Heb 10:14 teaches eternal security

[FreeGrace]

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.

Interesting interpretation. Thanks. But the verse isn't talking about Christ's once for all sacrifice. What is "for all time" is what He "has perfected". That's US. That's what salvation is about. So it IS talking about eternal security.

 

[Mike S]

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.

How is your interpretation of Heb. 10:14, or your understanding of OSAS, going to change how you live your Christian life?

 

[Runner]

Interesting interpretation. Thanks. But the verse isn't talking about Christ's once for all sacrifice. What is "for all time" is what He "has perfected". That's US. That's what salvation is about. So it IS talking about eternal security.

Let's take my good buddy Joe: While in prison for knifing a member of a rival biker gang, Joe sincerely - in his mind, in his heart, and to all outward appearances - is born again. For 18 months, he is a veritable Jesus freak, believing and giving all outward appearances he has been saved. At the end of 18 months, however, Joe's head is turned by a convincing Muslim proselytizer. For three years, Joe becomes a committed Muslim, going so far as to behead a couple of infidels just to show the depth of his commitment. At the end of the three years, however, Joe decides the whole Muslim thing just isn't working for him either, so he buys a Harley and rejoins the Outlaws. He spends the rest of his life as a rampaging biker, doing all the things rampaging bikers do with nary a thought of Jesus.

Is Joe who Hebrews 10:14 is talking about? Is he "sanctified" or "being sanctified"? Because if he isn't, he isn't who Hebrews 10:14 is talking about.

I don't disagree with the interpretation that 10:14 is saying that Jesus has "perfected, for all time" the salvation of those who "are sanctified" or perhaps "are being sanctified." What I question is the notion that Joe's sincere acceptance of Jesus and his 18 months of sincerely trying to live a Christian life made him "sanctified." My notion is that those who completely fall away are neither "sanctified" nor "being sanctified."

The typical OSAS response is that "Joe was never really born again" - but let's not go there, because my Parable of Joe assumes he was indeed born again.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying OSAS is "wrong" or even unreasonable. Here I'm merely saying Hebrews 10:14 doesn't seem to support it. If it said, ""For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who have believed in His name," or "those who have been born again," that would be a different discussion.

The larger issue to me in the entire OSAS / OS-Not-AS debate is, what does it mean to "believe" in Jesus (or even to "believe in His name")? When all the verses are considered together, the better argument seems to me to be that "believing" in Jesus is, like sanctification, a process, not something that happens at a moment in time. Being born again begins that process but is not, in itself, "believing."

 

[FreeGrace]

How is your interpretation of Heb. 10:14, or your understanding of OSAS, going to change how you live your Christian life?

By knowing that God keeps ALL of His promises, and that He never lies, since He promises eternal life, not "probationary"-eternal life.

Maybe the full scope of God's grace and the scope of the sins that Christ died for (all of them) doesn't have a lot of meaning to some, but it does to me.

Those who claim that salvation can be lost are basically arguing:
1. God's grace doesn't cover rebellion
2. Christ's death didn't cover all sins.

These are totally unbiblical. Why would any Christian believe these things?

 

[FreeGrace]

Let's take my good buddy Joe: While in prison for knifing a member of a rival biker gang, Joe sincerely - in his mind, in his heart, and to all outward appearances - is born again.

My concern is not about outward appearances, as Samuel told Jesse, father of David. It's about those who ARE born again.

For 18 months, he is a veritable Jesus freak, believing and giving all outward appearances he has been saved. At the end of 18 months, however, Joe's head is turned by a convincing Muslim proselytizer. For three years, Joe becomes a committed Muslim, going so far as to behead a couple of infidels just to show the depth of his commitment. At the end of the three years, however, Joe decides the whole Muslim thing just isn't working for him either, so he buys a Harley and rejoins the Outlaws. He spends the rest of his life as a rampaging biker, doing all the things rampaging bikers do with nary a thought of Jesus.

