Part IV of IV

by Charles Vander Ploeg
CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO OF HEBREWS

In Mat.18,15-17 we have the method of discipline for the church. If a brother trespasses against us, we are to go to him first and tell him his fault with him alone. If he refuses to hear, we are to take two or three and go to him to try to make reconciliation between us. If he refuses to hear again, we are to bring the matter before the church. Then Jesus said in v.17, "But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as AN HEATHEN MAN AND A PUBLICAN." DID THE HEATHENS AND PUBLICANS HAVE SALVATION? INDEED NOT. Likewise the BELIEVER who trespasses against his BROTHER, and wilfully refuses to repent and be reconciled, but becomes recalcitrant and irreconcilable, has denied the faith, and is no better than a HEATHEN AND A PUBLICAN. Strong words these! Who said it? Jesus himself! WHY IS IT SO? Because he failed to HOLD FAST and to CONTINUE in the doctrine, I Tim.4-16. But Eternal Security tries to offset this by asking, "Are we saved by continuity or by the blood?" Our reply is, "By both." We are saved by the blood provisionally but we are saved experimentally thru CONTINUITY. The word 'salvation' itself is a term of CONTINUITY with glorification as its ultimate goal.

We note also that the writer of Hebrews not only exhorts them to HOLD FAST but he adds WITHOUT WAVERING. This word 'waver' is 'aklines' in the Greek and it means 'without bending or inclining' and it was for the benefit of those who were wavering that this epistle was written. Some had already forsaken Christ and had gone back to Judaism for in v.25 the writer said, "Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some is." They were going through severe persecution and had gone back to the shadow, after having come to Christ, the substance. In v.32 he speaks about a great fight of affliction; in v.33 he says they were a gazing stock by reproaches and afflictions; and in v.34 he mentions the spoiling of their goods. It was these severe trials that had caused some to go back and others were wavering, or 'inclining or bending,' as the Greek has it.

It was for this reason that in chap.3-12 he said, "Take heed brethren, lest there be in any of you, an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." It is quite evident that a man cannot depart from the city of Chicago if he has never been there; but if he is there, he can depart or remain at his own will or desire. Likewise if we could not depart from God, and be lost, the warning would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous.

The apostle Peter refers to these trials in I Pet.2, 19-20; 3,14-17 and we herewith quote I Pet.4,12-13: "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial as tho some strange thing happened unto you. But rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's suffering: that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy."

We now come to the most important part of this chapter which is v.26-29 which we quote herewith:

26, "But if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

v.27, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

v.28, He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

v.29, 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?"

There have been some strange and extraneous conclusions drawn from these four verses by Eternal Security, and also by their opponents. Had they all realized that this subjects deals entirely with wavering JEWISH CHRISTIANS who were going back to Jewish sacrifices, they would not have advanced the unscriptural interpretations that they have. There is nothing here that refers to a fallen Christian who is usually called a backslider. When we sin we lose our fellowship. But when we repent and confess to God, He renews our fellowship. If we refuse to repent, and come back to God, we lose our sonship also, and if we die in that state, we will be eternally lost just like any other sinner.

But because Sonship and Fellowship has not been taught, many Christians when they fail God, feel that they have backslid as they call it. Had they realized that only their fellowship was marred, they would not have been so discouraged in the times of their failures when overcome by some sin in the flesh.

Others have been so 'indoctrinated' in what is called 'backsliding," that when they failed God, they just felt that they could not live a Christian life, and so gave up in despair. Others had a fault or habit that they did not overcome at once and when overtaken, they felt that they were backslid, and so did not continue in the Christian race. All this is due to making the word 'backslide' mean something that it does not mean. It is a significant fact that neither the words 'backslid, backslide, backsliding' or 'backslider' are to be found anywhere in the New Testament. Just because a believer loses his fellowship, that is no sign that he is a backslider, as the term is usually used. We would be much better off if we never used the words 'backslide' or 'backslider.' But you ask, "What should we call a man who fell from grace and has gone back into the world?" James said in ch.5,19-20, "Brethren, if any of YOU, do ERR from the TRUTH, and one CONVERT him, let him know that he which CONVERTETH THE SINNER - shall save a SOUL FROM DEATH." James called him a sinner, and that's just what he is, no more, no less.

Then there are others who have taken another extreme view and have seized the last clause of v.26 which reads, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." They have taught if a man once was saved and fell away from God, he could not get back to God. Some called this the unpardonable sin, and some have even gone so far as to call this the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. They said, "If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO SACRIFICE FOR SINS." But this is not what the writer said. The writer said, "NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS," meaning NO MORE SACRIFICES or NO OTHER SACRIFICE; because Christ was the last sacrifice that God accepted. After Christ was crucified, the Jews kept up their temple sacrifices but they were no more accepted than was Cain's. The veil into the most holy was rent from top to bottom, showing that the power that did it came from above and not from earth. The rending of the veil was indicative of the fact that the way to God had been made open thru the death of Christ, and it was possible for all men to come unto Him by faith, and faith only.

