both ways".

No response necessary.

But you got this stuff down brother! Wow.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think you've been given the answer several time. Yes it addresses eternal security. What you understand it to be is up to you.

Am I sensing a dodge here? There is either about eternal security, or it is not about eternal security.

If the verse "addresses" eternal security, it either supports it or denies it. So, which do you think it is? If not supporting eternal security, please explain why not. Thanks.

That's all this thread is about. Getting those who don't believe in eternal security to explain what this verse teaches. How they understand the phrase "made perfect forever".

 

[gr8grace3]

The hope is that when truth is presented, the Holy Spirit will make that clear to all who truly desire to know the truth.

And I want to be on record that this is my motivation also. I want to see believers succeed in the Christian way of life. Not living in doubt or uncertainty of their salvation and direction. We have the opportunity/privilege to glorify Christ and cast our crowns at His feet in the eternal state. I would LOVE to see believers casting as many crowns as possible at His feet.

 

[Mike S]

Am I sensing a dodge here? There is either about eternal security, or it is not about eternal security.

I don't know what you're sensing.

If the verse "addresses" eternal security, it either supports it or denies it. So, which do you think it is? If not supporting eternal security, please explain why not. Thanks.

That's all this thread is about. Getting those who don't believe in eternal security to explain what this verse teaches. How they understand the phrase "made perfect forever".

If you think you have certainty, good for you. Others will no, and it's completely unimportant in any event. Knowing the answer would make no difference in how I live my life as a Christian. As far as salvation is concerned, I leave it up to God. He is sovereign. If you want to obsess about it, that's up to you.

 

[gr8grace3]

Others will no, and it's completely unimportant in any event. Knowing the answer would make no difference in how I live my life as a Christian.

Maybe not outwardly, but inwardly it would make a HUGE difference.

 

[daninthelionsden]

I agree.

There are mysteries to our faith that I'm willing to live with.

AMEN

 

[Mike]

How about addressing the verse in question? I would appreciate your interpretation of it.

This is a point that needs to be emphasized here. I've seen a page & a half of opposition without any scripture to support it. Everyone should ensure to be adhering to the Rules of the A&T, particularly in using scripture to refute anything someone has said.

 

[Mike S]

This is a point that needs to be emphasized here. I've seen a page & a half of opposition without any scripture to support it. Everyone should ensure to be adhering to the Rules of the A&T, particularly in using scripture to refute anything someone has said.

My comments have concerned Hebrews 10:14 - the OP - and nothing else. I'm not refuting the scripture itself, only someone's interpretation. The issue seems to be whether or not scripture has to be interpreted, and if so, can there be more than one interpretation.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Am I sensing a dodge here? There is either about eternal security, or it is not about eternal security."

I don't know what you're sensing.

Does this mean not understanding what a dodge is? It's not answering a question, deflecting from answering. Now you know.

Then I said this:
"If the verse "addresses" eternal security, it either supports it or denies it. So, which do you think it is? If not supporting eternal security, please explain why not. Thanks.

That's all this thread is about. Getting those who don't believe in eternal security to explain what this verse teaches. How they understand the phrase "made perfect forever"."

If you think you have certainty, good for you. Others will no, and it's completely unimportant in any event.

How does this response relate to my comment? I'm just interested in how the anti-eternal security folk will explain the verse.

Knowing the answer would make no difference in how I live my life as a Christian. As far as salvation is concerned, I leave it up to God. He is sovereign. If you want to obsess about it, that's up to you.

There are many believers who are unconcerned about what God's word says and means. But the foundation of the Christian walk is based on knowledge of Scripture.

iow, one cannot walk until one knows.

 

[FreeGrace]

My comments have concerned Hebrews 10:14 - the OP - and nothing else. I'm not refuting the scripture itself, only someone's interpretation. The issue seems to be whether or not scripture has to be interpreted, and if so, can there be more than one interpretation.

You've misunderstood the OP then. I've asked the anti-eternal security folk to explain what the verse means.

If any verse can have "more than one interpretation", and the various interpretations contradict each other, then Scripture is flawed tremendously and cannot be trusted.

 

[Runner]

This is a point that needs to be emphasized here. I've seen a page & a half of opposition without any scripture to support it. Everyone should ensure to be adhering to the Rules of the A&T, particularly in using scripture to refute anything someone has said.