Is Joe who Hebrews 10:14 is talking about? Is he "sanctified" or "being sanctified"? Because if he isn't, he isn't who Hebrews 10:14 is talking about.

This is a typical response from the anti-eternal security ilk. Come up with the most offensive scenario possible. If this Joe was born again, then Heb 10:14 has described what Jesus Christ accomplished for Joe: "having been perfected forever". Do you believe that?

I don't disagree with the interpretation that 10:14 is saying that Jesus has "perfected, for all time" the salvation of those who "are sanctified" or perhaps "are being sanctified." What I question is the notion that Joe's sincere acceptance of Jesus and his 18 months of sincerely trying to live a Christian life made him "sanctified." My notion is that those who completely fall away are neither "sanctified" nor "being sanctified."

The Bible describes two kinds of sanctification. The first one is positional sanctification; that when we believe, we are placed "in Christ" per #Eph 1:13, and share in His sanctification (holiness).

The second is progressive sanctification, which is also called spiritual growth, or growing up in the faith. Peter put it this way:
1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation NIV

Even Joe was positionally sanctified when he believed. But from your scenario, he never grew up in the faith. He was never progressively sanctified.

The typical OSAS response is that "Joe was never really born again" - but let's not go there, because my Parable of Joe assumes he was indeed born again.

That's not typical unless one is considering the Calvinist view, which I reject.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying OSAS is "wrong" or even unreasonable. Here I'm merely saying Hebrews 10:14 doesn't seem to support it.

Well then, please explain how it doesn't support OSAS. That's exactly what this thread is about.

If it said, ""For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who have believed in His name," or "those who have been born again," that would be a different discussion.

Just deal with what it does say.

The larger issue to me in the entire OSAS / OS-Not-AS debate is, what does it mean to "believe" in Jesus (or even to "believe in His name")? When all the verses are considered together, the better argument seems to me to be that "believing" in Jesus is, like sanctification, a process, not something that happens at a moment in time. Being born again begins that process but is not, in itself, "believing."

Back to the verse. If it doesn't support OSAS, please explain why not.

Thanks.

 

[Runner]

This is a typical response from the anti-eternal security ilk. Come up with the most offensive scenario possible. If this Joe was born again, then Heb 10:14 has described what Jesus Christ accomplished for Joe: "having been perfected forever". Do you believe that?

No, I don't believe that. If I believed that, I would be in the OSAS camp. I believe Jesus perfected forever the salvation of those who remain in the faith - those who are "being sanctified" to the end. Or at least I believe that this is the most plausible reading of the Bible verses as a whole, including Hebrews 10:14. The discussion is becoming entirely circular. When I have outlined as clearly as I can why it does not appear to me that 10:14 supports OSAS, and you then come back with "If it doesn't support OSAS, please explain why not," it's time to move on. No one is going to explain to your satisfaction "why not," Those who have ears to hear let them hear, as the saying goes.

 

[FreeGrace]

No, I don't believe that. If I believed that, I would be in the OSAS camp. I believe Jesus perfected forever the salvation of those who remain in the faith - those who are "being sanctified" to the end.

Except the verse doesn't say what you've added to the verse.

Or at least I believe that this is the most plausible reading of the Bible verses as a whole, including Hebrews 10:14.

Seems more like adding to (or in some cases, removing) words to make your case.

The discussion is becoming entirely circular. When I have outlined as clearly as I can why it does not appear to me that 10:14 supports OSAS, and you then come back with "If it doesn't support OSAS, please explain why not," it's time to move on.

OK, move on. But from the above, it's clear that your style is to add to what Scripture says, not address exactly what Scripture says.

No one is going to explain to your satisfaction "why not,"

I'm always interested in hearing what others think about verses.

 

[Mike S]

By knowing that God keeps ALL of His promises, and that He never lies, since He promises eternal life, not "probationary"-eternal life.

Maybe the full scope of God's grace and the scope of the sins that Christ died for (all of them) doesn't have a lot of meaning to some, but it does to me.

Those who claim that salvation can be lost are basically arguing:
1. God's grace doesn't cover rebellion
2. Christ's death didn't cover all sins.