Then there are those who taught that if a man was once convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and refused to yield and be saved; that he had sinned against the light and there was no sacrifice for his sins. Such teaching is all nonsense and some sinners who have heard it, have been lost because they felt that there was no hope for them. The truth of the matter is, that there are some who fought off conviction at one time in a revival, and were gloriously saved in a subsequent revival at a much later date. This proves that such teaching is entirely erroneous.

The writer was endeavoring to press on the minds of the wavering Jewish Christians, that there would be NO MORE SACRIFICES for sins since Christ was the last one and the antitype of all previous sacrifices. That is why he said, "There remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE for sins." Since all the sacrifices pointed to Christ the substance, to go back to bullocks, goats and heifers, was to go back to the shadow, Heb.10-1.

The sin referred to in v.26 is not any common sin prevalent in many of God's people. The word 'wilfully' in this verse is 'hakousios' in the Greek and it means 'willingly, voluntarily', and it means a premeditated sin such as that of Judas and of Ananias. Many fall away from Christ but their sin is not voluntary or premeditated and therefore it is not wilful. They fall due to some weakness of the flesh or some temptation of Satan.

It is interesting to note here that this wilful sin is mentioned as happening, "After we have received the knowledge of the truth." This word 'wilfully' is mentioned only once in the New Testament and never mentioned outside of the book of Hebrews, which is very significant in itself. This expression, "the knowledge of the truth" is found only twice more in the New Testament. Once it is mentioned in the positive and once in the negative, and in both cases it refers to experimental knowledge, and not to head knowledge or knowledge from observation. We quote both passages for comparison with v. 26.

I Tim,2,3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior: who will have all men to be saved and come unto THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH."

II Tim.3-7, "Ever learning and never coming to THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH."

In the last verse Paul speaks of some who learn but never come to THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. It is one thing to know the way TO CHRIST but it is entirely a different matter TO KNOW CHRIST. The waverers mentioned in chap.5,11-14 had indeed learned TO KNOW CHRIST, but they had not grown up in Him and were still babes and in need of milk instead of meat.

Eternal Security would have us to believe that those referred to in v.26 refers to those Jews of Christ's and the apostles' days, who were convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God; but after coming into this knowledge, they refused to go on and be saved. We do not doubt that there were some in those days that did come to that knowledge and did not go on, but we emphatically deny that this scripture refers to them in any way whatsoever. We also realize that there are some today in some churches who have never been born again and have dome to this realization. But owning to the necessity of giving up their profession, they refuse to go on and be saved for fear of losing their prestige. We likewise deny that this scripture refers to them in any way at all because church members of that caliber were unknown to the writer in that day. It is quite evident that church members who are unsaved have never come to THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Let us look at this word 'knowledge'. This usual word for 'knowledge' in the Greek is 'gnosis' but this is a different word, the word here is 'epignosis' which means 'full knowledge.' Not only is it 'epignosis' in chap.10-26 but the same word is used in I Tim.2-4 and II Tim.3-7 which we quoted above. Likewise the word 'knowledge' in II Pet.2-20 is translated from this word 'epignosis' showing that those referred to by Peter, had a 'full knowledge' and not a superficial, auditory knowledge of the plan of salvation, as Eternal Security would have us to believe.

We also find that the expression "the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", or its equivalent, is found five times in the New Testament as follows: Eph.1-17, 4-13; Phil.3-8; II Pet.1-8 and 2-20. Also the expression "the knowledge of God" is found five times as follows: Rom.11-33; II Cor.10-5; Col.1-10 and II Pet.1-2. In all these ten passages, it is experimental knowledge that is referred to and not head knowledge although Eternal Security refuses to accept II Pet.2-20 as it is too hard on their doctrine.

In taking a comprehensive view of ch.10,26-29, we note that the plural pronoun 'we' is mentioned twice in v.26 whereby the writer includes himself with those written to in his warning and admonition. Then in vs.27-28 he places disobedience to New Testament light, on the same plane as disobedience to Old Testament light with the same penalty involved, which is death.

