Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ WHEN heb 6 and 10 apply

[Justaned]

very long post but still more double talk. You really said nothing here.

Actually I did say something. If you missed it you missed it but it wasn't double talk it was an explanation of the opinion I hold on Hebrew 6 and Hebrews 10 and the convoluted idea that Christians at any one moment in time may or may not be saved.
The idea that a Christian saint could live a saved life bringing many to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, living Christ like but according to those that hold the position you seem to support are never really sure of their salvation. That in fact they could see a car heading in their direction exclaim in an emotional outburst God's name in vain and upon being killed in the wreck, having died in sin and therefore lost to salvation for eternity.

Or if in a rush did not stop to help a brother in need and then stepped in front of bus and died since they are guilty of the sin of omission they have lost their salvation and damned for eternity.

Talk about craziness. If our salvation is that precarious then I don't believe any of us could be saved.

[Rocky]

Rocky you can and evidently want to label this as Calvinism but that does not make it so. Once Saved Always Saved says there is no way a person once saved can ever lose their salvation. I never said that, suggested that or implied that.
But if you want to label what I said as such that is okay. Let me ask you question how do you like it when people label you unfairly

Ed sorry, I am not the only one on here that sees your Calvinistic beliefs. The reason why you are labeled as such is because of what you say, and how you say it, not what we make you say, stop blaming others for what you say. You are a very smart guy, and all this double talk may confuse some, but I do admit that I personally believe that you are studying and mixing together some bad theologies. Its very sour if you now what I mean, like old curded sour milk or festering maggot infested meat.

[Justaned]

Rocky you can and evidently want to label this as Calvinism but that does not make it so. Once Saved Always Saved says there is no way a person once saved can ever lose their salvation. I never said that, suggested that or implied that.
But if you want to label what I said as such that is okay. Let me ask you question how do you like it when people label you unfairly

Ed sorry, I am not the only one on here that sees your Calvinistic beliefs. The reason why you are labeled as such is because of what you say, and how you say it, not what we make you say, stop blaming others for what you say. You are a very smart guy, and all this double talk may confuse some, but I do admit that I personally believe that you are studying and mixing together some bad theologies. Its very sour if you now what I mean, like old curded sour milk or festering maggot infested meat.

Again what you call Calvinism isn't Calvinism but rather the acceptance by me that Calvin while mostly wrong was not totally wrong. As I have stated the road has a middle, and a ditch on either side. One ditch is Calvinism and the other is Arminianism in the middle I believe is the truth of the word.

Your view is unless someone is in the Arminian ditch with you they have to be a Calvinist.

You are right I do mix together theologies when the Word of God supports and demands that mix. I don't blindly follow someone that says you must believe thus and such. I get into the word and see what it says. If it supports an aspect of Calvinism then I support that aspect also if on the other hand it supports an aspect of Arminianism then likewise I support it also.

Your problem is you want to try to apply your experience to validate the truth and frankly that has lead more people down the road to damnation than any doctrine invented by man.

I don't know your situation so all I can do is speculate but I do know what Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 say.
Hebrews 6 says it is impossible for a person to be saved and fallen away to be saved again. You can call that any kind of theology you want but that is what it says. Hebrews 10 says that if a saved person willfully sins there longer exists a sacrifice by which they can be saved. Again you can call that any kind of theology you want but that is what the passage says. On that there can be no debate.

Now you may not want to accept that, but it is the word of God so I have no need to say more. God's truth stands eternal.

[Rocky]

Still more double talk brother. Your understanding of the verses in Hebrews are wrong. It contradicts other scriptures. You are basing a whole doctrine around a few verses, specifically a couple of word in the verses. Now my self and others have tried to show you the meaning behind these verses and even shown you other scriptures that contradict your understanding of these verses and you refuse to see it, you just explain it away with religious jargon. Believe what you want bro my head hurts. It just aggravating to see someone post erroneous understandings of scripture and Butcher the bible the way you do on here and claim it as truth, its almost as if you just try to troll these forums with all of this bad theology that you have come up with.

[victoryword]

Still more double talk brother. Your understanding of the verses in Hebrews are wrong. It contradicts other scriptures. You are basing a whole doctrine around a few verses. Now my self and others have tried to show you the meaning behind these verses and even shown you other scriptures that contradict your understanding of these verses and you refuse to see it, you just explain it away with religious jargon. Believe what you want bro my head hurts. It just aggravating to see someone post erroneous understandings of scripture and Butcher the bible the way you do on here.

I know, sad isn't it. ON a Dake forum at that. What a travesty to such a great scholar as Dake to have people come here who claims to respect him and teach basically in direct contradiction to him.