These are totally unbiblical. Why would any Christian believe these things?

You didn't answer my question. How would the interpretation change the way you live your Christian life? Would either interpretation lead you to abandon Christian behavior?

 

[Runner]

Except the verse doesn't say what you've added to the verse.


Seems more like adding to (or in some cases, removing) words to make your case.


OK, move on. But from the above, it's clear that your style is to add to what Scripture says, not address exactly what Scripture says.


I'm always interested in hearing what others think about verses.

Let's examine the verse in context (as translated in the New American Standard, regarded as the most literal of translations):

11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

In contrast to the priests, who must offer daily sacrifices to temporarily appease God, Jesus has offered one sacrifice that actually takes away sins and satisfies God for all time. The verses are about the sacrifice of Jesus, not the eternal security of believers. Jesus' one sacrifice has "perfected for all time" who? "Those who are sanctified," that's who. Who is sanctified? Are you sanctified when you are born again? This is really the central question. One view is that you are sanctified when you are born again, in the sense of being "set apart for God" (the technical meaning of the Greek word translated as "sanctified") and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. This is called "positional sanctification." It is the view that someone who is wedded to the OSAS position must hold. A more common understanding of sanctification is "being conformed to the image of Christ." This is the ongoing process that (hopefully) occurs throughout the life of the believer. This understanding of sanctification is consistent with the alternate reading of 10:14 that you used in your OP - "being sanctified" or "being made holy." This view is fully consistent with the OS-Not-AS position. More likely, both OSAS and OS-Not-AS proponents would be reading too much into 10:14, since I really don't think the verse is talking about eternal security at all. Its focus is on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice in comparison to the ineffectual sacrifices of the priests.

I have added precisely nada, zero, zilch to 10:14. Your suggestion that I am "adding" something to the verse is simply nonsense. I'm beginning to think the problem here is reading comprehension - and probably not on my part, since I have made a pretty good living dissecting technical arguments for almost 40 years. It's fine with me if you want to believe 10:14 supports your OSAS position, but it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who keeps responding with an endless stream of red herrings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I really don't think the verse is talking about eternal security at all. Its focus is on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice in comparison to the ineffectual sacrifices of the priests.

Yes. Few can see that because few know it and teach it to others.

I'm beginning to think the problem here is reading comprehension

I'm completely sure of that.
I came to this very same conclusion about a month ago. I almost pointed it out to a certain poster here.

 

[FreeGrace]

You didn't answer my question. How would the interpretation change the way you live your Christian life? Would either interpretation lead you to abandon Christian behavior?

There is no stock answer. Some HAVE abandoned Christian behavior, and others haven't.

But to your question, the only issue is what the Bible teaches.

For those who believe that their salvation can be removed are then motivated by a WRONG motive. And such a belief shows ignorance of God's grace and Christ's payment of the sin debt really means.

And such a view leads to legalism, which Jesus thoroughly denounced during His ministry.

No thank you.

 

[FreeGrace]

Let's examine the verse in context (as translated in the New American Standard, regarded as the most literal of translations):

11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

In contrast to the priests, who must offer daily sacrifices to temporarily appease God, Jesus has offered one sacrifice that actually takes away sins and satisfies God for all time. The verses are about the sacrifice of Jesus, not the eternal security of believers.

I disagree, for this reason. v.14 is about "those who are sanctified". It's NOT about what "satisfies God for all time". That isn't even in the verse.

Consider the meaning of the Greek word translated "for all time". My lexicon says "extended, prolonged, continuous, uninterrupted". So, what has been thus extended, continuous, uninterrupted? Having been perfected, that's what.

Jesus' one sacrifice has "perfected for all time" who? "Those who are sanctified," that's who. Who is sanctified? Are you sanctified when you are born again? This is really the central question.

Those who believe are positionally sanctified, because believers are placed "in Christ" (Eph 1:13) and share His sanctification.

