PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Was Jesus Really Tempted?



elicohen
Feb 3rd 2011, 08:55 PM
1. Jesus knew he had to go to the cross [Matthew 26:39].
2. Jesus did not want to go to the cross [Matthew 26:39].
3. Jesus did not want the Father's will fulfilled [Matthew 26:39].
4. Jesus in this way desired sin but rejected that desire and submitted himself to the cross in obedience [James 1:14-15; Matthew 26:42; Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:8]

Do you think this is wrong? If so, please explain.

John146
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:23 PM
1. Jesus knew he had to go to the cross [Matthew 26:39].True.


2. Jesus did not want to go to the cross [Matthew 26:39].Only if He didn't have to, but if He had to He wanted to. And He had to because that's what the Father sent Him to do.


3. Jesus did not want the Father's will fulfilled [Matthew 26:39].Why did you say this? He told the Father "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.". That means He did want the Father's will to be fulfilled and not His own (from His human standpoint).


4. Jesus in this way desired sin but rejected that desire and submitted himself to the cross in obedience [James 1:14-15; Matthew 26:42; Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:8]

Do you think this is wrong? If so, please explain.Yes, that is wrong. He desired to avoid going through what He had to go through only if that was possible ("if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"), but what He wanted above everything else was to do the Father's will. Since it was the Father's will for Him to die for the sins of the world then that's what He wanted to do because He wanted to do whatever the Father wanted Him to do.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:30 PM
If Jesus could not be tempted, then the Bible is a lie.

markedward
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:31 PM
Jesus was tempted.

Hebrews 2.18: For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:35 PM
A more crucial question is, "Was Jesus able to sin?" If he wasn't, then the temptations were nothing more than charades.

-SEEKING-
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:39 PM
It wouldn't be a temptation if sin wasn't a possibility.

notuptome
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:50 PM
A more crucial question is, "Was Jesus able to sin?" If he wasn't, then the temptations were nothing more than charades.
Heb 4:15 says He was tempted in all points like as we. To understand how Jesus Godly nature was able to be submitted to His earthly nature has been the subject of much meditation for many years. Jesus became a man to suffer all the testing and temptation that men can be subjected to. Through His perfect obedience He became our Saviour.

Could He sin? Yes. Did He sin? No. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

holyrokker
Feb 4th 2011, 12:43 AM
2. Jesus did not want to go to the cross [Matthew 26:39].
3. Jesus did not want the Father's will fulfilled [Matthew 26:39].


Do you think this is wrong? If so, please explain.False and False

John 12:23-28 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Jesus never tried to get out of going to the cross. That was His very purpose!

Matthew 26:38 My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death

This was before He began His prayer. Notice that He was already "to the point of death". His prayer wasn't to escape the cross, but rather that He not die before getting there.

Matthew 26:41 The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak Jesus is reaffirming that He WANTS to make it to the cross, but he is weak. He wanted Peter, James, and John to pray with Him for strength to make it all the way to the cross.

Luke tells us that after His first prayer:
Luke 22:43-44 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Jesus didn't die in the garden because the Father listened to His prayer and sent Him an angel to give Him the strength to fufill His purpose.

percho
Feb 4th 2011, 05:03 AM
False and False

John 12:23-28 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Jesus never tried to get out of going to the cross. That was His very purpose!

Matthew 26:38 My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death

This was before He began His prayer. Notice that He was already "to the point of death". His prayer wasn't to escape the cross, but rather that He not die before getting there.

Matthew 26:41 The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak Jesus is reaffirming that He WANTS to make it to the cross, but he is weak. He wanted Peter, James, and John to pray with Him for strength to make it all the way to the cross.

Luke tells us that after His first prayer:
Luke 22:43-44 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Jesus didn't die in the garden because the Father listened to His prayer and sent Him an angel to give Him the strength to fufill His purpose.

