The Biblical Doctrine of Election

It didn't.

who

has counted in what he was sanctified
The "who" is who "has counted" are the subject.

The "in what" being the blood of the covenant "he was sanctified.". To suppose the Son of God needed to be the one who in the past tense to have been sanctified is degrading.

 

If you cannot see that to "set apart" for a purpose does not require the person set apart to be made holy, I cannot add further explanation.

John 17:17
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Here the idea is to set them apart in truth such that they present the true gospel and not some corruption of the truth.

1 Peter 3:15
but [fn]sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect;

Footnote: " i.e. set apart." Obviously Christ is already holy so the idea of making Him holy is not the meaning of the word in this context. Rather the idea is to make Christ separate and overriding from all our other priorities.

 

You need me to tell you what context means! Funny how you trust some man rather than the bible. I am not trying to persuade you of anything I am just asking you to open your eyes and read the context, which it seems the content of you are unable to comprehend.

There is this likeness between apostates under the Law and under the Gospel, that both perish without mercy; but the kind of death is different; for the Apostle denounces on the despisers of Christ not only the deaths of the body, but eternal perdition. And therefore he says that a sorer punishment awaits them. And he designates the desertion of Christianity by three things; for he says that thus the Son of God is trodden under foot, that his blood is counted an unholy thing, and that despite is done to the Spirit of grace. Now, it is a more heinous thing to tread under foot than to despise or reject; and the dignity of Christ is far different from that of Moses; and further, he does not simply set the Gospel in opposition to the Law, but the person of Christ and of the Holy Spirit to the person of Moses.
He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification.
Calvins Complete Commentary

Perhaps since you seem unable to understand context and you trust other men to tell you what you should think then you will trust what J.Calvin said?

Or perhaps you will trust this comment.
Heb_10:29. The pastor joins three culminative aorist participial phrases with one article to create a comprehensive description of this person: the one “who has trampled under foot the Son of God, accounted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified profane, and insulted the Spirit of grace.”

This description of the apostate from Christ makes “setting aside,” the participle used in the lesser case above, however forceful in itself, pale by comparison. The pastor draws on the entire panorama that he has been presenting since the beginning of his sermon. Thus, the first participle echoes all that he has said in the opening chapters of Hebrews about the Son of God, eternal, exalted, and the ultimate agent of both revelation and salvation.

By his repudiation of Christ the apostate “has trampled under foot,” and thus shown great disdain for, no one less than the one whom God himself has “exalted” as Savior to the place of all authority at his right hand (Heb_1:3; 13; etc.), the very “Son of God.”

It may be no surprise that the apostate who was previously described as “crucifying the Son of God again” and “exposing him to contempt” (Heb_6:6) can also be described as trampling him “under foot.”

The second participle, “having accounted the blood of the covenant profane,” recalls what the pastor has said about Christ’s high priesthood, first mentioned in Heb_2:17-18 but more fully introduced in 4:14-5:10. The pastor’s grand symphony on the adequacy of Christ’s sacrifice in 8:1-10:18 is still resounding in his hearers’ ears. It was that sacrifice alone, described as nothing less than “his own blood” (Heb_9:14), that has taken away sin, providing access to God and establishing a New Covenant of heart obedience. By repudiating Christ the apostate has “accounted” the very “blood” of Christ that had provided for his salvation, the very “blood” that established the New “Covenant,” a “common” or “profane” thing. That is, he has treated Christ’s “blood” as if it were no different from any other blood, and thus desecrated it.

The pastor makes it clear that this “blood” of Christ was the very blood by which the apostate had been “sanctified” at his conversion, when his sin had been removed and he had been given access to God.

The contrast between “common”/“profane” and “sanctified” is intentionally crafted to intensify the shock administered by the previous statement.
New International Commentary on the New Testament

 

Van I am not questioning the use of sanctify in the verses you posted. What you are missing is the way that it is used in Heb 10:26-29. If the person was set apart by the blood of Christ what does that mean in this context is the question. Your version does not comport with the context of the verse in question. The Jews were under the law as the gentile would have been under grace.

