Have i committed the what is described in Hebrews 10:26 please any help would be appreciated

[The_Watchers_2017]

If one believes you can't lose your salvation then is there a desire not to do sexual sin?

none of us has real self control. once we are Saved, the Holy Spirit, will communicate to us every correct from incorrect choices to make. I would say, it is a good possibility, for those who think we have a license to Sin would definitely be more than likely a secret Adulterer too.

Or even worry about it? Or are we to live a life of self-control and demonstrate we have the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives?

I agree with what you say.
I also believe we can do like Paul did, crucify ourselves.
But even Paul admitted to being the worst sinner.
as Righteous as we place Paul, i bet he sinned equally as bad that we do.
He, just knew it was a Battle, he was trying through God to conquer it, and he was as human as we are.
he lived in the State of Mind of NO CONDEMNATION.
he was mad he would sin and seek forgiveness, but he moved on from it and did not allow it to get the best of him.

Look at Peter.
eat, sleep, drink, 24/7 with God Himself.
in 3 easy questions, he had no issue LYING.
And no doubt, at some point during each question, he had planned on telling the truth.
but he didn't, he lied, he chose to lie, and he successfully did lie.
even Peter, made his way back to the other Disciples and found his Place again.

Judas, he too, could have asked for Forgiveness.
but look how he dealt with his Sin.
it CONDEMNED him.
he killed himself.
he allowed his Sin, that literally Saved the Ones who follow God, to be more than he could bare.
Jesus, would have forgiven him.
but he lived in Condemnation.

 

[CS1]

none of us has real self control. once we are Saved, the Holy Spirit, will communicate to us every correct from incorrect choices to make. I would say, it is a good possibility, for those who think we have a license to Sin would definitely be more than likely a secret Adulterer too.

I agree with what you say.
I also believe we can do like Paul did, crucify ourselves.
But even Paul admitted to being the worst sinner.
as Righteous as we place Paul, i bet he sinned equally as bad that we do.
He, just knew it was a Battle, he was trying through God to conquer it, and he was as human as we are.
he lived in the State of Mind of NO CONDEMNATION.
he was mad he would sin and seek forgiveness, but he moved on from it and did not allow it to get the best of him.

Look at Peter.
eat, sleep, drink, 24/7 with God Himself.
in 3 easy questions, he had no issue LYING.
And no doubt, at some point during each question, he had planned on telling the truth.
but he didn't, he lied, he chose to lie, and he successfully did lie.
even Peter, made his way back to the other Disciples and found his Place again.

Judas, he too, could have asked for Forgiveness.
but look how he dealt with his Sin.
it CONDEMNED him.
he killed himself.
he allowed his Sin, that literally Saved the Ones who follow God, to be more than he could bare.
Jesus, would have forgiven him.
but he lived in Condemnation.

]


Pauls's statement about being the chief of sinners was past tense. Before He met Christ. There is no bad report of Paul after his conversion. Also your Peter did sin before the Christ and it is recorded. Yet no bad report after the Resurrection.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

]


Pauls's statement about being the chief of sinners was past tense. Before He met Christ. There is no bad report of Paul after his conversion. Also your Peter did sin before the Christ and it is recorded. Yet no bad report after the Resurrection.

My point is Paul said he crucified his flesh daily. This means he's still having temptations but he's overcoming them through God.

They're all true Men of God even Moses when God said SPEAK to the Rock but he SMACKED the Rock instead and missed the Promised Land.

Still Sinning even after we Know God.

David, confesses this truth a 100 times in the Psalms.

You nor Paul nor anyone is magically sin free because we have God. We're still tempted and we still fail.

 

[Adstar]

Repent is an action done by a person who the Holy Spirit has convicted of sin, creating a godly sorrow where they see their need for Christ and forgiveness.

I actually agree with this definiton..

Sanctification

is the process of the believer as they grow in grace and knowledge after being saved

Where do you obtain Biblical support for the belief that sanctification is a process taking some time?

 

[CS1]

I actually agree with this definiton..



Where do you obtain Biblical support for the belief that sanctification is a process taking some time?

Great question
1. we grow in the Grace and knowledge 2Pet 2:38



2. Hebrews 10:11-14

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


3. Your mind is to be renewed. That is a process Romans 12:2

2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.


When Peter Met Jesus, did he not have to learn to change? Even after three years of Ministry with Jesus, Peter Denied the Lord, Did Jesus cast him away ? Peter learned was given grace and the Holy Spirit.


Salvation is instantaneous. Sanctification is a process of transformation while on earth in this fleshly Body. We are learning to die to it daily and crucify its desires.

Was there not a process of the High Preist before he went into the Holy of Holies ?

