WHAT IS MEANT IN HEBREWS SAYING THERE IS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS?

[Lambano]

The logic seems very straight-forward, and I don't see why there should be any controversy about it.

Most controversy from the Christian standpoint (who cares if someone would prefer to be Jewish again?) comes from the "Preservation of the Saints" (which put the P on the TULIP), or "OSAS" for non-Calvinists. CAN a born-again Christian abandon Christ?

In the Calvinist Ordo Salutis, when God brings the Elect Christian to belief, He regenerates their spirit (what they think Jesus meant by being "born again") such that it can overcome the resistance of Total Depravity in order to believe. The regenerated spirit will not and indeed cannot permanently apostatize. Arminians who believe in OSAS believe that one can come to faith in Christ before Regeneration (either through free will or via what Wesley called "Prevenient Grace"). Regeneration/being "born from above" comes AFTER belief in the Arminian Ordo Salutis. Jacob Arminius himself would not commit either way; he said it was an issue to be looked into. Arminians who do believe in apostacy say that the warnings in Hebrews are meaningless unless one CAN leave. Faith is the door in; abandoning faith (not sin per se) is the door out. (Source: Grace, Faith, and Free Will by Robert Picirilli.)

The author of Hebrews assumes that one can leave and warns repeatedly against it.

 

[GodsGrace]

The text doesn't say that explicitly (though it may well be that the author assumes this). But if your reading is correct (and most commentaries I've read agree with you), then the "there is no more sacrifice for sins" follows from the author's logic: The New Covenant of Christ is superior to the Old Mosaic Covenant (v7:22; all of chapter 8) and has rendered the Old Covenant obsolete (v8:13). If one abandons the New Covenant for the Old, the Levitical sacrifices are no longer in effect, so "there remains no more sacrifice for sins" (v10:26), Q.E.D. The logic seems very straight-forward, and I don't see why there should be any controversy about it. (Unless one is a Dispensationalist who believes the Mosaic Covenant and its blood sacrifices are still in effect for the Jewish people.)

If I've understood you correctly, we agree.

Some use these verses to show that God will not accept a person that RETURNS to Him after having committed apostacy.
This is not true.
God will accept any person at any time.
There is more joy in heaven over one repentent sinner...

The Prodigal Son....
He is alive AGAIN....

Great explanation!
Will have to remember it.

 

[GodsGrace]

@Lambano
They use Hebrews 6 to invalidate conditinal eternal security.
They believe that by invalidating CES....
it would necessarily mean that OSAS is correct and no one can ever leave God since it would be
impossible to return to Him.

As you've shown...
Hebrews 6 CAN be used to show that falling away is possible....

but it CANNOT be used to support the idea that God will not accept back a person that had left.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

First thing we must remember, is the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.

second thing we must remember is only one sacrifice could ever take away sin. (the cross)

so one having rejected the cross. in effect has taken away any possible sacrifice for sin that could have applied to them..

They were in a dead state, they remain in a dead state, And unless they repent, they will be in an eternal dead state