Trying to Find Protestant Reponse to Hebrews 10:26-27

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CampionTheChampion

Guest
26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. - Hebrews 10:26-27
Click to expand...
A few years ago, I was the rare Protestant who denied eternal security. I remember being dumbfounded why nobody seemed to take clear warning passages seriously. My opinion developed primarily because I could not find a solution to this passage. The reasons for this conviction were:
  1. “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” clearly implies that there used to be a sacrifice for sins in this willful sinner. If there “no longer remains funds in my account”, it is necessarily the case that funds used to be in my account.
  2. Given the context, it was clear to me this sacrifice refers to the one in new covenant, not the old.
  3. Therefore, the author of Hebrews teaches it is possible for the sacrifice of the new covenant to remain with someone and then to no longer remain with that person. Obviously, this would necessarily mean someone could be “saved” (they have an efficacious sacrifice for their sins), and then not be “saved” (there no longer remains an efficacious sacrifice for their sins).
I’ve been researching my butt off to find if there are ANY good responses to this interpretation. Can someone please help? To me, this passage smothers any hope for eternal security advocates. Further, I believe my disbelief in eternal security left me strongly predisposed to become Catholic. If this passage is as effective as I think, it could form the basis for a powerful apologetic.

Alright, so here are a few lame responses I’ve heard to each of these points.
  • Some (like John Calvin in his commentary), avoid granting (1) by glossing over the phrase “no longer remains.”
  • Others seem to purposefully misstate/misquote the verse to read “there will be no sacrifice for sins” in attempt to deny (1) by, like Calvin, ignoring the direct implication that Christ’s sacrifice was once applied to the apostate. “There will be no X” does not carry the same meaning “there no longer remains X.” Go back to my example of bank funds given in (1)—“there will be no funds” does not necessarily entail prior funds existed.
  • And finally, some Protestants attempt an interpretive Hail Mary and deny (2) by stating the sacrifice refers to the old testament sacrifices. However, this is completely inane for two reasons.
    1. The writer speaks of the sacrifice of Christ in verse 19 and never changes subject to the OT sacrifices.
    2. The writer clearly stated before that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), so it would be surprising if he suddenly spoke as if these OT sacrifices were efficacious in verse 26.
Is this really the best Protestants have in response? I must be missing something. If I’m not, I think Catholic apologists should be hammering this one into Protestant brains. Make them deny eternal security to instill a healthy fear of God.
 
Interesting … I wasn’t familiar with this verse … thanks for sharing. wasn’t Hebrews one of the New Testament books Luther extracted from his Bible … along with James and Revelations? Since he appeared to remove books that were perceived contrary to his proposed doctrine … this would seem to fit how this verse would be difficult to defend in light of his espoused beliefs.
 
Last edited:
CampionTheChampion said:
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins
Click to expand...
As I said in the below ‘to sin’ is to break the two commandments Jesus gave us. I my view he repealed all the previous laws governing sin (i.e. ‘the sins’) and for that he was crucified. Therefore if one sins by breaking the two commandments then the sacrifice for sins has no meaning. More importantly, and this is what this verse is about, if one continues to follow the old laws ignoring the two new commandments then again the sacrifice has no meaning. Following the old laws carries an expectation of judgement and fire and fury which is actually not accurate. The adversaries, ie those who maintain the old laws are to be followed, will be consumed by those laws rather than seeing two simple replacement laws.
40.png
Jesus came to fulfill the law and took away our sins Moral Theology
As some of you know I see things differently with a view to bringing humanity closer together rather than forging division. I think we all want that deep down but there’s always a ‘good reason’ why we act differently and religion is one such reason. All religions decree what is right and what is wrong, some more vehemently than others. Contemporary Christianity is no exception. The interpretation of Scripture has been passed down over the centuries. Scholars of the Bible follow in their pro…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Going to assume a response from a OSAS Protestant? (Not all Protestants believe in OSAS).

The OSAS answer is simple, if you commit serious sins, you were never saved in the first place.
 
TheButler said:
As I said in the below ‘to sin’ is to break the two commandments Jesus gave us. I my view he repealed all the previous laws governing sin (i.e. ‘the sins’) and for that he was crucified. Therefore if one sins by breaking the two commandments then the sacrifice for sins has no meaning. More importantly, and this is what this verse is about, if one continues to follow the old laws ignoring the two new commandments then again the sacrifice has no meaning. Following the old laws carries an expectation of judgement and fire and fury which is actually not accurate. The adversaries, ie those who maintain the old laws are to be followed, will be consumed by those laws rather than seeing two simple replacement laws.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting take. Though even with your view, once someone willfully breaks one of these two commandments then they “lose their salvation.”
 