 

[CS1]

Great question
1. we grow in the Grace and knowledge 2Pet 2:38



2. Hebrews 10:11-14

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


3. Your mind is to be renewed. That is a process Romans 12:2

2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.


When Peter Met Jesus, did he not have to learn to change? Even after three years of Ministry with Jesus, Peter Denied the Lord, Did Jesus cast him away ? Peter learned was given grace and the Holy Spirit.


Salvation is instantaneous. Sanctification is a process of transformation while on earth in this fleshly Body. We are learning to die to it daily and crucify its desires.

Was there not a process of the High Preist before he went into the Holy of Holies ?

also, so will argue it is a position.

That can be true too, yet even the king and prophet had to learn how to be a king and Prophet.

 

[Adstar]

Great question
1. we grow in the Grace and knowledge 2Pet 2:38

But is that sanctification?

2. Hebrews 10:11-14

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Those being sactified.. Could well mean those who are coming to believe Jesus and trust in the atonement He secured on the cross..

3. Your mind is to be renewed. That is a process Romans 12:2

2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Is renewel of ones mind the same as santification? It is a process yes.. But is it sanctification....

When Peter Met Jesus, did he not have to learn to change? Even after three years of Ministry with Jesus, Peter Denied the Lord, Did Jesus cast him away ? Peter learned was given grace and the Holy Spirit.

I believe Peter became a Saint on the day of penticost when the Holy Spirit came down and entered into Him along with the other apostles gathered together..

Salvation is instantaneous. Sanctification is a process of transformation while on earth in this fleshly Body. We are learning to die to it daily and crucify its desires.

I believe if one is saved one is a Saint So yeah i believe salvation happens at the moment one trusts in the atonement of Jesus for ones eternal place with God..

Was there not a process of the High Preist before he went into the Holy of Holies ?

Yes.. But did that take a life time?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

]


Pauls's statement about being the chief of sinners was past tense. Before He met Christ. There is no bad report of Paul after his conversion. Also your Peter did sin before the Christ and it is recorded. Yet no bad report after the Resurrection.

Paul confronted him about his hypocrisy which is sin.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
Galatians 2:11‭-‬13 NKJV

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Also, i guess you throw out 2 Corinthians 2 where a man put out due to sin was to be restored and forgiven of the grief that he had caused.
The warning in Hebrews is about apostacy leacing Christ and returning to animal sacrifice. If one were to bother to simply read the entire chapter its easy to see, but somehow folk read eaxh verse as an axiom to itself.

 

[CS1]

Paul confronted him about his hypocrisy which is sin.

Paul confronts Peter. I said Pual statement of being the " Chief of sinners was before He met Christ the statement by Paul was not saying

I am still the chief of sinners.

 

[DJT_47]

Also, i guess you throw out 2 Corinthians 2 where a man put out due to sin was to be restored and forgiven of the grief that he had caused.
The warning in Hebrews is about apostacy leacing Christ and returning to animal sacrifice. If one were to bother to simply read the entire chapter its easy to see, but somehow folk read eaxh verse as an axiom to itself.

Yes; and Hebrews is one of those letters that is best to read the whole thing from the beginning in one sitting to keep it in context. People never seem to realize that the scriptures weren't written to us today, but to them back then 2000 plus yrs ago, addressing their issues of the day. When you understand that, if ever, as some don't and/or refuse to, then it's easier to understand scripture and how it applies to us today, as it may be applicable. This is the cause of much confusion and division within Christianity.

 

[DJT_47]

But is that sanctification?





Those being sactified.. Could well mean those who are coming to believe Jesus and trust in the atonement He secured on the cross..


Is renewel of ones mind the same as santification? It is a process yes.. But is it sanctification....






I believe Peter became a Saint on the day of penticost when the Holy Spirit came down and entered into Him along with the other apostles gathered together..



I believe if one is saved one is a Saint So yeah i believe salvation happens at the moment one trusts in the atonement of Jesus for ones eternal place with God..



Yes.. But did that take a life time?

Peter became a Saint the day he was baptized just like all other believers then and now. All Christians are saints when they become Christians, baptized into the body of Christ.

 

[rogerg]

Yes; and Hebrews is one of those letters that is best to read the whole thing from the beginning in one sitting to keep it in context. People never seem to realize that the scriptures weren't written to us today, but to them back then 2000 plus yrs ago, addressing their issues of the day. When you understand that, if ever, as some don't and/or refuse to, then it's easier to understand scripture and how it applies to us today, as it may be applicable. This is the cause of much confusion and division within Christianity.

