a born-again Christian can never (keyword: never) lose their salvation

You are wrong. Yes you are sealed. You now belong to him for better or for worse. Your judgment is more severe that those that are lost because you know the truth and failed to live by it. Please, read more scripture on this. You should know that only the righteous will be judged, and the lost will rise and be cast in the lake of fire,because their judgment has been sealed.

anyone who walks with a group of believers have experienced jesus, Whether they were saved or not.

Like Judas Iscariot, who walked with a group of believers and experienced Jesus first hand (but was not saved). Jesus clearly said of Judas, "he is a devil!" (John 6:70)

If the passage is talking about saved people who willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then how are saved people sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10) and perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14), yet also lose their salvation? That is an oxymoron. Let's take a closer look.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 seems to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Hebrew Christian community of believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

Truly excellent post Dan!
Further, if you examine those in Corinth that were washed and sanctified, you see that ONE MORE VITAL thing happened to them . They had the Holy Spirit!
The people in Hebrews 10 INSULTED the Spirit. And remember what this chapter, and Hebrews is about at it's root. A book written to Jews who basically said, Yeah, Jesus is great, BUT we still have to follow the Law and sacrifice animals so their blood will cover us.

THAT is the sin that insulted the Spirit of Grace!

If the passage is talking about saved people who willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then how are saved people sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10) and perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14), yet also lose their salvation? That is an oxymoron. Let's take a closer look.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 seems to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Hebrew Christian community of believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew Christian community was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

that person has become an antichrist.

John answers that question, They went out from us, but they were never of us, for if they were, they never would have departed.

that person has become an antichrist.

John answers that question, They went out from us, but they were never of us, for if they were, they never would have departed.

If the passage is talking about saved people who willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then how are saved people sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:10) and perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14), yet also lose their salvation? That is an oxymoron.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 seems to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul clearly explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

Truly excellent post Dan!
Further, if you examine those in Corinth that were washed and sanctified, you see that ONE MORE VITAL thing happened to them . They had the Holy Spirit!
The people in Hebrews 10 INSULTED the Spirit. And remember what this chapter, and Hebrews is about at it's root. A book written to Jews who basically said, Yeah, Jesus is great, BUT we still have to follow the Law and sacrifice animals so their blood will cover us.

THAT is the sin that insulted the Spirit of Grace!

a born-again Christian can never lose their salvation

to illustrate: a child can ask "what does born mean?", or "what does being physically born mean?" even though the child is already physically born, in the same way, just because a Christian can ask "what does receive mean?" just because of the mere difficulty in understanding it, and nothing else. Even with confusion in terminologies, Christians can still be saved.

if a child forgot his/her physical birthday, does that mean the child was never physically born to begin with? that's absurd. The same way, even if Christians forgot the day of their salvation, they can still be saved

for a married couple, if they are unable to make the vow the same way they did at the wedding, does that mean that they cease to be married? Definitely not, since that's not "grounds for divorce" and God hates divorce anyway. The same way, even if you are unable to pray the sinner's prayer like you did on the day of salvation you can still be saved.

if there's fights and arguments in marriage, does that mean that the married couple cease to be married? Again, for the same reason that you will have ups and downs in your walk with Jesus, but still, you can still be saved.

if a seedling bear no fruit, does that mean that ... ok, you get my point, it takes time to bear fruits, but still, you can still be saved.

any more illustrations will be more than welcomed in this thread, thank you

The author plainly says that 'sanctified' means being perfected by the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus, a.k.a salvation. So we know that the author is saying those who are saved who then go back to the world in unbelief will lose the sacrifice and ministry of Jesus and will suffer the wrath of God at the coming of Jesus:


10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (he does not need to be re-sacrificed).

14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (forever because his ministry and sacrifice never end and fail like the old sacrifices and priests did).

" 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? 30For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.” "-Hebrews 10:10,14,26-30


Context, people, context! Don't ignore context and/or change and misapply definitions to make the passage not really mean what it says. I've never seen a doctrine more guilty of doing this than 'once saved always saved'.