Continuing our comprehensive view of v.29, we note that the pronoun 'ye' is mentioned once which refers to those to whom he is writing. Then we note that the pronoun 'he' is mentioned twice. This is a very important item. This 'he' is a definite reference to those Jews as individuals or as a collective body, whom he refers to in v.25 to whom he said, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is." Those who had left their assembly, were those who had gone back to Judaism and to the Jewish sacrifices. It was for this cause that he said in v.26, "there remaineth NO MORE sacrifice for sins." The writer puts v.29 in the form of a question: "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 to the Spirit of grace?" This 'HE' is accused of three things as emphasized above in capital letters. First 'HE' hath trodden under foot the Son of God; second, 'HE' hath counted the blood - an unholy thing; and third, 'HE' hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace. All three accusations are in the past tense showing that it really happened and was an accomplished fact. And not only so, but to clinch the matter the writer said in part, "the blood of the covenant, wherewith 'HE' was SANCTIFIED." This 'HE' was sanctified thru the blood indeed, and 'HE' certainly is a potential witness against Eternal Security.

"But" objects Eternal Security, "they were sanctified provisionally when Jesus died for the whole world." NONSENSE! Jesus died to JUSTIFY THE SINNER who believes, not to sanctify him. In John 17-17 Jesus prayed for His own and said, "Sanctify them (believers) thru thy truth; thy word is truth." In Rom.4-25 we read, "Who (Christ) was delivered for our offences and raised for our justification." In John 3-16 God gave His son to die for the WORLD that whosoever believeth might have everlasting life- being JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, Rom.5,9-11. But in Eph.25-26, Christ gave Himself for THE CHURCH that He might SANCTIFY IT - by the word. The book of Romans is the most wonderful treatise that we have on the plan of salvation, but neither the word 'sanctify' or it's derivatives is ever used with this subject. It is used once in the entire book and that is in chapter fifteen where it says that the Gentiles are sanctified by the Holy Ghost. It is believers who are sanctified and not sinners. Here 'HE' of Heb.10-29 had received experimental sanctification for the writer said, "the blood of the covenant, wherewith HE WAS SANCTIFIED."

But we hear Eternal Security object again and quote Heb.13-13: "Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate." They ask, "Does not this teach that the people were provisionally sanctified?" Yes, THE PEOPLE were provisionally sanctified indeed, but THE PEOPLE mentioned here are the justified ones who became believers and not those who never accepted the Lamb of God. There was no use to provide sanctification for the man who did not accept justification. In the Old Testament, the brazen altar was for the sacrifices of all the people but the brazen laver was only for the use of the priest. The brazen altar speaks of justification while the brazen laver speaks of sanctification. See notes Scofield Bible p.104, 111 and 1133.

The word 'sanctified' is found in ch.10 three times as follows: v.10, "By the which will we are sanctified thru the offering of the body of Jesus Christ;" v.14, "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified;" v.29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Thus in v.10 he says, "WE ARE SANCTIFIED", and in v.29 he say, "HE WAS SANCTIFIED." It is beyond comprehension how anyone can say that there is a particle of difference between these scriptures and how any one would make v.10 refer to experimental salvation and v.29 to provisional salvation or sanctification.

In The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Connebeare and Howson have the following note in regards to ch.10,26-29:

"The preceding passage and the similar passage, ch.6,4-6, have proved perplexing to many readers. Yet neither passage asserts the impossibility of the apostates' repentance. What is said amounts to this--that for the conversion of a deliberate apostate, God has (according to the ordinary laws of His working) no further means in store than those which already have been tried in vain. It should be remembered also, that the parties addressed are not those who had already apostatized, but those who were in danger of doing so, and who needed the most earnest warning."

Thus we see that this standard authority recognizes the fact that those referred to in ch.6,4-6 and ch.10,26-29, had once been really saved but were in danger of going back to Judaism.

In ch.10-32 the writer said, "But call to remembrance the former days, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions." No one, no not even Eternal Security would are to say that these Hebrews were not illuminated because the word 'illuminated' is in the past tense. This shows that it was an accomplished fact and of course they were the very ones to whom this epistle was written. This word 'illuminate' is 'photizo' in the Greek and this is the only place where the word 'illuminate' is used in the New Testament. But the word 'photizo' is twice translated 'enlightened' as follows:

Eph.1-18, "The eyes of your understanding being ENLIGHTENED; that ye might know what is the hope of His calling among the Gentiles."

Heb.6,4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once ENLIGHTENED, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost - if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance."

Thus Eternal Security makes the word 'enlightened' (gr.photizo) of ch.6,4-6 to mean a mental or intellectual enlightment only, while acknowledging that the word 'enlightened' of Eph.1-18 is a spiritual enlightment. Likewise they admit that the word 'illuminated' of ch.10-32 means a spiritual enlightment, not knowing that the two words of ch.6-4 and 10-32 are both identically the same and both being 'photizo' in the greek, the same as Eph.1-18. There Paul referred to "The eyes of their understanding being enlightened" and we know that they were saved and filled with the Holy Ghost as mentioned in Acts ch.19,1-6.