But lay hands on your head, claim your healing, and get back into the game

[Justaned]

Still more double talk brother. Your understanding of the verses in Hebrews are wrong. It contradicts other scriptures. You are basing a whole doctrine around a few verses, specifically a couple of word in the verses. Now my self and others have tried to show you the meaning behind these verses and even shown you other scriptures that contradict your understanding of these verses and you refuse to see it, you just explain it away with religious jargon. Believe what you want bro my head hurts. It just aggravating to see someone post erroneous understandings of scripture and Butcher the bible the way you do on here and claim it as truth, its almost as if you just try to troll these forums with all of this bad theology that you have come up with.

I think you give yourself more credit than is due. You didn't show me the meaning behind these verses nor did you show me verses that contradict my understanding.

You accuse me of butchering the Bible please give me chapter and verse and where my butchering is contradictory to scripture.

You accuse me of double talk but all you do is make unfounded accusations.

If I'm so wrong with Hebrews 6 and Hebrew 10 stop dancing and tell me what exactly they mean with they say it is impossible or that there no longer remains a sacrifice for salvation. No long speeches with lots of words just tells me what the impossible means and what no longer means.

[Justaned]

Still more double talk brother. Your understanding of the verses in Hebrews are wrong. It contradicts other scriptures. You are basing a whole doctrine around a few verses. Now my self and others have tried to show you the meaning behind these verses and even shown you other scriptures that contradict your understanding of these verses and you refuse to see it, you just explain it away with religious jargon. Believe what you want bro my head hurts. It just aggravating to see someone post erroneous understandings of scripture and Butcher the bible the way you do on here.

I know, sad isn't it. ON a Dake forum at that. What a travesty to such a great scholar as Dake to have people come here who claims to respect him and teach basically in direct contradiction to him.

But lay hands on your head, claim your healing, and get back into the game

Victory you are very common if you can't amazed with brilliance you dazzle with nonsense.
If you are so brilliant then you explain Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10. No accusations, not cheap shots nothing but an explanation of what the impossible means in Hebrews 6 and "no longer a sacrifice" in Hebrews 10. Nothing fancy just clear explanation.

[Rocky]

I know like what does this even mean?

"old holiness church teaching on backslidding being equated with lost of salvation".

which Ed goes on to say he doesn't agree with. Apparently Ed believes the backsliding isn't loss of salvation, that is what I mean by double talk. Its almost like he is saying as long as you believe in God you can live anyway you want to, but you wont lose your salvation, because a true Christian can't and wont sin, then in the same breath will say but if you lose your salvation you cant be restored because you sinned "willfully" ,what, I thaught he just said a true Christian wont sin willfully? then he goes on to say, but if one does lose their salvation they probable wasn't really saved in the first place. I just can't figure it out, what is Ed is saying? can you backslide or cant you? Oh but here is the kicker, Ed's twist on Backsliding isn't loss of salvation unless you "sin willfully". Then hell ask rhetorical questions, asking to explain the versus he is misusing. What? now you see why my head hurts.. And then this is all masked and manipulated with religious double talk and some confusing theology jargin arghh!!! The bible has never confused me like Ed does, I see it much more simple then this. God is not the author of confusion. I think he is just trolling or something or just messing with me lol

[Justaned]

So there is no question about what we are talking about here are the verses again

Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 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.

and in the NLT that may be easier to understand

Hebrews 6:4-6 (NLT)
4 For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come—
6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NKJV)
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

And again the NLT
Hebrews 10:26-27 (NKJV)
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.


I may be dumb as a brick but to me these two passages agree, support and confirm each other. They are clear and concise and I don't see how anyone can change their meaning without doing violence to the passages themselves.

[Justaned]

I know like what does this even mean?

"old holiness church teaching on backslidding being equated with lost of salvation".

which Ed goes on to say he doesn't agree with. Apparently Ed believes the backsliding isn't loss of salvation, that is what I mean by double talk. Its almost like he is saying as long as you believe in God you can live anyway you want to, but you wont lose your salvation, because a true Christian can't and wont sin, then in the same breath will say but if you lose your salvation you cant be restored because you sinned "willfully" ,what, I thaught he just said a true Christian wont sin willfully? then he goes on to say, but if one does lose their salvation they probable wasn't really saved in the first place. I just can't figure it out, what is Ed is saying? can you backslide or cant you? Oh but here is the kicker, Ed's twist on Backsliding isn't loss of salvation unless you "sin willfully". What? now you see why my head hurts.. And then this is all masked and manipulated with religious double talk and some confusing theology jargin arghh!!! The bible has never confused me like Ed does, I see it much more simple then this. God is not the author of confusion. I think he is just trolling or something or just messing with me lol

Off you go once again. Address these two passage Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 and show me where you can be saved, lost, saved, lost, saved, lost, saved, lost, saved, lost, saved. Show me the word backslide in the New Testament in any context.

Show me scripture that defines backslidden as having lost salvation.

Show me scripture that teaches anything on backsliding, backslidden, backslid in the New Testament.

Double talk? You accuse me of double talk and you use words that aren't even mentioned in the New Covenant and not only that but you want to establish doctrine doing it.

Enough, talk only to Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 and show me how they support your saved, lost, saved doctrine.