The pastor makes it clear that this “blood” of Christ was the very blood by which the apostate had been “sanctified” at his conversion, when his sin had been removed and he had been given access to God.
New International Commentary on the New Testament

 

'Who' comes before 'Son of God' both in English and Greek. Therefore 'Son of God' is the nearest antecedent.
To suppose that someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and insulted the Spirit has been sanctified by God is degrading.

 

I am sick to death of your sneering attitude. I am quite happy with the context. I asked you to tell me what you think the context is so that I can discuss with you, but you seem quite unable to tell me what it is.
Also, are you unaware that Calvin was a Presbyterian?

Now please leave me alone. I get no pleasure whatsoever from discussing with you.

 

You are not making good sense. Not that I can follow. NKJV and NASB says you are wrong as I am understanding the text and you.

 

No one who has been made holy can become lost. And the context of Hebrews 10:26-29 supports that view.

1) "Knowledge of the truth" refers to hearing and understanding the gospel, not being chosen and transferred spiritually into Christ where individuals are "made holy" by the washing of regeneration.

2) No additional "sacrifice for sins" is available for those who did not fully embrace the gospel message.

3) Those that reject the gospel face judgement and the lake of fire.

4) To reject the gospel is to "trample on the Son and God.

5) As I have stated rather than suggested or implied or otherwise pussy-footed my words, the Greek word translated "sanctified" means, in this context, "set apart" under the New Covenant in His blood, and does not suggest he or she was set apart in Christ or made holy by the washing of regeneration. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, thus He bought those never to be saved, and His purchase set apart all humanity under the New Covenant in His blood.

6) I am saying that the people in view in Hebrews 10:26-29 were NEVER SAVED.

 

I have shown you what the context is Heb 10:26-29 and asked you to open your eyes to it but you do not want to do that it seems. By the way that was not a sneering attitude it was shock that you seem to miss the obvious. As to whether Calvin was a Presbyterian or not does not matter but you do not even trust the one that your theological view is named after.What matters is the text and context of scripture not what some man tells you the text means.

The context **Hebrews 10:26-29** does not support you view. The one that Paul is referring to as having been sanctified is the person that then:

has trampled under foot the Son of God,
and
has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant
by which he was sanctified
and
has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Your saying that the person cannot have been sanctified by God is based on your reading into the text what you wish to find instead of following what this text actually tells us.

I asked you to show me one verse that says Christ was sanctified by His blood but you have not done so because you cannot. Man can be sanctified by the blood of Christ which is just what this text shows us. Why do you not trust what the Holy Spirit says?

Every place in Hebrews that "sanctified" is used it refers to believers (cf. Heb_2:11; Heb_9:13; Heb_10:10; Heb_10:14; Heb_13:12). For me the issue is one of covenant-keeping. The sovereign God has produced a covenant relating to salvation. It is free; it is for all, but it must be received (human free will), not just in an emotional response (cf. Mat_13:20-22), nor in a uniting with a church (cf. 1Jn_2:19). Believing is the key. Those who believe/faith/trust (all possible translations of pisteuô) are saved and have assurance. The dual warning of Hebrews is to (1) receive the gospel offer and (2) walk in it. If one fails to receive—judgment; if one ceases to believe—judgment! Utley

 

Van as I pointed out to you before you have to look at the context in which "sanctified" is used. It is clear that in this context the meaning is saved. "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" not that he might be. That is past tense, it is something that has happened.

 

I presented the context in post # 108, you have not presented your understanding that sanctified means either set apart in Christ or made holy in Christ.

I did not say "might be sanctified" but "set apart under the New Covenant." Please address my actual position.

 

This is the thread topic, the one none of the deniers addresses. Ask yourselves, why not?

The biblical doctrine of election is not Doctor Wallace’s doctrine of election, the biblical doctrine is conditional, it occurs during our lifetime; God chose us individually out of this world, not before the foundation of the world, when He chose Christ. The only way I see to reconcile Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and John 15:19 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 and James 2:5 is to understand the phrase “He chose us in Him” as meaning He chose Christ to be His Redeemer, His Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:20) before the foundation of the world, and since you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem, God’s choice of Christ chose us corporately as a target group of His Redemption plan but not individually. Thus Paul is speaking to those who have been redeemed during their lives, and is letting them know of the many blessings they have received, the first one being the blessing that was directed toward them when God chose Christ.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches God chose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.
John 15:19 teaches God chose individuals out of the world, thus since the foundation of the world.
1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches those chosen were once not a chosen people, thus were not chosen individually before they were created.
James 2:5 teaches God chooses individuals who are both "rich in faith" and heirs to the kingdom promised to those "who love God," thus a conditional election.