TheLittleLady said:
The OSAS answer is simple, if you commit serious sins, you were never saved in the first place.
Click to expand...
But this standard response doesn’t explain the verse in Hebrews. “You were never saved in the first place” cannot be said of the sinner in verse 26. That is because at some point in the past this sinner had a sacrifice for their sins in the context of the new covenant, which would implied they were “saved” at some point. See (1) in my first post.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
That is an interesting take. Though even with your view, once someone willfully breaks one of these two commandments then they “lose their salvation.”
Click to expand...
Question: Which is closer to ‘losing salvation’ according to the two commandments and the above verse in Hebrews?
  1. A practising gay person who does charity work; or
  2. A practising Christian who tells them they are intrinsically disordered?
Whether or not they ‘lose salvation’ is up to the Creator and not us.
 
TheButler said:
Question: Which is closer to ‘losing salvation’ according to the two commandments and the above verse in Hebrews?

A practising gay person who does charity work; or
A practising Christian who tells them they are intrinsically disordered?

Whether or not they ‘lose salvation’ is up to the Creator and not us.
Click to expand...
(1) isn’t sinful. Homosexual activity is sinful not being a homosexual.
(2) is an issue of kindness and being judgemental, so it depends on context. I generally can’t just run up to sinners and judge them without breaking the second commandment.

But what does this have to do with my post? Either way, if willful sin, whatever it may be, is possible, then losing salvation is possible.
 
If your assertion is correct against OSAS then any willful sin will result in one being eternally lost since there is no sacrifice for their sin. Like Once Lost Always Lost.
 
jericho777 said:
If your assertion is correct against OSAS then any willful sin will result in one being eternally lost since there is no sacrifice for their sin. Like Once Lost Always Lost.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you think reconciliation is impossible.
 
It seems pretty clear “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” The OP’s point is the person is then eternally lost in their sin. OSAS aside.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
(1) isn’t sinful. Homosexual activity is sinful not being a homosexual.
Click to expand...
CampionTheChampion said:
But what does this have to do with my post? Either way, if willful sin, whatever it may be, is possible, then losing salvation is possible.
Click to expand...
By saying that homosexual activity is sinful are you not wilfully relying on the laws which Jesus repealed with his two new laws which ‘removed (the laws of) sin’? Therefore are you not demonstrating that his sacrifice for (the abolition of the laws of) sin is meaningless and therefore there no longer remains said sacrifice? By saying that homosexual activity is sinful are you not wilfully instilling in sexually active gay people fearful prospect of judgement and a fury of fire which will consume them as your adversaries (ie those who disagree with you; note it is not ‘enemy’. It is adversary as in a ‘legal adversary’)?

You asked for a Protestant (which I take to be non-Catholic, non-traditional) take on the verse. I have offered one.
 
jericho777 said:
It seems pretty clear “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” The OP’s point is the person is then eternally lost in their sin. OSAS aside.
Click to expand...
If “there no longer remains” were in the future tense, I might agree with you. However, the author is clearly speaking in the present tense.

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins [at the present moment].”
 
If there no longer remains a sacrifice for their sins then they are eternally lost at that point.
 
jericho777 said:
If there no longer remains a sacrifice for their sins then they are eternally lost at that point.
Click to expand...
Unless they later gain a sacrifice for sin? No?

Change it back to the analogy of a bank account. If “there no longer remains funds”, that does not necessarily mean funds cannot remain at a later time.
 
If the Blood of Jesus is the payment for sin and they then willfully sin and are lost. There is no more sacrifice for that sin. Jesus died once and only once.

What do you propose as the new payment for sin apart from Jesus’ blood?
 
Last edited:
jericho777 said:
If the Blood of Jesus is the payment for sin and they then willfully sin and are lost. There is no more sacrifice for that sin. Jesus died once and only once.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how this proves Once Lost Always Lost. At least I’m not convinced.

Regardless, the problem remains. There seems to be no way of interpreting this passage without admitting a saved person can become lost by willfully sinning. Whether this leads you to believe that reconciliation is necessary (like me) or that once you willfully sin you’re eternally lost is up to you.

I recommend all Protestants to say prayers of contrition until they figure out how Christ intended reconciliation to ordinarily work.
 
The passage says “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”. If that is the case then the person is eternally lost.
What do you propose as the payment if there is none left?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top