'Once for all' doesn't mean you can lost it.
That's not the argument.
The argument is it doesn't mean you can't lose it, as you are insisting.
Here is where we know 'once for all' (Christ doesn't have to be re-sacrificed) does not mean you can't lose it:
" 26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" - Hebrews 10:26-29
You can't just decide to change the saved sanctified person in the chapter to an unsaved sanctified believer because it doesn't line up with your osas beliefs. That's unreasonable, even dishonest.
Just ask yourself, "why can't you just let the passage say what it says. Why do you find it necessary to redefine vs. 29 when nothing in the passage does that?" Obviously, it's because your osas beliefs won't allow you to let the context itself define who it is. Think about it. Osas has to jump in and make sure the reader doesn't think it's the sanctified believer the author has been talking about all along.
It does mean 'for all time'.
The sanctification that you get from Christ's sacrifice IS for all time.
The text says that means you don't have to re-sacrifice Christ to remain sanctified.
It does not say you can't lose it. You are adding that.
Your possession of the never failing Sacrifice is conditioned on your continued belief in the one Sacrifice that never ends.
"36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised." - Hebrews 10:36
That's not the argument.
The argument is it doesn't mean you can't lose it, as you are insisting.
Here is where we know 'once for all' (Christ doesn't have to be re-sacrificed) does not mean you can't lose it:
" 26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" - Hebrews 10:26-29
You can't just decide to change the saved sanctified person in the chapter to an unsaved sanctified believer because it doesn't line up with your osas beliefs. That's unreasonable, even dishonest.
Just ask yourself, "why can't you just let the passage say what it says. Why do you find it necessary to redefine vs. 29 when nothing in the passage does that?" Obviously, it's because your osas beliefs won't allow you to let the context itself define who it is. Think about it. Osas has to jump in and make sure the reader doesn't think it's the sanctified believer the author has been talking about all along.
It does mean 'for all time'.
The sanctification that you get from Christ's sacrifice IS for all time.
The text says that means you don't have to re-sacrifice Christ to remain sanctified.
It does not say you can't lose it. You are adding that.
Your possession of the never failing Sacrifice is conditioned on your continued belief in the one Sacrifice that never ends.
"36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised." - Hebrews 10:36
- 1
- 1
- Show all