I would like to add. Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.As in the Luke passage and
Heb. 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

jasoncohen
Feb 7th 2011, 10:39 PM
Heb 4:15 says He was tempted in all points like as we. To understand how Jesus Godly nature was able to be submitted to His earthly nature has been the subject of much meditation for many years. Jesus became a man to suffer all the testing and temptation that men can be subjected to. Through His perfect obedience He became our Saviour.

Could He sin? Yes. Did He sin? No. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Jesus could not sin because the Scriptures required him to die without spot.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 8th 2011, 03:36 PM
Isn't the Greek word for "tempted" the same as "tested"?

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 03:43 PM
This is very interesting. God was tempted/tested?

BroRog
Feb 8th 2011, 03:47 PM
Isn't the Greek word for "tempted" the same as "tested"?Yes.


tempted (peirazomemos) 1)test or 2)tempt

Comes from peirao, to try or to attempt something, and
means to probe -- looking for data, probing for
information, gathering facts
1)test -- friendly coach, probing the defensive lines to
find weaknesses that need to be shored up.
2)tempt -- enemy probing defenses to destroy (Satan,
for instance) looking for a point of weakness or vulnerablity.

James uses the same word to mean two different things as in James 1:13

Notice the change in meaning.

Let no one say when he is tested, "I am being seduced by God . . ."

elicohen
Feb 8th 2011, 04:36 PM
False and False

John 12:23-28 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Jesus never tried to get out of going to the cross. That was His very purpose!

Matthew 26:38 My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death

This was before He began His prayer. Notice that He was already "to the point of death". His prayer wasn't to escape the cross, but rather that He not die before getting there.

Matthew 26:41 The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak Jesus is reaffirming that He WANTS to make it to the cross, but he is weak. He wanted Peter, James, and John to pray with Him for strength to make it all the way to the cross.

Luke tells us that after His first prayer:
Luke 22:43-44 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Jesus didn't die in the garden because the Father listened to His prayer and sent Him an angel to give Him the strength to fufill His purpose.

If Jesus' prayer was for God to save him from death, then why did he conclude that he had to drink of the cup since there was no other way but for him to drink of it. Jesus was trying to get out of going to the cross [who wouldn't] but rejected that desire and went to the cross. That's victory over temptation: obedience.

elicohen
Feb 8th 2011, 04:39 PM
True.

Only if He didn't have to, but if He had to He wanted to. And He had to because that's what the Father sent Him to do.

Why did you say this? He told the Father "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.". That means He did want the Father's will to be fulfilled and not His own (from His human standpoint).

Yes, that is wrong. He desired to avoid going through what He had to go through only if that was possible ("if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"), but what He wanted above everything else was to do the Father's will. Since it was the Father's will for Him to die for the sins of the world then that's what He wanted to do because He wanted to do whatever the Father wanted Him to do.

Since we agree that Jesus knew he had to go to the cross [point 1] then we must conclude he didn't really believe it was possible to save him from the cross. So why did he ask what he asked? To illustrate the flesh vs. obedient conflict he overcame by going to the cross. The flesh is truly weak...and thank God he rejected its desires.

watchinginawe
Feb 8th 2011, 05:07 PM
This is very interesting. God was tempted/tested?

Yes, this is foundational. One might ask himself, how could God be tempted? A potential candidate of possible explanations would be for God to take on the form of that which might be tempted, man. Thus, Jesus Christ, or the manGod.

BTW, we could have the same incredulity of God experiencing death. The same model applies. In what form could God experience death?

Same for sin. Thus Paul claims the following:

2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

To be sure, there is a lot of variance in how Christians view verse 21. Regardless, we are mortal because of sin, Jesus Christ as a man was made to be mortal, but without the cause of sin; and thus He died in order to live again. (There is no "again" without first having "died".)

watchinginawe
Feb 8th 2011, 05:19 PM
Since we agree that Jesus knew he had to go to the cross [point 1] then we must conclude he didn't really believe it was possible to save him from the cross. So why did he ask what he asked? To illustrate the flesh vs. obedient conflict he overcame by going to the cross. The flesh is truly weak...and thank God he rejected its desires. In a way, or maybe even more directly, the divine person of Jesus Christ is also tempted in the process. We see this conflict in those who mocked Christ. For example:

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


We also have this same conflict of man versus God in the temptation by Satan of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus was hungry, and Satan tempted Him to use His divine power to satisfy His human hunger. This same pattern is seen with the temptation of rescue from harm and the pride of life.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 05:22 PM
Yes, this is foundational. One might ask himself, how could God be tempted? A potential candidate of possible explanations would be for God to take on the form of that which might be tempted, man. Thus, Jesus Christ, or the manGod.