CHAPTER ELEVEN TO THIRTEEN OF HEBREWS
After exhorting the Hebrews to continue in the faith and showing them the danger and result of apostatizing, the writer in chap.11 brings to their attention a number of the faithful who had preceded them. All these had endured to the end thru faith and in this chapter the word 'faith' is used at least twenty-three times. From v.35-40 he mentioned the martyrs and the trials they went thru, as an incentive for them likewise to continue in the faith. While the book of Hebrews is a masterpiece, the 11th chapter is a masterpiece in itself and is the basis for statements of chap.12.

Our concluding remarks from the book of Hebrews will be from the 12th chapter inasmuch as Eternal Security basis its claim on a part of it. They base their claim on what is said in vs. 5-11 and herewith we quote a part of v.5 and all of v.6."

"My son, despite not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou are reproved of Him. For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."

This quotation is taken from Prov.3,11-12, but Eternal Security usually will not accept anything from the Old Testament that refutes their doctrine, as they claim that it was not for Old Testament believers but only for New Testament believers.

It is both laughable and pitiful to see to what extremes they will go to prove their doctrine. Here they quote a passage originally from the Old Testament to prove their doctrine, but when we quote Ex.32,32-33 to prove that a believer can have his name blotted out of the book of life, they quickly reply, "Oh Eternal Security was not for them, it is only for New Testament believers." Then they turn right about and refer to the Davidic covenant in II Sam.7,14-15 to prove their theory. There is no doubt that Israel is God's elect nation and His mercy shall never depart from them and that nation shall never perish. Nevertheless those individuals that wilfully sinned, were blotted out as stated in Ex.32,32-33.

Let us note that the writer said in part in v.6., "He chasteneth and scourgeth EVERY SON whom He receiveth." After careful analysis, we do not find one thing to indicate that this chastisement is for the wayward and the erring Christian. If he scourges EVERY SON, where does Eternal Security get the notion that these are fallen from grace and that thru chastisement are brought back into the fold?

In v.9, the writer said, "Furthermore, WE have had fathers of OUR flesh which corrected US, and WE gave them reverence: shall WE not rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?"

Note that the writer uses the plural pronoun 'we' three times, 'our' once and 'us' once also. Hereby he identifies himself with those that need correction and includes himself and them all in one class. There is not eh slightest evidence that this portion of scripture applies to the fallen Christian and that thru chastisement, God will bring him back into the fold.

This entire passage, v.5-11, is identical with John 15-2 where Christ said, "Every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." This we fully explained in our chapter on, The Vine and the Branches, in our larger book.

If we can identify the exact need for the chastisement, then our statements will be verified that this passage has no bearing particularly on the erring or wayward ones, but is intended for all believers alike.

This entire subject does not really begin at v.5 but at v.1 where the writer said, "Let US lay aside every WEIGHT and the SIN which doth so easily beset US." Notice that the writer uses the plural pronoun 'US', thus including himself, and we are persuaded to believe that he was not fallen from grace. It is the "weights and besetting sins" that he refers to in v.1, that necessitates the chastisement mentioned in vs.5-11. The besetting sin with the Hebrews was the sin of unbelief that had caused some to depart from the faith and go back to Judaism and to depend on those sacrifices to take away their sins.

Then there is his admonition, "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us." It certainly would be foolish and nonsensical to state, that those who have fallen from grace and are out in the world are in this race, since they certainly are not laying aside any besetting sins or eights. Since they are not in this race, the chastisement herewith mentioned, does not refer to them at all but to those mentioned in v.2 who are: "Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith." It is quite evident that those who are wilfully sinning, are not looking unto Jesus, and since the writer wrote to those who were, it is certain that this chastisement does not refer to them in particular, but to all in general who were looking unto Jesus. We do not deny that those who are fallen from grace are liable to chastisement, but we certainly deny that this passage makes special reference to them or that thru chastisement all are forced to return.

There are those among Eternal Security who claim, that because Jesus is here called the Author and Finisher of our faith, that He must finish the work which he began, quoting Phil.1-6: "He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ."

