Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2014 7:35:25 GMT -5
L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachings).
For those that follow the position that loss of salvation is possible for the born again believer, you might be disappointed to find that on this site, this is not a position that is promoted.
We will however, be glad to field any and all presentations that are used to promote this position, and welcome anyone to set forth a biblical presentation for why they believe this way.
To kick things off, I thought I might present one passage that is constantly used to promote loss of salvation.
Hebrews 10:26
King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
This seems to be clear, if we willfully sin there is no more sacrifice for sin, right?
Well, that is 100% correct, unless...you think this is talking about sins committed after salvation. At first that is going to sound contradictory, but this is the problem with pulling a single verse out of it's context. Some verses we can do that with, such as John 3:16, but some lose their intent when taken by themselves. So what We have to do is remember a very simple trick. Get ready, you might want to write this down, are you ready...?
Just back up.
Now I know that might seem a great task, but here it is again: just back up, and see what leads up to this verse.
So here we go, and I am going to quickly run through this, and leave it open for critique.
Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wow, were backing up a long way (and I know those that are use to my posts are probably thinking...this is going to be a long one. lol. We'll see). To be honest, where we ought to start is Hebrews 1:1-2, but, for this particular verse, Hebrews 10:1-4 (NASB) will do.
In the first four verses we have a clear contrast concerning the Levitical Practice under the First Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ. In our key verse, Hebrews 10:26, in view is sacrifice for sin. Don't let this point escape you as it does so many. First ask yourself....do Christians need to sacrifice when they sin after salvation? The discerning reader that has long been stumped by this intriguing verse can probably stop reading this just in giving that consideration. Of course there is no sacrifice made for the sinning Christian, and in fact, the sacrifices of the Christian...keeps him/her from sin. We have a reversal between the ministries of the two Covenants: under the First, one sinned and then offered sacrifice; under the New, we sacrifice (forego and forsake sin) first and avoid sin, and in this way see the taking away of sin in our lives.
Next thing we will consider in this section is that we are told that the sacrifices of the First, or Old Covenant, or, the Covenant of Law, or, the Mosaic Covenant...could not take away sin. The corollary is that the Sacrifice of Christ...can and does. It is because of this that we (are)...
1) Have the substantial, not the "shadow." In Hebrews 9 concerning the First Covenant and it's practices, another term is used for the Law, highlighted here:
Hebrews 9:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Figure is...
3850. parabole par-ab-ol-ay' from 3846; a similitude ("parable"), i.e. (symbolic) fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral), apothegm or adage:--comparison, figure, parable, proverb.
Of the 50 times this word is used, 46 of those times it is translated "parable." Hebrews makes it a point to point out the temporary nature of the First Covenant, quite unlike other Covenants such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and least of not all, to be sure...the New Covenant.
2) Made perfect (properly complete) v.1;
3) Not required to offer sacrifice: vv. 1-2;
4) Cleansed in our conscience concerning atonement for sin, understanding that Christ'a sacrifice, as the writer will point out shortly...is the Once offered complete sacrifice, needing nothing added to it: v.3;
5) We have had (the penalty of) our sins taken away: v.4.
Why is it important to understand this? Because when we get to Hebrews 10:26 we have to understand the exhortation of the writer to his audience to go on unto perfection (the New Covenant, and salvation in Christ). In order for v.26 to mean that there is no more sacrifice for sin we have to either understand that those warned are those that have rejected the Once offered sacrifice for sin, or that the sacrifice of Christ is continually, in figure, repeated to atone for sins committed by the believer. Only the former fits the context because we are told in this section that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins or make perfect (complete), and as we progress toward our key verse we will see that the believer has been not only sanctified by the blood of Christ but has forever been perfected (made complete).
So there is the intro to looking at the L.O.S.T., which is how we can, by looking at the proof-texts of the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers), better understand why their teaching is in error.
I would just ask that this be kept on topic, and that responses deal with the focus of the discussion.