BTW, we could have the same incredulity of God experiencing death. The same model applies. In what form could God experience death?

Interesting. Christianity has a lot of antromorphizing of God.

watchinginawe
Feb 8th 2011, 05:24 PM
Interesting. Christianity has a lot of antromorphizing of God. Anthropomorhizing? Yes, we get it from the Jews. ;)

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 05:29 PM
Anthropomorhizing? Yes, we get it from the Jews. ;)
Not really......

watchinginawe
Feb 8th 2011, 05:47 PM
Not really......

The Old Testament is all about it Fenris. For example:

Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 05:52 PM
The Old Testament is all about it Fenris.

Yes, yes, and we have expressions like "the hand of God", "the finger of God", and so on. They were not understood as God having actual body parts. They're expressions to give us a point of reference.

Judaism is much more strictly monotheistic than Christianity.

watchinginawe
Feb 8th 2011, 06:00 PM
Yes, yes, and we have expressions like "the hand of God", "the finger of God", and so on. They were not understood as God having actual body parts. They're expressions to give us a point of reference.

Judaism is much more strictly monotheistic than Christianity.Yeah, I agree, that is anthropomorphism. Christians believe this to be a real union in the person of Jesus Christ and not a literary device in the New Testament. :hug:

Fenris
Feb 8th 2011, 06:07 PM
Yeah, I agree, that is anthropomorphism. Christians believe this to be a real union in the person of Jesus Christ and not a literary device in the New Testament. :hug:
I see that, that's why I made the observation above. :)

Nihil Obstat
Feb 9th 2011, 03:00 AM
This is very interesting. God was tempted/tested?

My point in reminding everyone that the Greek word for "tempted" is also to Greek word for "tested" was to insinuate that perhaps Jesus was tested, and not tempted. Are the words different in Hebrew / the OT?

dagar
Feb 9th 2011, 07:09 AM
Not really......Yes, really.........

elicohen
Feb 9th 2011, 07:27 PM
My point in reminding everyone that the Greek word for "tempted" is also to Greek word for "tested" was to insinuate that perhaps Jesus was tested, and not tempted. Are the words different in Hebrew / the OT?

Jesus was tempted and tested by every and any definition. He wanted evil but rejected that desire.

the rookie
Feb 10th 2011, 01:23 AM
Jesus was tempted and tested by every and any definition. He wanted evil but rejected that desire.

Don't agree, but that's because I'm a huge proponent of the impeccability of Christ as the "last Adam", as Paul called him - or the embodiment of what humanity was supposed to be (i.e. the "first Adam"), and what humanity can and will be post-resurrection / glorification. He was tested by the world but found spotless (inside and out). The point of the virgin birth was to produce the God-man - a man fully separated from the curse of sin, which includes ungodly desires.

That he was tested in all things as we are yet was blameless also sets before us the possibility of being completely free from many (not all) of the ungodly desires we wrestle with daily, not just the ungodly actions - through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. I say "not all" so that none would assume I am a proponent of sinless perfection before death and glorification (side note for clarity).

elicohen
Feb 11th 2011, 06:40 PM
The point of the virgin birth was to produce the God-man - a man fully separated from the curse of sin, which includes ungodly desires.

Remember that Genesis 3:6 was before Adam and Eve sinned and received their curse for sin

Genesis 3:6 (King James Version)

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

1 John 2:16 (King James Version)

16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Jesus' flesh wasn't any different than all of ours.

the rookie
Feb 11th 2011, 08:19 PM
Not at all? Virgin birth? Fully divine? I think we want to beware of Nestorianism (Christ as two persons) as we explore this mystery of the Incarnation...

