No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

What are your thoughts on this verse?

Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I think it speaks of one who refuses to accept the chastening of the Lord, who,though warned and punished, continuies in disobedience, rebellion, unbelief, and unrepentance turned over to a rebrobate mind.

I don't think people can backslide and get saved again. I think we would classify someone as backslid, when many times they are being disobedient and subjecting themselves to the chaseting of God (such as David w/ Basheeba). BUT if one truly backslides and does get to the point spoken of in Hebrews 10:26, I think that is where the warning in Hebrews 6 comes in so strongly "it is impossible to rnew them to repentance..."

Basically in my view, I don't believe your once saved, always saved, nor do I believe salvation is so fickle that you (can possibly) posess it and lose it multiple times in a lifetime. I think once you have been saved, it is difficult to be lost, but still possible. But IF someone did lose their salvation, it would be impossible to "get saved again". I think the Bible backs up my point, though I admit this hasn't been one of the topics I've spent much time on.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Do you think no more sacrifice are the key words?

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Remember, he was writing to the Jews. There are a few clues in the verses following the one that I've often heard quoted that give better understanding, at least in my opinion.

Adversaries? This indicates "sinning willfully" isn't just making a mistake or doing something that our conscience smites us for. (As a matter of fact if we are in the state he's talking about here, I doubt we'd feel remorse-since through it God would draw us back to Himself.)

Despised? Scorned. Spurned. Many Israelites did wrong. They complained. They worshiped idols. They doubted. There are only a few passages that record someone being put to death for their actions "under two or three witnesses" (indicating corporal punishment, not God's wrath as when the ground opened and swallowed them or they died by plagues or snakes). So this "willful sin" may not just be anything we hear condemned as sin today, as I've been often taught it was.

I believe this might show more what is being discussed. If the Jews converted to Christianity and then turned back to the law and denied Christ, they might border on doing these things. Yet I think even most of them didn't get to the point being described here.
Well, I'll let you do what you will with the bolded parts especially. This passage tormented me for a long time because I was taught if a person got the Holy Ghost they had to live perfect from then on or face judgment. That doesn't fit with the rest of the New Testament, though.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

OBAB.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

What are your thoughts? :)

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

If we give up and turn our backs on all we've learned, all we've been given, all the truth we now know, we repudiate Christ's sacrifice and are left on our own to face the Judgment—and a mighty fierce judgment it will be! If the penalty for breaking the law of Moses is physical death, what do you think will happen if you turn on God's Son, spit on the sacrifice that made you whole, and insult this most gracious Spirit? This is no light matter. God has warned us that he'll hold us to account and make us pay. He was quite explicit: "Vengeance is mine, and I won't overlook a thing" and "God will judge his people." Nobody's getting by with anything, believe me.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

If we abandon and turn our backs on this Gospel, there is no other sacrifice for sin. We will be lost.

Habitual sin, is habitual unbelief, and if left unrepentant leads to unbelief. Outside of Jesus, there is no sacrifice.

(v31 was the text for the infamous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards)

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

That's my understanding of the passage.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Well this is for my Sunday School lesson next week. The kids brought this question up. (I strongly encourage biblical questions to be brought up that we will all study together to find the truest interpretation)

I remember studying this before and I remember seeing something in it that was different than what taking that one verse on it's own seems to say. But, for the life of me, I'm drawing a blank so far.

I always find that when you open up a verse like this for discussion that in a spirit of discussion among several that we will all learn something.

So... to answer your question. My thoughts are that it probably isn't saying in context exactly what it appears to be saying on it's own which seems to be... that if one does something... anything... that they know is wrong then they can never be forgiven.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

This is great! Truly. A discussion of a subject that is all but ignored by 'the Ministry'.
Thank you.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Thanks Brother. I would be honored to have your input on this subject.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I have been taught that "context, context, context" is important. :thumbsup

I was taught that Paul was speaking to the Jews in the church. Some of them didn't want to give up certain portions of the law and wanted to continue offering sacrifices.