It is quite inconsistent indeed, that those who claim to have such light and revelation; cannot discern between the provisional side and the experimental side of the plan of salvation. Jesus certainly is the Author and Finisher of our faith provisionally, and will also be experimentally IF we are obedient unto Him. All of the Israelites in Egypt were told, that God was going to deliver them and lead them to a land that flowed with milk and honey. Nevertheless Caleb and Joshua were the only two men over 20 years old that got there. Was not the Lord the author and Finisher of the faith of the others too? But was it all worked out for all of them? Certainly NOT! And why NOT? Because they rebelled and were cut off in the wilderness. Likewise Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith but He certainly is not going to force on any rebels, what they do not want. We have emphasized over and over that Security in Christ is conditional and we must abide in Him to have it. There positively is no such thing as Security in Christ while on the Devil's territory. There is no doubt that chastisement has caused some to return but some have been cut off before they did return to God.

In v.8 we read, "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons." Many Eternal Security believers boast of the fact that they are sons and not bastards and therefore can never be lost. But the rich man in Hell cried to Abraham and said, "Send Lazarus, that he may dip his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame." But Abraham said, "SON, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivest good things and likewise Lazarus evil things." Here is a man in Hell and yet he is a SON. Let those who are far from God, and yet claim to be sons, and not bastards, beware; for Hell is no respecter of persons and will receive SONS as well as bastards. Likewise the prodigal Son was not a bastard but he spent his life in riotous living with harlots. When he returned, his father said, "He was DEAD, and is alive, was LOST and is found," Luke 15-32.

There are those who once were saved and have fallen away, and went back to their drinking, rioting and carousing. Some of these will not yield to the Spirit's conviction and stay in a drunken state continually, being deceived by Satan, so as not to feel conviction in this state. Satan often causes them to be cut off in brawls, fights and auto wrecks, caused by drunken driving and carelessness. We ourselves have known some who had a glorious experience, and some have even preached the gospel but after falling away from God, have died in their sins and were lost.

In conclusion we would like to ask, "Has the human heart changed any since the fall of Adam? Is the human heart any different under the dispensation of grace than under any previous dispensation?" We have a remarkable statement by Paul about mankind under previous dispensations in Rom.1,21-32, and we can readily see that the same identical conditions exist today.

When some one has been saved, and falls back into sin, and goes back to the flesh pots of Egypt; they go right back to the state that they were in before they were saved. In many cases they are worse than they were before and do not desire to retain any knowledge of God or of the experience that they had with Him. In Rom.1,21 and 28 Paul said, "Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but their foolish heart was darkened. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a 'reprobate' mind." This word 'knowledge' is 'epignosis' in the Greek and it is the same word as found in Heb.10-26 and the other passages referred to in that chapter.

But what is a reprobate? The dictionary give the meaning as: to reject ; to abandon as hopelessly wicked; abandoned in sin, utterly depraved. This was the condition of the Gentiles in previous dispensations that led them into idolatry, immorality and moral lewdness. The heart of mankind is no different now than it was then and if they who once knew Him, do not desire to retain the knowledge of God, but go deeper and deeper in sin; they too will become darkened in their minds and may be given over to a reprobate mind. Is there a possibility of that happening today to those who have known God? Positively so, for in II Cor.13-15 Paul said, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your ownselves. Know ye not your ownselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, EXCEPT YE BE REPROBATES?" Is this not a plain statement that it is possible to become a reprobate after once knowing the Lord, just like those mentioned in Rom.1,21-32? Thus Paul shows the possibility of becoming a reprobate in his day; and if in his day, why not today?

This then proves our statement that chastisement does not necessarily bring every one back to God who once has known Him. The same sun that shines on the clay, also shines on the wax. The wax softens under its influence but the clay hardens under its influence. So also is it with those who have fallen away from God. Some yield to the Spirit's influence and come back to God, but others harden their hearts and become reprobates. If this was an impossibility, why should Paul even mention the matter at all?

THE END

In this book we have only dealt with Eternal Security as it applied to the Book of Hebrews. If our readers desire more information, we will refer them to our other two books on this subject. The one being entitled, Sonship and Fellowship, a happy medium between two extremes; the title of the other one being, Judas Iscariot of Kerioth Judah, Son of Simon or Son of Satan? We are also planning on publishing a larger book entitled, Eternal Security thoroughly Examined and Completely Refuted. In that book we take up the matter systematically and refute it step by step. It is entirely different than the other three books and will contain over a hundred pages.

We wish to extend our gratitude to Alpha Vander Ploeg, the son of Charles Vander Ploeg, for giving his Permission to make this excellent treatment of eternal security available to us for ACTSion web site was graciously given by the son of the author, Alpha Vander Ploeg.

Part I Part II Part III Part IV

Top of Page

Return to Front Page

QuickIndex

Part IV of IV

by Charles Vander Ploeg CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO OF HEBREWS

Bill Burkett

by Charles Vander Ploeg
CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO OF HEBREWS