When the issue being discussed is one that has divided the Christian community approximately in half, I'm not sure what is accomplished by posters slinging Bible verses back and forth. Christian theologians, scholars and pastors of the highest level have found the OS-Not-AS position in the Bible since the earliest days of Christianity and continuing until the present time - OSAS is a comparative newcomer, in fact. Since I am apparently obligated to sling Bible verses, I will note that these OS-Not-AS theologians, scholars and pastors have found the doctrine in Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-27, 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Colossians 1:21-23, Matthew 10:22, John 15:1-8 and many others. No one on this forum is going to "prove" these theologians, scholars and pastors "wrong." The best someone holding the OSAS position can do is show that OSAS likewise has biblical support and is not unreasonable. (Hebrews 10:14 doesn't strike me as one of the stronger verses in support of OSAS; it strikes me as equally compatible with OS-Not-AS, but whatever - neither position hangs on a single verse.)

The complaint that I and others are suggesting the Bible is "contradictory" or "teaches untruth" is a red herring. The fact that Bible verses appear to point in different directions does not mean the Bible contradicts itself or teaches untruth. I've said on other posts that it is indeed somewhat troubling to me that the Bible isn't clearer about certain key doctrines, but the fact is it isn't. Requiring us to think, interpret, debate and pray for guidance is apparently part of God's plan.

The debate over this doctrine brings to mind Pascal's Wager: If I bet OS-Not-AS is true and live my life as though it were, what have I lost? If I bet OSAS is true and live my life as though it were, however, I could be making a tragic mistake. This is one of the key arguments against the OSAS position - i.e., it teaches a cheap and easy salvation that can easily be misinterpreted as suggesting "It doesn't matter what I think or do from now on." This argument would have no force, of course, if OSAS were clearly and unequivocally taught in the Bible - but it isn't.

In terms of harmonizing the verses, it seems to me that the verses pointing toward OSAS can far more easily be reconciled with the OS-Not-AS verses than the OS-Not-AS verses can be harmonized with the OSAS verses. The OS-Not-AS verses are pretty much impossible to reconcile with the OSAS verses, except through unconvincing semantic gyrations. The OSAS verses, on the other hand, can largely be read as a "subset" of or "shorthand" for OS-Not-AS. This doesn't mean OS-Not-AS is "right," but it is a point in its favor.

Those who hold to the OSAS position: Good for you. I hope for your sake it is true. It has a definite appeal. It has biblical support. It has been held by many theologians, scholars and pastors. It was my understanding when I was born again 45 years ago. It doesn't seem to me the position that has the stronger biblical support, but it could certainly be true. But don't try to prove it is "right" and OS-Not-AS is "wrong" because that effort is going nowhere.

Somewhat oddly, I found this tidy passage on a Baptist site advocating for the OSAS position:

It is important to further emphasize the fact that the doctrine of eternal security does not promise safety for anyone who merely professes Christ. In the following study we see that the Bible connects eternal security only with the true believer, the one who has been born again, and differentiates him with the mere professor. Who has eternal security -- (1) Those who continue in the word (Jn. 8:31,32). (2) Those who follow Christ (Jn. 10:27-28). (3) Those who bring forth fruit (Jn. 15:2; Lk. 3:9). (4) Those who are led by the Spirit of God (Ro. 8:14-15). (5) Those who have been born again (2 Co. 5:17; Ep. 2:10; Ga. 6:15). (6) Those who are sanctified from an unrighteous way of life (1 Co. 6:9-11). (7) Those who have demonstrated their election (1 Th. 1:4-10). (8) Those who depart from iniquity (2 Ti. 2:19). (9) Those who maintain their confidence in Christ (He. 3:14). (10) Those who have an undivided, convinced faith (He. 4:10,11). (11) Those who evidence the “things that accompany salvation” (He. 6:9-12). (12) Those who are looking for Christ’s return (He. 9:28). (13) Those who remain patient and steadfast in tribulations (He. 10:35-39). (14) Those who are in the truth and continue in the truth (1 Jn. 2:19-21; 2 Jn. 1-2). (15) Those who are purifying themselves (1 Jn. 3:1-3). (16) Those who love the brethren (1 Jn. 3:14).
​

In this instance, OSAS sounds to me an awful lot like OS-Not-AS. If only a "true believer" has "eternal security" and being a true believer equates to "fulfilling conditions (1)-(16) inclusive," how is that different from OS-Not-AS?