He was saying..... There is no more sacrifice for those who have received Jesus as their Saviour. HE was the ultimate sacrifice. Sacrificing for the atonement of sins was finished at Calvary.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Or... if a person turns to Christ and then turns back to Jewish tradition, there is no sacrifice because they've denied the greatest and true sacrifice. This wouldn't prevent someone returning to God, but would show Jews why they shouldn't turn from Christ once they'd converted. Under the old covenant:
The new covenant offered a better way.
Heb 10:26 isn't saying that a person can't come back to God once they've sinned. It's saying that outside of Christ there is no sacrifice, only judgment. So the Jews who turn back to the law and traditions can't really go back--there's nothing to go back to. The old covenant sacrifice has been done away with by the new covenant.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Yes ma'am. This is where it looks like it is heading to me too. I read chapter 10 and went back to chapter 9 for more context on the discussion and I am now back to chapter 8... it's a little slow because I'm listening to the chapters online while I work and I keep getting distracted and have to listen again... and again... and again. :)

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I believe that "sin willfully" means "living a lifestyle of sin, like we were before salvation". Than as time goes by a strong delusion will come that convinces us that we are actually still o.k. with God in that state( reprobate mindset), and will feel no need to repent (no more sacrifice for sins).


:doggyrun

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I find this subject is full of speculation and assumption, leaving common sense thinkers by the wayside. In other words, people become the target of absurd judgment and name calling, and those who step in to put out these false fires are deemed as liberal, rebellious, or evil.

For instance, take a look at the Prodigal Son. This young man takes his fathers inheritance, completely wastes every penny on riotous living, and finds himself at the bottom of the bottom. The Church today would chastise this boy as a fool and a backslider. I have seen this done more times than I can count and the Church is guilty of labeling people before the end result.

Speculation has become Religions greatest flaw; we presume to know, when we don't.

I think we need to stop putting people in Heaven, or Hell, calling them saved, and unsaved, getting back to the basics that Humans will FAIL. Failure will always be our demise and the Church must accept this fact of life. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no utopia!! There is no Nirvana! We are incapable of becoming good enough, and chasing this false dream will destroy more lives than it saves.

I have come to the conclusion, the Church must return to embracing the failed, the dirty, the confused, the sick, and people who never attain our level of understanding. If we don't, we ourselves will be condemned because we leave people in the gutter after they've been ravaged by thieves of circumstance or bad choices. Churches have become “Clubs” and when members don’t measure up to the status symbol of that Group (Race, dress, beliefs, ect), out comes the Axe.

This is beyond sad.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

A point:

This is indeed very close to the mark. However, the operative words, as already noted by others, in this verse are, “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, …” Hebrews 10:26.

The context of verse 26 is found in verses 22-31, concerning individuals who willfully continue in their sin – there is no other sacrifice for that additional sin, other than the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yet, even that atonement has its limits, as already noted on this thread and concluded in Heb 22:28-31.

--------------------------
Heb 10:22-31 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

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

For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

---------------------------------

While it is also true that once the Ark of the Covenant was lost and the Temple destroyed, it was not even possible to perform another 'biblical' sacrifice for sin, according to the Law.

This fact also impacts many doctrines of today (far reaching implications) which still rely on observing some parts of the Law - while dismissing other portions. But, that is another subject for another day.

Added note:

Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Uhhh... NFS... have you read the posts in this thread? Have you observed the directions we are headed with this?

What an odd post considering the discussion that has gone on in this thread.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Here is Jason's post:

I think it speaks of one who refuses to accept the chastening of the Lord, who,though warned and punished, continuies in disobedience, rebellion, unbelief, and unrepentance turned over to a rebrobate mind.

I don't think people can backslide and get saved again. I think we would classify someone as backslid, when many times they are being disobedient and subjecting themselves to the chaseting of God (such as David w/ Basheeba). BUT if one truly backslides and does get to the point spoken of in Hebrews 10:26, I think that is where the warning in Hebrews 6 comes in so strongly "it is impossible to rnew them to repentance..."

