tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3934207381806686271..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Arminian trump cardRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65344442167869402842008-03-29T11:14:00.000-04:002008-03-29T11:14:00.000-04:00GODISMYJUDGE SAID“Does Hebrews ever use ‘sanctify’...GODISMYJUDGE SAID<BR/><BR/>“Does Hebrews ever use ‘sanctify’ in the sense you are here, in any other passage besides Hebrews 10:29?”<BR/><BR/>From Bill Lane’s commentary:<BR/><BR/>“The cultic character of teleiosai in v[2:]10 is confirmed by the reference to consecration in v11. The vocabulary appears to be used in its OT significance, in which the people of Israel were sanctified or consecrated to God and his service in order to be admitted into his presence,” 1:58.<BR/><BR/>“The apostate ‘has treated the blood of the covenant, by which he was consecrated [to the service of God], as defiled.’ The formulation reflects the cultic argument in 9:11-10:18…The phrase en ho hegiasthe, ‘by means of which he was consecrated,’ resumes 10:10,14…” 2:294.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that Lane favors the Arminian interpretation of the apostasy passages, so I’m not begging the question by citing a Reformed commentator.<BR/><BR/>“Does the NT ever use sanctify in the sense you are within the context of Christ's blood?”<BR/><BR/>i) When we exegete Hebrews, we need, as much as possible, to stick to his own usage and literary allusions.<BR/><BR/>ii) Keep in mind that, according to Ellingworth, the verb (to consecrate) may refer to the covenant rather than the apostate.<BR/><BR/>iii) You’re verging on the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy. The verb (to sanctify or consecrate) doesn’t’ derive its meaning from the noun (“blood”) which it happens to take. You need to distinguish between the meaning of a sentence and the meaning of a word.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28244407434592987312008-03-29T11:01:00.000-04:002008-03-29T11:01:00.000-04:00Ben: “The greatest difficulty for Calvinism in th...<B>Ben:</B> “The greatest difficulty for Calvinism in these verses is the fact that the apostate is said to have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant.”<BR/><BR/><B>Steve:</B> That’s debatable. According to Ellingworth, “Grammatically, the subject [of hagiazo] could be the covenant” (541). Since Ben has quoted Ellingworth once before, why doesn’t he quote him on the alternative rendering?<BR/><BR/><B>Me:</B> The "he" could also be "the Son of God" since Jesus was set apart not by any other man, but by God the Father, for his office as priest. OT priests were set apart and dedicated by God, who set aside and dedicated Jesus qua priest to God?<BR/><BR/>And, this doesn't affect limited atonement. By my paedobaptist perspective, we have Hebrews saying that Jesus shed his blood "for those who draw near to him." "Drawing near" represents and pays off as "resting in God." So, those who do not "draw near" cannot be said to be "resting." In the OT, on the Day of Atonement, the priest would make sacrifice for "all those who did not work." If you "worked" on the Day of Atonement, then you would be put to death," and no sacrifice was made for you. But, they were put to death as covenant members.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47870294374328075552008-03-29T10:14:00.000-04:002008-03-29T10:14:00.000-04:00Dear Steve,Interesting comments... Does Hebrews e...Dear Steve,<BR/><BR/>Interesting comments... Does Hebrews ever use "sanctify" in the sense you are here, in any other passage besides Hebrews 10:29? Does the NT ever use sanctify in the sense you are within the context of Christ's blood?<BR/><BR/>God be with you,<BR/>DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.com