RollTide21
Feb 11th 2011, 09:02 PM
That he was tested in all things as we are yet was blameless also sets before us the possibility of being completely free from many (not all) of the ungodly desires we wrestle with daily, not just the ungodly actions - through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. I say "not all" so that none would assume I am a proponent of sinless perfection before death and glorification (side note for clarity).In the past, I might have disagreed with this. However, in the past several months, I have been blessed to understand the true meaning of life in the Spirit. In this, God has dealt with some fairly signficant patters of sin in my life. In the Spirit, I can confirm that the DESIRE for these sins is gone.

the rookie
Feb 11th 2011, 09:07 PM
In the past, I might have disagreed with this. However, in the past several months, I have been blessed to understand the true meaning of life in the Spirit. In this, God has dealt with some fairly signficant patters of sin in my life. In the Spirit, I can confirm that the DESIRE for these sins is gone.

Praise God! I love this - so glorious.

PilgrimPastor
Feb 11th 2011, 10:26 PM
Remember Jesus is not a man with a divine mission, nor is He God "mimicking" what it is like to be in human flesh - He is God of very God and fully man. Both-And not Either-Or. This is what the "hypo-static union" is all about. Fully God and fully man. This is why "... we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15 KJV) And this is why His sacrifice is sufficient for salvation. "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Romans 5:11 KJV)

He was really tempted, in His flesh, He resisted temptation because He is the Messiah. We cannot know exactly what it was (is) like to be Jesus. This post begs that question. How did He view Himself? Did He know who He was as a boy? etc. etc.

dagar
Feb 12th 2011, 01:12 AM
The point of the virgin birth was to produce the God-man - a man fully separated from the curse of sin, which includes ungodly desires."curse of sin"? I'm not familiar with this one. What scripture would support it?
Oh, and desires are God given (by nature) and become ungodly when used inappropriately.


That he was tested in all things as we are yet was blameless also sets before us the possibility of being completely free from many (not all) of the ungodly desires we wrestle with daily, not just the ungodly actions - through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. I say "not all" so that none would assume I am a proponent of sinless perfection before death and glorification (side note for clarity).But I don't understand the disclaimer. Saying man cannot be free from all sin is diametrically opposed to Scripture. Say a man experiences freedom from a particular sin, then after 6 moths, a year (you choose how long)....he takes his eyes off the prize, thinks he stands, and falls for the temptation and sins. Was he not free? Yes. Personally, I do not worry about people throwing the sinless perfectionism strawman up against the cross of Christ. The word of God is emphatically clear the power of Sin is broken.


Not at all? Virgin birth? Fully divine? I think we want to beware of Nestorianism (Christ as two persons) as we explore this mystery of the Incarnation...Thank you for posting this! God became a man, not half of one.

the rookie
Feb 12th 2011, 02:55 PM
"curse of sin"? I'm not familiar with this one. What scripture would support it?

Galatians 3:10-13; Revelation 22:3


Oh, and desires are God given (by nature) and become ungodly when used inappropriately.

There's a good number of passages that say otherwise, but I'll pick the low-hanging fruit on that one:

3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Ephesians 2:3)


But I don't understand the disclaimer. Saying man cannot be free from all sin is diametrically opposed to Scripture. Say a man experiences freedom from a particular sin, then after 6 moths, a year (you choose how long)....he takes his eyes off the prize, thinks he stands, and falls for the temptation and sins. Was he not free? Yes. Personally, I do not worry about people throwing the sinless perfectionism strawman up against the cross of Christ. The word of God is emphatically clear the power of Sin is broken.

I didn't say "cannot". We are no longer slaves to sin, but the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit is a lifelong process. We have been saved, we are being saved, and will be saved from sin and the power of death working in our members. He puts righteousness and victory on us (justification), changing our legal position; He then works to put righteousness and victory in us (sanctification), changing our living condition. Unrenewed mind, darkened heart, all of it renewed over time by the power of the word and the Spirit transforming us into His workmanship.