Basically in my view, I don't believe your once saved, always saved, nor do I believe salvation is so fickle that you (can possibly) posess it and lose it multiple times in a lifetime. I think once you have been saved, it is difficult to be lost, but still possible. But IF someone did lose their salvation, it would be impossible to "get saved again". I think the Bible backs up my point, though I admit this hasn't been one of the topics I've spent much time on.

This post is chock full of speculation. When the topic of who’s in, and who’s out comes up, you always see the subject of mercy go this direction.

D4T, there are things we just don't know, and where God draws the line is God's business, not ours.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Yes sir... and I agree. But this isn't the conclusion everyone is coming to. I guess it would have seemed less "off the wall" to me if you would have quoted his post or something. Since your post didn't quote a post it seemed like you were talking about everyone who has been involved in this thread.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

How was my post off subject? You asked for an opinion, I gave mine.

This topic really leaves only one of 3 possibilities:
1)Were once saved, always saved
2)We can be saved and lost saved and lost multiple times in our life (common pentecostal view)
3)we can lose salvation, but if we do there remains no sacrifice for sins

I suppose we can throw a 4th option in there Universalism, which makes the inerrency and authority of scripture take a second place to mans reasoning, and that is right up Not4Sale's alley-since he doesn't believe the Bible is God's Word, and doesn't believe there is a hell. Obviously he has a real problem with my opinions.

Furthermore, it should be noted I didn't judge anyone, I never claimed to do anything else BUT give my opinion, obviously when dealing with someones salvation it is all speculation because in the final analysis we don't know the heart.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Jason, I don't think D4T was saying you were off topic. It was just confusing as to why NFS interjected what he did.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I would add one other thing, based on the assertion that the book is written ONLY to Jews some people take the stance that both Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 CANNOT mean you can lose your salvation (John MacArthur affirms this view). The logic is that it is only talking to the Jews who knew the gospel, but never got saved. I don't think that is consistent when Hebrews 6 plainly says they HAVE repented and HAVE tasted of the powers of the world to come, and HAVE been PARTAKERS of the Holy Ghost. Hebrews 10 is obviously speaking of people who ARE part of the church in a warning fashion, even saying in verse 29 that said persons has been sanctified.


I think that the two Hebrews scriptures have too much in common with 2 Peter 2:20-22 to simply say that Paul (who most, including myself believe to be the author of Hebrews) wasn't giving the same warnings to a different audience. Furthermore consider Pauls attitude on the topic in writing to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 9:27 and 2 Corinthians 13:5-7.

Sorry D4T if thats not what your looking for, I may have misunderstood your opening post.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

That is correct. My comments were directed to NFS alone.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Missourimary said it right.

I believe this might show more what is being discussed. If the Jews converted to Christianity and then turned back to the law and denied Christ, they might border on doing these things. Yet I think even most of them didn't get to the point being described here.

There was a wholesale backsliding of converted Jews who returned back to Law in those days. Heb 6 is what that was referring to. IOW, if you do not accept Christ's sacrifice by turning back to law and animal sacrifices, there is no other sacrifice to obtain. Christ is IT!

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I've been so busy I haven't finished my study yet. The study took me to chapter nine... then to chapter eight. So I see that i am going to be going all the way back to Chapter 6? :)

Thanks for this input.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

:thumbsup

the Jews were secure in their laws and customs. Some converted and then wanted to go back to animal sacrifices, circumcision, and traditions, thinking they had security in those. Our security isn't in those things; it's in Jesus alone.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

If one verse in chapter 6 was tied so directly to another in chapter 10, why are all those other verses between them?

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I haven't made it all the way back to Chapter 6 yet but I am as far back as Chapter 8 at the moment and the reason is that, backtracking through the chapters, I have yet to find the beginning of the conversation. What is being discussed in Chapter 10 started before Chapter 8. So it is good to read the entire conversation when attempting to derive the meaning of scripture.