"The Biblical Doctrine of Individual Election is conditional, it occurs during our lifetime, God chooses individuals out of this world, not before the foundation of the world. Therefore the election of Ephesian 1:4 is corporate, the result of God choosing Christ to be His Redeemer, as the target group of God's redemption plan formulated before the foundation of the world.

 

Hebrews 10:29. NKJV. 'Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing......'

Hebrews 10:29, NASB. 'How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified......'

'He' and 'who,' marked in red, refer to the apostate, but 'Son of God' is nearer to the second 'he' and therefore, all other things being equal, the second 'he' should be regarded as referring to 'Son of God.'

But more important than that is the question of whether someone who has been sanctified can possibly commit the sins described in the verse. Hebrews 8:14 says, 'For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.'

 

Again, you are repeating ypur view.
Now if the translators of NKJV and NASB understood "he was sanctified" referred to the Son they would have used "He was sanctified."
See verse 30, ". . . For we know Him . . . ."

 

Van what you are doing is ignoring the context of those verses. I posted this before but you do not seem to have taken it into consideration.

The context does not support your view. Also the standard dictionaries do not.

SANC'TIFIED, pp.
Made holy; consecrated; set apart for sacred services. Webster

sanctified G37
to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
to purify internally by renewing of the soul Thayer

To make holy, sanctify Complete Word Study Dictionary {WSD}

Van you are just refusing to see what I have posted. What did Webster, Thayer & WSD give as a meaning for sanctified? Made holy, free from the guilt of sin, renewing of the soul, To make holy. How do you miss what the bible says in plain text "the covenant by which he was sanctified". How and when is one sanctified? If you say it is outside of Christ then you have a problem with scripture.

Van you said "the Greek word translated "sanctified" means, in this context, "set apart" under the New Covenant in His blood," If the person was set apart in His blood how does that not mean saved? If not saved then what is he set apart for in this verse?

Van the New Covenant means salvation through faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus. If one is set apart in Christ is that different than being made Holy in Christ? If one is in Christ Jesus they are sanctified/saved as that is the result of being in Christ. You can fight this all you want but as the text shows that the person was, {past tense} set apart, made Holy, saved, sanctified by the blood of the covenant. And this is the blood that they are now counting as common.

So yes this person was saved and in now repudiating the only means of their salvation.

 

I suspect that the translation teams were dominated by paedobaptists. Presbyterians and Episcopalians believe in infant baptism and therefore have a different understanding of the new covenant. If you read any commentary on Hebrews written by a paedobaptist (and most of them are) they will agree with you. John Owen, a Congregationalist, was the exception.

 

I specifically addressed the context. You have ignored my position and claimed I did not in Post # 108.

 

I have read your posts and what you do is still disregard the context. When you say that the person is set apart but is not saved then you have chosen a different meaning for set apart when used in relation to the blood of Christ. If one is set apart, sanctified or made holy in Christ through the blood of the covenant it all comes down to the same thing, they are saved.

This was the great danger for these Hebrews who had professed faith in Christ, yet lingered around the Levitical institutions as the temple with its worship was still standing. If they renounced the truth of Christianity by turning back to Judaism they trampled under foot the Son of God and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing; for such horrible, deliberate contempt there was no repentance and no remedy. They cannot escape judgment.
The blood received by faith, consecrates the soul to God; but it is here viewed also as an outward means for setting apart the people as a people. Every individual who had owned Jesus to be the Messiah, and the blood to be the seal and foundation of an everlasting covenant available for eternal cleansing and redemption on the part of God, acknowledging himself to be set apart for God, by this means, as one of the people--every such individual would, if he renounced it, renounce it as such; and there was no other way of sanctifying him. Annotated Bible Old and New Testament - Arno Clement Gaebelein

 

The verse (Hebrews 10:29) does not say nor suggest the person who trampled on the Son of God had been washed with the blood of Christ. You are reading that into the text. I am addressing the context, your view ignores the context.