I really didn't want to get embroiled in this discussion, but based upon the above, I feel I must.
The Bible was NOT written for, nor based upon, any particular period in history - it was not intended as a historical, cultural, issues of the day secular, book. Instead, it was written by God to expressly to teach of Christ as Saviour, and of His timeless eternal truths, which transcend any given time period. The Bible should be perceived as being standalone: its own dictionary, fully integrated across all chapter and verse, a glossary of terms, a cross reference, and a self-use instructional manual - fully self-contained, needing no addition for its mission beyond what is already there. Christ is not always easy to find in it, but He is always there being its foundation.

[Psa 40:7 KJV] 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,

Only, and specifically, those rules alone that the Bible identifies about itself should be used to interpret it, not using rules that someone deems correct or may believe appropriate for such. The Bible is not to be read as any other book is, because God did not write it .

[2Co 1:12 KJV]
12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

[2Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[rogerg]

Only, and specifically, those rules alone that the Bible identifies about itself should be used to interpret it, not using rules that someone deems correct or may believe appropriate for such. The Bible is not to be read as any other book is, because God did not write it .

Correction: somehow the last part of the last sentence was unintentionally dropped off. My post currently says, "because God did not write it". Instead, it should have said "because God did not write it to be read in that way". God definitely wrote the Bible.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[DJT_47]

I really didn't want to get embroiled in this discussion, but based upon the above, I feel I must.
The Bible was NOT written for, nor based upon, any particular period in history - it was not intended as a historical, cultural, issues of the day secular, book. Instead, it was written by God to expr of Christ as Saviour, and of His timeless eternal truths, which transcend any given time period. The Bible should be perceived as being standalone: its own dictionary, fully integrated across all chapter and verse, a glossary of terms, a cross reference, and a self-use instructional manual - fully self-contained, needing no addition for its mission beyond what is already there. Christ is not always easy to find in it, but He is always there being its foundation.

[Psa 40:7 KJV] 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,

Only, and specifically, those rules alone that the Bible identifies about itself should be used to interpret it, not using rules that someone deems correct or may believe appropriate for such. The Bible is not to be read as any other book is, because God did not write it .

[2Co 1:12 KJV]
12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

[2Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Not following the point you're trying to make, but what I stated is clearly correct, corroborated by the text of the scripture itself as well as all other scriptures. Likewise, the Corinthian letters were written to THEM Not us, Ephesians likewise. Galatians, likewise, and so on. Do they have meaning and pertinenance to us? Yes. But, the issues discussed and addressed were those of the day. We tend to not understand these simple facts which skews our beliefs.

 

[rogerg]

Not following the point you're trying to make, but what I stated is clearly correct, corroborated by the text of the scripture itself as well as all other scriptures. Likewise, the Corinthian letters were written to THEM Not us, Ephesians likewise. Galatians, likewise, and so on. Do they have meaning and pertinenance to us? Yes. But, the issues discussed and addressed were those of the day. We tend to not understand these simple facts which skews our beliefs.

The crux of the Bible is solely about salvation as opposed to non-salvation. Primarily, everything in it was written by God to explain that with Christ as its foundation. Cultural issues and issues of the day are not germane to the understanding of salvation - given that salvation is essentially spiritual and not temporal - the spiritual, not the temporal issues are what are of concern. The temporal are illustrations of the spiritual. That is why in the Bible we are admonished that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation and that (amongst others) the spiritual must be compared to the spiritual to gain correct understanding. Were it as you say, then those admonitions wouldn't be necessary nor correct because to follow them would move away from immediate context, but the admonitions instead demand that the entire Bible is evaluated to find the spiritual. Without doing that, would someone be able to understand the spiritual message of Old Testament without also knowing the spiritual message of the New Testament, and vice versa? No, biblical doctrines are revealed progressively, across books, chapters and verses, from start to end - they are not localized, and so, the gospel's doctrines must be understood as being revealed globally, and analyzed in that way; that is, just by reading certain verses, no matter how obvious the message may seem to be, nor what the cultural issues at play are, will not yield correct results. As an example, we are informed by God that He used allegory to illustrate one of the most fundamental spiritual doctrines of the Bible. Since God used allegory to illuminate it, then a temporal standalone reading of other related verses, would just yield a particular piece of it, but not the whole thing. However, a part of it, should it be taken at face value, would make the interpretation of it wrong. Notice below that cultural and temporal factors are not pertinent in these verses. Here is the example:

[Gal 4:24-26 KJV]
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Do you see we are informed that beginning in the Old Testament, there were two covenants and two Jerusalem(s) symbolically portrayed? If having followed the biblical admonitions, we would therefore know to look more closely and more deeply wherever Jerusalem (in this example) is mentioned by/in other verses, and not assume which one it is though the answer might even seem obvious to us at the time - in fact, both Jerusalem(s) could be present and appropriate, yet each representing different things. Otherwise, without following the biblical admonitions and factoring in all pertinent references to form a complete, not a localized picture, we could easily come to the wrong spiritual conclusions and yet not realize it.