It could very well be that in Chapter 6 we find the beginning and even the subject of the conversation and it could then be that after 4 chapters of discussion we find the conclusion in chapter 10.

Like I said... I haven't made it that far back yet but I do know that the conversation spans at least 2 chapters back at this point and I suspect that what Brother Blume has pointed out could be the beginning of that conversation.

The subject is often found at the beginning of a conversation or monologue and the conclusion is often found at the end. So it isn't an oddity to find 2 scriptures separated by a few chapters that directly correspond with one another.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Hmmm sounds oddly like our day. :) The more things change... the more they stay the same. :)

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Adam Clarke always had good thoughts about passages:

Have fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, If they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated παραπεσοντας in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses.”

It appears from this, whatever sentiment may gain or lose by it, that there is a fearful possibility of falling away from the grace of God; and if this scripture did not say so, there are many that do say so. And were there no scripture express on this subject, the nature of the present state of man, which is a state of probation or trial, must necessarily imply it. Let him who most assuredly standeth, take heed lest he fall.

To renew them again unto repentance - As repentance is the first step that a sinner must take in order to return to God, and as sorrow for sin must be useless in itself unless there be a proper sacrificial offering, these having rejected the only available sacrifice, their repentance for sin, had they any, would be nugatory, and their salvation impossible on this simple account; and this is the very reason which the apostle immediately subjoins: -

Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God - They reject him on the ground that he was an impostor, and justly put to death. And thus they are said to crucify him to themselves - to do that in their present apostasy which the Jews did; and they show thereby that, had they been present when he was crucified, they would have joined with his murderers.

And put him to an open shame - Παραδειγματιζοντας· And have made him a public example; or, crucifying unto themselves and making the Son of God a public example. That is, they show openly that they judge Jesus Christ to have been worthy of the death which he suffered, and was justly made a public example by being crucified. This shows that it is final apostasy, by the total rejection of the Gospel, and blasphemy of the Savior of men, that the apostle has in view. See the note on Heb_6:4 (note).

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

More Clarke:
Heb 6:4

Heb 6:4

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened - Before I proceed to explain the different terms in these verses, it is necessary to give my opinion of their design and meaning:

1. I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity.

2. They do not belong, nor are they applicable, to backsliders of any kind.

3. They belong to apostates from Christianity; to such as reject the whole Christian system, and its author, the Lord Jesus.

4. And to those of them only who join with the blaspheming Jews, call Christ an impostor, and vindicate his murderers in having crucified him as a malefactor; and thus they render their salvation impossible, by wilfully and maliciously rejecting the Lord that bought them. No man believing in the Lord Jesus as the great sacrifice for sin, and acknowledging Christianity as a Divine revelation, is here intended, though he may have unfortunately backslidden from any degree of the salvation of God.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

It really does go back to Ch. 6.

Clarke on Heb 10

Heb 10:26
For if we sin wilfully - If we deliberately, for fear of persecution or from any other motive, renounce the profession of the Gospel and the Author of that Gospel, after having received the knowledge of the truth so as to be convinced that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and that he had sprinkled our hearts from an evil conscience; for such there remaineth no sacrifice for sins; for as the Jewish sacrifices are abolished, as appears by the declaration of God himself in the fortieth Psalm, and Jesus being now the only sacrifice which God will accept, those who reject him have none other; therefore their case must be utterly without remedy. This is the meaning of the apostle, and the case is that of a deliberate apostate - one who has utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atonement, and renounced the whole Gospel system. It has nothing to do with backsliders in our common use of that term. A man may be overtaken in a fault, or he may deliberately go into sin, and yet neither renounce the Gospel, nor deny the Lord that bought him. His case is dreary and dangerous, but it is not hopeless; no case is hopeless but that of the deliberate apostate, who rejects the whole Gospel system, after having been saved by grace, or convinced of the truth of the Gospel. To him there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin; for there was but the One, Jesus, and this he has utterly rejected.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Jason, my challenges in regards to the Bible have been based off of facts, not assumptions. Show me one place in comment or debate where I have done otherwise.