Yup. And the CONTEXT is that BECAUSE Jesus is THE perfect Sacrifice, never again needing to be Sacrificed, those who trample the Blood of Christ, and insult the Spirit of Grace, by CONTINUING to sin, by CONTINUING to sacrifice animals to atone for their sin, can't be covered by Jesus' Blood.

You are stretching the use of the word sanctify here to mean saved. The writer could have very easily USED the word saved. by which he was saved..... It doesn't say that though does it? If YOU want to believe they were saved that's YOUR business, but that is NOT what the text says.

Think why he is using the subject of sanctification. Think. Context, PennEd, context!

He's contrasting sanctification by the blood of animals with that of the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 9:13). Also, see Hebrews 2:11 and 13:12. Sanctified most definitely means saved in this letter in this context.

Don't make the Bible not mean what it says just to guard a sacred doctrine. That's dishonest. I used to do that but I got called out on it and have repented. Be honest, PennEd.

As a concession to you and the revelation you say you have received about this subject, it is mature believers who attain to a status where they can not stop believing and be lost. Immature believers are the ones in danger of going back to the world in unbelief, not those among us who have the word firmly rooted in our hearts and are bearing it's fruit.

Ok. I'm cool with agreeing to disagree agreeably! Lol Be blessed

Just be honest, that's all I ask.

Be a Berean. Check these things out for yourself honestly and without prejudice.

Have I said or done something to lead you to believe I'm not being honest?

I truly believe the question is not "can you lose your salvation" but rather "are you born again?"

I do not believe God will assign His Angels to cast ANY of His children into hell.

Not sure why anyone would believe and fight that He does

Yes, but I don't think you're purposely being dishonest.

You're looking at the plain words of scripture and you're making them not really mean what they say. Most Christians do this. It's for good intentions, but it's fundamentally dishonest. I used to do that. I don't anymore. What a person does once they are shown more information determines how dishonest a person truly is.




Which I can respect. This is the traditional Calvinistic view of 'once saved always saved' (in contrast to the new Hypergrace version, which is a complete joke and hardly worth discussion).

It boils down to whether the real believer can stop believing or not. Can he? Are all the warnings not to stop believing sufficient to keep one believing? From what I can see in scripture, the warnings are sufficient for the mature believer, not for the immature believer who is not grounded in the word yet.




I do not believe that either.
What happens is the believer becomes an unbeliever and is then cast into hell. If they still believed in Christ that would not happen. No believer goes to the eternal fire. Only those who never believed, or who ceased to believe go to the eternal fire.


I suppose if one was making that argument (that believers can be cast into hell) then I'd have to wonder why, too. But as it is, the argument is that unbelievers are the ones who are going to be cast into the eternal fire--those who never trusted in the blood of Jesus and those who have ceased to trust n the blood of Jesus.

Using YOUR criteria, I could just as easily accuse you of being "unintentionally" dishonest. Here is an example where you wouldn't take the text at face value, although some do.
Romans 10:13 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Taken at face value, ANYBODY can just say those words and wallah! They are saved. No questions asked!
And there are thousands of such examples. That is why it is so vital that we don't take a verse out of context. BECAUSE ALL OF SCRIPTURE IS THE CONTEXT! The WHOLE counsel of God.

Tell me, Did the Prodigal son believe he was no longer a son? Did it matter that he THOUGHT he was no longer a son? EVEN after repenting, he STILL said this:
Luke 15:21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

His father had other thoughts didn't he? So it didn't matter that the son no longer thought he was his father's son. The reality was that he was BORN his father's son. It's in his DNA. AND lest we forget, the 3 parables in Luke 15 were told one right after the other. In the 1st we see the shepherd leaving his flock to retrieve HIS lost sheep.

So why would God leave His faithful, obedient Children to retrieve the son that blew his inheritance, and cavorted with harlots? BECAUSE THE LOST PRODIGAL IS HIS KID!!!!!

It seems to me, that you do not believe you are currently a born again Child of God. If I'm wrong, tell me how you can be a child of God, somehow, BECOME AN UNBORN CHILD OF GOD, because you would be admitting that at one point you WERE a Child of God.

Now if you're telling me the person was NEVER a Child of God then that's a different story.