For those that follow the position that loss of salvation is possible for the born again believer, you might be disappointed to find that on this site, this is not a position that is promoted.
We will however, be glad to field any and all presentations that are used to promote this position, and welcome anyone to set forth a biblical presentation for why they believe this way.
To kick things off, I thought I might present one passage that is constantly used to promote loss of salvation.
Hebrews 10:26
King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
This seems to be clear, if we willfully sin there is no more sacrifice for sin, right?
Well, that is 100% correct, unless...you think this is talking about sins committed after salvation. At first that is going to sound contradictory, but this is the problem with pulling a single verse out of it's context. Some verses we can do that with, such as John 3:16, but some lose their intent when taken by themselves. So what We have to do is remember a very simple trick. Get ready, you might want to write this down, are you ready...?
Just back up.
Now I know that might seem a great task, but here it is again: just back up, and see what leads up to this verse.
So here we go, and I am going to quickly run through this, and leave it open for critique.
Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wow, were backing up a long way (and I know those that are use to my posts are probably thinking...this is going to be a long one. lol. We'll see). To be honest, where we ought to start is Hebrews 1:1-2, but, for this particular verse, Hebrews 10:1-4 (NASB) will do.
In the first four verses we have a clear contrast concerning the Levitical Practice under the First Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ. In our key verse, Hebrews 10:26, in view is sacrifice for sin. Don't let this point escape you as it does so many. First ask yourself....do Christians need to sacrifice when they sin after salvation? The discerning reader that has long been stumped by this intriguing verse can probably stop reading this just in giving that consideration. Of course there is no sacrifice made for the sinning Christian, and in fact, the sacrifices of the Christian...keeps him/her from sin. We have a reversal between the ministries of the two Covenants: under the First, one sinned and then offered sacrifice; under the New, we sacrifice (forego and forsake sin) first and avoid sin, and in this way see the taking away of sin in our lives.
Next thing we will consider in this section is that we are told that the sacrifices of the First, or Old Covenant, or, the Covenant of Law, or, the Mosaic Covenant...could not take away sin. The corollary is that the Sacrifice of Christ...can and does. It is because of this that we (are)...
1) Have the substantial, not the "shadow." In Hebrews 9 concerning the First Covenant and it's practices, another term is used for the Law, highlighted here:
Hebrews 9:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Figure is...
3850. parabole par-ab-ol-ay' from 3846; a similitude ("parable"), i.e. (symbolic) fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral), apothegm or adage:--comparison, figure, parable, proverb.
Of the 50 times this word is used, 46 of those times it is translated "parable." Hebrews makes it a point to point out the temporary nature of the First Covenant, quite unlike other Covenants such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and least of not all, to be sure...the New Covenant.
2) Made perfect (properly complete) v.1;
3) Not required to offer sacrifice: vv. 1-2;
4) Cleansed in our conscience concerning atonement for sin, understanding that Christ'a sacrifice, as the writer will point out shortly...is the Once offered complete sacrifice, needing nothing added to it: v.3;
5) We have had (the penalty of) our sins taken away: v.4.
Why is it important to understand this? Because when we get to Hebrews 10:26 we have to understand the exhortation of the writer to his audience to go on unto perfection (the New Covenant, and salvation in Christ). In order for v.26 to mean that there is no more sacrifice for sin we have to either understand that those warned are those that have rejected the Once offered sacrifice for sin, or that the sacrifice of Christ is continually, in figure, repeated to atone for sins committed by the believer. Only the former fits the context because we are told in this section that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins or make perfect (complete), and as we progress toward our key verse we will see that the believer has been not only sanctified by the blood of Christ but has forever been perfected (made complete).
So there is the intro to looking at the L.O.S.T., which is how we can, by looking at the proof-texts of the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers), better understand why their teaching is in error.
I would just ask that this be kept on topic, and that responses deal with the focus of the discussion.