Your interpretation of Scripture is NOT what everyone else believes. If they did, we wouldn't be on this Forum in endless debate. Admit it, agreement with the Bible is not possible and the reasons are obvious; men wrote it, translated it, and use it to build the Kingdom(s) of Denomination (a FACT).

Hell, Salvation, Holiness, and Scriptural authority/interpretation are subject to the MEN who read this controversial Book. The Bible also has deep roots with Catholicism, and has led to over 30,000 Denominations that can’t find the “Same Page”.

The subject of those who are saved and who aren't is a difficult one, and we must admit; we just don't know. Taking into account that most of the Human Race has NEVER held a Bible, where does this leave those people who never had the privilege of reading Scripture?

Saved? Lost? In the middle somewhere?

The more we delve into this issue the more we see that Mankind is confused over Faith and Conviction. Even within our own ranks, EVERY Church is in a different light and heading down a different path. This has caused Pastors to refuse fellowship with “Other” Churches because of differing views on such things as, riding a roller coaster, wearing colored shirts/underwear, slits in dresses, celebrating Holidays, wedding bands, facial hair, and the list goes on. These are the FACTS.

The “Backslidden” issue is another disdain we use on people who are struggling, leaving the weak for the wolves of Religion. I don’t know how much experience you have, but our treatment in Pentecost over the “Fallen” is abuse, and we use the Bible to justify our name calling and rejection of people who are not on our “Level” of understanding.

We detest that Jesus looked over at a man at his death and pardoned him. Religion hates this, all because he was paid the same wage as those who’ve toiled their whole life in Faith and Devotion.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Awesome input!

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

I should have been clearer--the reason for my earlier post is that some people connect Heb 6:4 to Heb 10:26 and use the two verses, without reading any of the context between, to condemn everyone they think isn't just "right". Considering the whole context of the book is reasonable. Cutting out everything between two verses is not.

Knee jerk reaction to something that messed me up for years, not something related to the discussion here. I have no argument with the study and discussion on this thread.

:haloplug

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

All that is between those two verses is pertinent to the entire conversation.

Is there something in between that you feel is in conflict with these verses contextual relation to one another?

When I teach my class we will be reading much of these chapters. For times sake in a 45 minute class we may not have time to study through 5 entire chapters and still get to the point but it won't be because we are disregarding those scriptures.

I don't feel that anyone is disregarding them really. We are discussing what might be the beginning and the end of this conversation. All of the data between those 2 points is completely relevant to those 2 verses. They are the substance of the overall point.

Let me know what you are feeling is being missed. It is input from different individuals that makes a conversation such as this expand into places we might not have thought of before.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

No, like I said, I have no argument with the way things are being discussed and studied here. You all are taking things in context. I've appreciated the discussion here. Several things have been discussed on this thread that have helped bring better perspective to the passages for me.

I've seen Hebrews 6:4 and Hebrews 10:26 pulled out to stand alone and condemn people too often in the past. Not present.

Re: No More Sacrifice For Sin
 

Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 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?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The "setting" of a photograph means a lot to the overall picture, and here that setting is framed with ...hold fast the profession of our faith...provolk one another unto love and good works.....not forsaking the assemblying...exhorting one another (these are the before "settings" followed by.....fearful looking for of judgment...devour the adversaries...despised Moses' law died...how much sorer punishment...trodden under foot the Son of God....counted the blood of the covenant ...an unholy thing....done despite unto the Spirit of Grace...fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I think choosing to be an adversary to Jesus is stupid, and I think that decision is a very conscious decision, and Judas made that decision, and he found no place of repentance.

Concerning sin...

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

There appears to be a place where a person can choose to become an enemy of Jesus, and that is not a place from which one can return it appears.

For if we sin wilfully

Although it can be argued that any sin requires some involvment of the will, certainly the implication here involves not being caught up into a sin issue (as in snared in a sin, or caught unawares), but rather choosing to run to evil and become the enemy of Jesus.