It's getting a little tense in here...

Can a person, at some time, be sanctified by the blood of the covenant and then later not be sanctified? ..."was sanctified"...let that sink in... 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? Hebrews 10:29 KJV Twisting the literal context is necessary to make this say something that it does not. Tense in this case is critical to the context in the same way that the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ is for past sins, not future sins. Many people get this wrong as well. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:25 KJV So when we read "was sanctified" and "sins that are past" the intended and straight forward tense used is important in order to understand God's words within His context and not our own. If anyone has difficulties with this then that is their problem to work out with God.

#biblicalcontext #tense #doctrine