Tuesday, April 04, 2006
What Was I Supposed to Do?
It gets to be a little much. You know what a humble Baptist is to a COC member? On his back with a COC shoe on his neck. Humility isn't timidly admitting that the false prophet is right. I've been getting these letters from COC people telling me that it was a different debate than I've described and I'm an arrogant outright liar. Two words: Sanballat and Tobiah. Read Nehemiah and find the criticism Nehemiah got when he rebuilt the wall. Larry Hafley is one of the most arrogant guys you'll ever see. His rhetoric tactics require some like kind speech. A fool must be answered lest he be wise in his own conceit. Let me give you just a few more bloopers. I should say at the outset that I'm not making any of this up. The COC hears things through the Larry Hafley grid. Larry Hafley makes things up out of thin air at least once for every 20 minutes of debating. When you point them out, he makes some excuse or spins it into something else. I have so many of these bloopers going through my mind, it is just a matter of choosing.
Hebrews 10:10, 14 are great eternal security verses. They read, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." If they had one verse like these two on their side of this issue, they might be worth considering. "Sanctified" does not always refer to salvation in Scripture. It means "set apart." In these two verses it is salvation. In v. 10, the word "sanctified" is perfect tense, so that a person who is sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, is sanctified at one point in time in the past, that action of sanctification completed with the results ongoing. In v. 14, "hath perfected" is perfect tense. He completed our perfection at one point in the past with the results ongoing, and how long is that perfection ongoing? For ever. The point of Hebrews 10:1-18 is that Jesus completed what needed to be done for us to be saved for ever, so that we don't need to keep coming and coming, working and working, or believing and believing.
How do they answer that? They say that all of Hebrews was written to the saved alone, so that every text that is a warning to unbelievers is actually a warning to believers so that they won't lose their salvation. Larry Hafley went to Hebrews 10:28, 29, which say, "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?" Their key is the word "sanctified." They say that the word "sanctified" in v. 29 refers back to the one who despised Moses' law at the beginning of v. 28. "Sanctified actually refers back to "the Son of God." Jesus own blood sanctified his priestly ministry, just like the OT sacrificial animal blood sanctified Aaron and the priests. The "he" in "he was sanctified" is Jesus. The unbelieving Jew counts the blood of the covenant by which Jesus was sanctified to be an unholy thing. Son of God is the nearest antecedent and proximity is the number one criteria to identify the correct antecedent to a pronoun.
Mr. Hafley ignores all this grammar, does a kind "awww shucks" routine, tells the people how smart they are, and that the person here was "sanctified," so he must have been saved and then lost it when he did an unholy thing and did despite unto the Spirit of grace. If sanctified here can lose it, Hafley posits that the people in Hebrews 10:10, 14 can also lose it, even though they are said explicity not to be able do so. This is called interpreting the clear in the light of the completely muddled. I don't have to go to some other passage to show his passage doesn't work. "Sanctified" refers to Jesus because the nearest antecedent. It also fits the picture of priesthood that we would expect. After I made this argument in the debate, he presented no contrary evidence, but he did keep throwing up the chart with Hebrews 10:28, 29 and acting like I said nothing, never debunking anything that I said in Hebrews 10:28, 29 or Hebrews 10:14, 15. Who do you think I'm going to say is going the wrong way?