I'm kind of tired right now, so this is about as good as I can do right now - I hope this makes sense and doesn't sound like gobbledygook - I know I didn't do a very good job so I'll apologize in advance, plus, it is difficult to explain it in one post, but hopefully you can get a little of its gist. After I post this, I'm sure I'll think of other things I should have included and better ways of saying it - so, I reserve the right to amend and revise as necessary (lol).

 

[DJT_47]

The crux of the Bible is solely about salvation as opposed to non-salvation. Primarily, everything in it was written by God to explain that with Christ as its foundation. Cultural issues and issues of the day are not germane to the understanding of salvation - given that salvation is essentially spiritual and not temporal - the spiritual, not the temporal issues are what are of concern. The temporal are illustrations of the spiritual. That is why in the Bible we are admonished that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation and that (amongst others) the spiritual must be compared to the spiritual to gain correct understanding. Were it as you say, then those admonitions wouldn't be necessary nor correct because to follow them would move away from immediate context, but the admonitions instead demand that the entire Bible is evaluated to find the spiritual. Without doing that, would someone be able to understand the spiritual message of Old Testament without also knowing the spiritual message of the New Testament, and vice versa? No, biblical doctrines are revealed progressively, across books, chapters and verses, from start to end - they are not localized, and so, the gospel's doctrines must be understood as being revealed globally, and analyzed in that way; that is, just by reading certain verses, no matter how obvious the message may seem to be, nor what the cultural issues at play are, will not yield correct results. As an example, we are informed by God that He used allegory to illustrate one of the most fundamental spiritual doctrines of the Bible. Since God used allegory to illuminate it, then a temporal standalone reading of other related verses, would just yield a particular piece of it, but not the whole thing. However, a part of it, should it be taken at face value, would make the interpretation of it wrong. Notice below that cultural and temporal factors are not pertinent in these verses. Here is the example:

[Gal 4:24-26 KJV]
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Do you see we are informed that beginning in the Old Testament, there were two covenants and two Jerusalem(s) symbolically portrayed? If having followed the biblical admonitions, we would therefore know to look more closely and more deeply wherever Jerusalem (in this example) is mentioned by/in other verses, and not assume which one it is though the answer might even seem obvious to us at the time - in fact, both Jerusalem(s) could be present and appropriate, yet each representing different things. Otherwise, without following the biblical admonitions and factoring in all pertinent references to form a complete, not a localized picture, we could easily come to the wrong spiritual conclusions and yet not realize it.

I'm kind of tired right now, so this is about as good as I can do right now - I hope this makes sense and doesn't sound like gobbledygook - I know I didn't do a very good job so I'll apologize in advance, plus, it is difficult to explain it in one post, but hopefully you can get a little of its gist. After I post this, I'm sure I'll think of other things I should have included and better ways of saying it - so, I reserve the right to amend and revise as necessary (lol).[/QUOTE
Lots of words but not to the point which is??? as relates to the comments I've made. I'm very well aware of the message of the bible . I'm also aware of passages such as Romans 15:4 which applied to them looking back at the old testament but also to us as we look back at both the old and new, but that doesn't mean the events are stories solely for our learning, but rather historical events captured in writing as God directed, as si done for our learning. So, once again, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[rogerg]

That we were told to compare spiritual with spiritual, not the cultural with cultural. nor issues of the day with issues
of the day, nor customs with customs - they are superfluous and external to the spiritual. By the Bible stating to compare spiritual with spiritual, it reveals to us that it was written by God simultaneously on two levels: earthly and the spiritual, but the spiritual being the one that should be of interest to be sought out, isolated, identified, and focused upon, not the earthly: spiritual spans and transcends earthly. That is why we were informed that Jesus spoke in parables. The Bible provides sufficient reference/explanation of the non-spiritual, where/when, and to the degree that it is illustrative, but in and of itself, it should not be a basis for formulation of spiritual doctrine.

 

[DJT_47]

That we were told to compare spiritual with spiritual, not the cultural with cultural. nor issues of the day with issues
of the day, nor customs with customs - they are superfluous and external to the spiritual. By the Bible stating to compare spiritual with spiritual, it reveals to us that it was written by God simultaneously on two levels: earthly and the spiritual, but the spiritual being the one that should be of interest to be sought out, isolated, identified, and focused upon, not the earthly: spiritual spans and transcends earthly. That is why we were informed that Jesus spoke in parables. The Bible provides sufficient reference/explanation of the non-spiritual, where/when, and to the degree that it is illustrative, but in and of itself, it should not be a basis for formulation of spiritual doctrine.

Still not following you nor do I understand your last paragraph at all. All we have IS the bible with which to use in the formulation of our religious doctrine governingour physical existenceas well as spiritual. There is nothing else. So far, you're not making good sense.