Featured Who is Sanctified in Hebrews 10:29?

Answer the question and we will proceed.


God bless.

 

I think I have established well enough on this board that I do not run from anyone. If it makes you feel better to avoid direct questions with this kind of response, great, but, again, I will not waste my time in your circular approach.

So I will answer the question for you: you do not know if you believe what you have said because you haven't the faintest clue as to what you said. Your theology is being created as you go, and while I am a big Indiana Jones fan, this approach is not really profitable in regards to Theology.

You are speaking, not from a knowledge of Scripture based in study, but a desire to present your own gospel, one which, on nearly every point...comes into conflict with the Word of God.

You scoff at Christ's sacrifice being equated to eternal life, despite the fact that this is what He taught.

You scoff at Christ's Sacrifice sanctifying Him, yet...say that very thing unawares.

You scoff at Christ's sacrifice actually being the means through which remission of sins is accomplished.

You teach that unbelievers are saved.

Your doctrine is ineffable twaddle.

Now, how do you like my answer to the question you have refused to answer?

Yet I give you yet another opportunity to answer. Do you even believe what you have said yourself, or not? Did you make a mistake in saying it? Were you in error? That is why you refuse to answer, because you cannot admit you contradict yourself.

So when you can answer that question, we will continue in discussion, until then, I am okay with you patting yourself on the back and insulting me. But you need to examine your own heart and be honest with yourself as to whether you are comfortable with that.


God bless.

 

Answer the question and we will resume. No point in more rambling.


God bless.

 

Answer the question.


God bless.

 

lol

 

What is laughable is that you ask me what question when I have posted it several times.

And for the record, the resources I use when posting are Strong's Online Concordance, and BibleGateway.

Now answer the question. Only two things stopping you: pride and fear.


God bless.

 

Here it is again:


Here is an example of conflict in your doctrine, you said...

↑
Jesus sanctified himself through continuous obedience to the father's will ending I his death at Calvary (Philippians 2:8).
Click to expand...


...and now you are demanding proof.

Well, do you believe your own statement? You have given Scripture here that testifies of Christ being sanctified through His Sacrifice.

Or did you make a mistake and misspeak?

 

This may be true, but that is not the point: the point is that the words you say contradict each other.

You still are missing the fact that you say here...

...That Christ sanctified Himself through obedience, which the ultimate obedience of Christ was to the Cross.

Don't you see you are saying two different things?

The above agrees with what I have been trying to show you.

lol

Well, if you were familiar with the verse in question you might notice what it actually states:


Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


The Death of Christ is that which sets Christ apart, and this is in relation to the New Covenant.

Christ speaks of sanctifying Himself here:


John 17:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.


Keep in mind that this is spoken right before He is taken (in the Garden of Gethsemane). Now what is he referring to. What event takes place after this that most are aware of?

Look at it again:


Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


You are viewing sanctification as though it is a removal of sin. That's not it. It is a making holy, or attributing something to be holy, and can be used in both a positional as well as progressive application.

In view here are those who, rather than embracing His Sacrifice which is the very basis for the New Covenant, consider it to be the exact opposite...unholy. "Wherewith He was sanctified" is tied to Christ.

Here are a few verses to consider that present this same application:


1 Timothy 4

King James Version (KJV)

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


What does Paul mean that a creature (animal) received with thanksgiving is sanctified? Does He mean that it has been purged of sin? No. It means it has been set apart unto God.


John 10:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


What does he mean that Christ was sanctified of God and sent into the world?


1 Peter 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:


If God can be sanctified, are you so amazed that Christ can be?

Especially when the context is dealing directly in a contrast between two Covenants?

Again, those who rejected the Covenant of Law (Moses Law) and those rejecting the New Covenant are contrasted.

And again, when believers are sanctified by the Blood of Christ, Hebrews 10:14 makes it clear that the promise of the New Covenant has been bestowed, because they have been made perfect...complete...in regards to remission of sins.

What that means, Vooks, is that there is no more need for forgiveness regarding the penalty of sin.

The song is true: Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe.

You create a conflict when you say that those who reject the New Covenant are sanctified by the Blood of Christ. You pit Scripture against Scripture, making it to, like you, say two different things which are not possibly both true.

Don't mention it.

Speaking of hacks...

Now, can you see your problem?

This...

...and this...

Are taking two different sides of the fence.

You assume I am saying that Christ needed to benefit from the Cross like a sinner because you simply do not understand sanctification and you will not take the time to listen to someone trying to help you understand.

Christ was sanctified, and in more than one way.


God bless.

 

So you have begun a study of sanctification?

Will you at this time admit that Christ was sanctified, and said to be in more than one place?


God bless.

 

Not according to me, Vooks, according to Scripture.

The word translated sanctify is at it's root meaning holy. They are the same thing. So you are denying the very meaning of the word. Until you better understand it, you will of course not be able to understand the application if it.

Consider:

Matthew 24:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)


What is meant by the "holy" place?


Hebrews 13:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.


The same word is used here, so, is the holiness of themselves, or, is it simply that they are rendered and designated as holy?

Now, we look at the word translated sanctified in Hebrews 10:29, and understand that in view is a rendering of the designation holy, or, that this (the Sacrifice of Christ) is the reason He is designated as Holy, whereas the rejecters are denying that, and counting His Sacrifice as the opposite...unholy.

In view is not the concept you impose on it, that Christ is benefitting from the Work of the Cross and therefore made holy (in the sense that God is Holy), what is in view is that the Sacrifice of Christ is the very thing which sets Christ apart from the sacrifices of the Law.

Look at it again:


Hebrews 10:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


The blood of the Covenant is counted unholy. Basically, for the Jew raised under Law, the sacrifices of the Law were holy. That is true. But, if they count Christ's Sacrifice as unholy, as they are said to do here, then they reject the only sacrifice which will save them from the penalty their rejection garners. Those who rejected Moses' Law died (and this was a physical death in view), but those who count His Sacrifice, which is the reason why He is set apart, unholy, will suffer more severe penalty (which speaks of eternal punishment).

Christ was sanctified by His death. He sanctified Himself through it. But this is not saying He was "made holy," in the sense He was unholy and that condition was changed by His Sacrifice, but that He is distinguished by that Sacrifice, which is distinguished throughout the chapter from the sacrifices found under Moses' Law (the Covenant of Law). This is why He his Priesthood is contrasted to the priesthood of the Law.


God bless.

 

You still don't get it.

Get back to me once you understand sanctification.

Can't prove to you that Christ was sanctified when you do not understand what that means. I will suggest you look back to your scoffing at the fact that Christ could be sanctified, and after being shown He was sanctified by God when sent into the world, and said He sanctified Himself (which is logically a reference to the Cross), see that you simply want to impose your own desire of belief and have no interest in what Scripture actually teaches.

So as I said, I will address the OP of the other thread as I said I would, but I cannot waste time repeating the same things over to you when you refuse to acknowledge where you have been wrong. You continue to make Christ being sanctified as though He were being made holy in the sense of personal righteousness, that is not the case. The rooms of the Tabernacle and Temple were holy, they were sanctified, and yet not because they were going around doing righteousness or restraining from sin.



God bless.