One view is that you are sanctified when you are born again, in the sense of being "set apart for God" (the technical meaning of the Greek word translated as "sanctified") and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. This is called "positional sanctification." It is the view that someone who is wedded to the OSAS position must hold.

There is no wedding here. It is a fact because of positional sanctificationn.

A more common understanding of sanctification is "being conformed to the image of Christ." This is the ongoing process that (hopefully) occurs throughout the life of the believer.

This is the other way sanctification is used in Scripture. For progressive sanctification, or spiritual growth.

This understanding of sanctification is consistent with the alternate reading of 10:14 that you used in your OP - "being sanctified" or "being made holy."

The "being made holy" refers to spiritual growth or progressive sanctification. But the first part of the verse clearly states that the believer has been made perfect for all time. That's positional sanctification.

 

[Butch5]

Here is another verse that speaks of eternal security:
Heb 10:14
because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. NIV

"has made perfect" is in the perfect tense, which means a completed action in the past with continuing results. Then, the writer added "forever" to seal the deal. The completed action of being made perfect goes on FOREVER.

And to whom is this describing? To "those who are being made holy". Present tense.

The phrase 'those who are being made holy' refers to believers and the progressive sanctification process of spiritual growth.

So, even as believers are "being made holy" via the sanctification process, they are ALREADY MADE PERFECT.

So, to those who still think that salvation can be lost, please explain how this verse doesn't teach eternal security.

Or, just explain what it does teach.

It's simple, context.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"So, to those who still think that salvation can be lost, please explain how this verse doesn't teach eternal security.

Or, just explain what it does teach."

It's simple, context.

Your response doesn't.

 

[Butch5]

I said this:
"So, to those who still think that salvation can be lost, please explain how this verse doesn't teach eternal security.

Or, just explain what it does teach."

Your response doesn't.

\
No, it doesn't. I've learned that there is no point in attempting to do so. If salvation can't be lost show me a verse that says so. Anything other than a statement from Scripture is just one person's interpretation. Since you haven't provided a passage of Scripture that states salvation can't be lost, you're just giving us your interpretation of the passage. Please tell me why I should accept your interpretation of the passage over anyone else's. In addition please tell me why I should accept your interpretation when you have taken a single verse of Scripture, pulled it from it's context and imposed your belief on it. If you can show me from the context of the book of Hebrews how Paul is teaching what you claim then I'd be inclined to listen to your interpretation. However, by taking just a single verse of Scripture from it's context one could "prove" just about any doctrine they want to. Using the very same argument that you've used here I could post a passage of Scripture to "prove" that one can lose their salvation.

 

[Jim Parker]

Here is another verse that speaks of eternal security:
Heb 10:14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. NIV

"has made perfect" is in the perfect tense, which means a completed action in the past with continuing results. Then, the writer added "forever" to seal the deal. The completed action of being made perfect goes on FOREVER.
And to whom is this describing? To "those who are being made holy". Present tense.
The phrase 'those who are being made holy' refers to believers and the progressive sanctification process of spiritual growth.
So, even as believers are "being made holy" via the sanctification process, they are ALREADY MADE PERFECT.
So, to those who still think that salvation can be lost, please explain how this verse doesn't teach eternal security.
Or, just explain what it does teach.

Once again, you have indulged in the vivisection of scripture in order to excise a scrap of from the body which you can use to fabricate a facade for the "eternal security" nonsense.

You completely miss the point of that verse because you have removed that snippet from its context of the teachingof the entire chapter that Christ's sacrifice for sin was done once foll all the sins of all mankind from Adam to the last man to commit the last sin before the return of Christ. So, if you intend to force that piece of scripture which you have ripped from the corpus to support that salvation is permanent then you must also take what comes along with your snippet, that it is for all mankind. So if that one verse proves eternal security (which it certainly does not) then it must also prove universal salvation (which it also certainly does not.)

You also completely miss the irony of lifting that "proof-text" out of the very same letter which explicitly states, in so many words, that salvation can, indeed, be lost.