 

[Runner]

This doesn't address the OP. Does Heb 10:14 teach or at least indicate eternal security or not? If not, please explain why not. Thanks.

Although the verse as you have quoted it is an accepted translation, the preferred one seems to be "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (NASB). To play armchair theologian along with everyone else, it seems to me this verse is talking about Jesus' one-time sacrifice, not about the eternal security of believers. No one denies Jesus' one-time sacrifice was sufficient to accomplish His mission for all time. The question would be, what does "those who are being sanctified" or "those who are sanctified" mean? Sanctification is commonly understood as being "conformed to the image of Christ." In other words, sanctification is a process. Is it your understanding that believers are sanctified when they are born again? If I had to choose between this verse in isolation as supporting OSAS or OS-Not-AS, the stronger argument seems to me in favor of OS-Not-AS.

 

[Mike S]

Although the verse as you have quoted it is an accepted translation, the preferred one seems to be "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (NASB). To play armchair theologian along with everyone else, it seems to me this verse is talking about Jesus' one-time sacrifice, not about the eternal security of believers. No one denies Jesus' one-time sacrifice was sufficient to accomplish His mission for all time. The question would be, what does "those who are being sanctified" or "those who are sanctified" mean? Sanctification is commonly understood as being "conformed to the image of Christ." In other words, sanctification is a process. Is it your understanding that believers are sanctified when they are born again? If I had to choose between this verse in isolation as supporting OSAS or OS-Not-AS, the stronger argument seems to me in favor of OS-Not-AS.

Well said.

 

[FreeGrace]

When the issue being discussed is one that has divided the Christian community approximately in half, I'm not sure what is accomplished by posters slinging Bible verses back and forth. Christian theologians, scholars and pastors of the highest level have found the OS-Not-AS position in the Bible since the earliest days of Christianity and continuing until the present time

All the verses presented as evidence can be much better explained to show that it is not salvation that can be lost.

The Bible teaches that eternal life itself is a gift of God, and in the same letter to the Romans, Paul wrote that the gifts of God are irrevocable. It's just not that hard to do the math here.

- OSAS is a comparative newcomer, in fact.

The real fact is that Jesus promised that those who believe WILL NEVER PERISH; not once, but twice: John 5:24 and John 10:28. We either believe Him or we do not believe Him.

(Hebrews 10:14 doesn't strike me as one of the stronger verses in support of OSAS; it strikes me as equally compatible with OS-Not-AS, but whatever - neither position hangs on a single verse.)

So, what does Heb 10:14 teach about having been perfected forever?

The complaint that I and others are suggesting the Bible is "contradictory" or "teaches untruth" is a red herring.

That's your opinion. But if there are verses that teach opposite claims, then the Bible simply is contradictory.

The fact that Bible verses appear to point in different directions does not mean the Bible contradicts itself or teaches untruth. I've said on other posts that it is indeed somewhat troubling to me that the Bible isn't clearer about certain key doctrines, but the fact is it isn't. Requiring us to think, interpret, debate and pray for guidance is apparently part of God's plan.

The debate over this doctrine brings to mind Pascal's Wager: If I bet OS-Not-AS is true and live my life as though it were, what have I lost? If I bet OSAS is true and live my life as though it were, however, I could be making a tragic mistake. This is one of the key arguments against the OSAS position - i.e., it teaches a cheap and easy salvation that can easily be misinterpreted as suggesting "It doesn't matter what I think or do from now on." This argument would have no force, of course, if OSAS were clearly and unequivocally taught in the Bible - but it isn't.

The real problem is those who make that very stupid mistake of thinking that it doesn't matter. It matters a great deal. One's blessings in this life, and eternal rewards in the next life are totally dependent upon how we live our lives now.

The whole problem with loss of salvation view is it's disrespect of God's grace. And what Christ did on the Cross. If salvation can be lost, then Christ's work on the Cross just wasn't all that great or complete. That is exactly the conclusion if salvation can be lost.