Heb 6:4-8 (NKJV) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

The word "enlightened" is the 1st century Greek word used by Christians as the equivalent of our modern English usage of the word, "Saved." It is made clear that the author is talking about a "once and no longer saved" person by stating that the apostate person had been "a partaker of the Holy Spirit" who had "tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come". Those are the experiences only of those who have been saved.

That passage specifically addresses the situation of one who had been saved and has fallen from the state of salvation: "it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.."

But, that's what happens when you look for "proof-texts" thinking you can, by their employment, prove your case. It is sloppy exegesis that produces poor results. I this case, you only proved that you missed the message of the passage from which you improperly snatched a piece.

I'd say, "Nice try." but it didn't even come close.


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. Thou shalt not snivel! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[gr8grace3]

Once again, you have indulged in the vivisection of scripture in order to excise a scrap of from the body which you can use to fabricate a facade for the "eternal security" nonsense.

You completely miss the point of that verse because you have removed that snippet from its context of the teachingof the entire chapter that Christ's sacrifice for sin was done once foll all the sins of all mankind from Adam to the last man to commit the last sin before the return of Christ. So, if you intend to force that piece of scripture which you have ripped from the corpus to support that salvation is permanent then you must also take what comes along with your snippet, that it is for all mankind. So if that one verse proves eternal security (which it certainly does not) then it must also prove universal salvation (which it also certainly does not.)

You also completely miss the irony of lifting that "proof-text" out of the very same letter which explicitly states, in so many words, that salvation can, indeed, be lost.

Heb 6:4-8 (NKJV) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

The word "enlightened" is the 1st century Greek word used by Christians as the equivalent of our modern English usage of the word, "Saved." It is made clear that the author is talking about a "once and no longer saved" person by stating that the apostate person had been "a partaker of the Holy Spirit" who had "tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come". Those are the experiences only of those who have been saved.

That passage specifically addresses the situation of one who had been saved and has fallen from the state of salvation: "it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.."

But, that's what happens when you look for "proof-texts" thinking you can, by their employment, prove your case. It is sloppy exegesis that produces poor results. I this case, you only proved that you missed the message of the passage from which you improperly snatched a piece.

I'd say, "Nice try." but it didn't even come close.


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. Thou shalt not snivel! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Heb 6:4-8 Actually teaches eternal security. But it ain't pretty for that believer..It was specifically talking about Jews who were saved and reverted back into their religion and sacrificing animal's.

In today's Christianity, it would be akin to saying, " We can lose salvation." They put Christ to open shame and The Lord Jesus Christ is crucified again. These believers, if they don't revert back to Grace protocol rather than the legalism they have reverted to, are CLOSE to being cursed.......and burned.

1 Cor 3:15~~New American Standard Bible
If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[Mike S]

However, by taking just a single verse of Scripture from it's context one could "prove" just about any doctrine they want to. Using the very same argument that you've used here I could post a passage of Scripture to "prove" that one can lose their salvation.

I agree.

This is why almost nothing is ever gained from having this kind of theological discussion. We can offer each other our own interpretations, and not much more.

 

[Roro1972]

has made perfect" is in the perfect tense, which means a completed action in the past with continuing results. Then, the writer added "forever" to seal the deal

if this writer added the word "forever" rather than being inspired by God to write "forever" into the verse.
then how many more verses have been added to by other writers we could have a Bible that is not inspired if so.

 

[gr8grace3]

if this writer added the word "forever" rather than being inspired by God to write "forever" into the verse.
then how many more verses have been added to by other writers we could have a Bible that is not inspired if so.

Its the perfect tense brother. Let me ask this. Does the writer have the authority to add "forever" to this verse?......."forever" is not technically in there but the perfect tense is, so "forever" can and should be added.
Heb 7:28~~New American Standard Bible
For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

teleiow ~~5048 perfect tense/ pas/ acc s mas-Ptc I am completing


The same word and perfect tense used in Heb 10:14.

New American Standard Bible
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

teleiow ~~5048 perfect tense/ act/ ind 3s ---verb *he hath perfected