Thank you for posting this! God became a man, not half of one.

Not certain that's exactly what Nestorianism was all about - but sure.

dagar
Feb 12th 2011, 05:56 PM
Galatians 3:10-13; Revelation 22:3So where is sin as a curse in these? If sin is a curse why did Adam sin? A curse of sin would have had to began after Adam sinned, but the text says the only thing cursed was the ground. Galatians 3:10-13 is the curse of the law, referring back to the things that God said would happen to Israel if they did not obey the law. Disobey/cursing or obey/blessing.



There's a good number of passages that say otherwise, but I'll pick the low-hanging fruit on that one:

3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (Ephesians 2:3)Ephesians 2:3 says what I said, that we
v2 "walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience"
That we took natural desires (by God given nature) and inappropriately filled them. There is no passage that says we got our base desires anywhere other than God. How is that even possible? He created and made, no one else.



I didn't say "cannot". We are no longer slaves to sin, but the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit is a lifelong process. We have been saved, we are being saved, and will be saved from sin and the power of death working in our members. He puts righteousness and victory on us (justification), changing our legal position; He then works to put righteousness and victory in us (sanctification), changing our living condition. Unrenewed mind, darkened heart, all of it renewed over time by the power of the word and the Spirit transforming us into His workmanship.You're half way there.
He puts righteousness (justification) and victory (sanctification) on us changing our legal position then tells us to walk by faith in what he has done and given us. "We are sanctified" is what scripture says. You say
"We are no longer slaves to sin, but the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit is a lifelong process"
and scripture says the opposite. Scripture says

"ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you"

"Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. "

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
.....
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life"

The transition has already been made. We have been totally and completely translated into his kingdom. Ye are complete in Him. Ye are dead to sin and alive to God. It's not

ye were the servants of sin, but got a long row to hoe

Being then made free from sin, ye shall become the servants of righteousness over time

being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye are a wicked servant but will have your fruit unto holiness slowly over time, and in the end have everlasting life



Not certain that's exactly what Nestorianism was all about - but sure.Two natures? That's not what it was about? Dyophysitism (two natures) vs monophysitism (one nature)? People get on forums all the time and say Jesus had two natures, when he only had one just like us. God became a man, not half of one, is what scripture teaches. That either Jesus or we have two natures is what was determined to be heretical. Besides, it's not possible for one thing to have two natures anyway.

the rookie
Feb 12th 2011, 06:10 PM
Maybe you could break down then what actually happened at the fall, since nothing bad really seems to have happened until the law was added, and we aren't really born into anything negative...? Secondly, in your Christianity you and your bros don't seem to ever stumble, sin, or struggle - being fully translated into the kingdom as you are. Explain how that works practically if you could?

Finally, it's a stretch to say that Jesus became a man and had one nature "just like us". The scripture in Hebrews we're wrestling with says that Jesus was tempted / tested in every manner that we are tempted / tested, but did not sin - but while scripture says that we'll become "like Him" when we see Him, I wasn't born of a virgin and have no concept of a divine nature in total unity with my humanity. So His "one nature" isn't really like my "one nature".

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 12:33 AM
Maybe you could break down then what actually happened at the fall, since nothing bad really seems to have happened until the law was added, and we aren't really born into anything negative...?I partly did, but another thing was separation from the tree of life. Mainly they learned what sinning against God was like (eyes opened/knew good and evil). That's about as bad as it gets, I'd say, wouldn't you? I don't know why you'd insinuate I don't think anything really bad happened.



Secondly, in your Christianity you and your bros don't seem to ever stumble, sin, or struggle - being fully translated into the kingdom as you are. Explain how that works practically if you could?First of all, may I point out that you have already stated we have a "legal position" -translated into the kingdom. So I don't understand why you have a problem with what I am saying. Do you think the 'legal position' is to remain in the spirit realm seated with Christ or that we were given this 'legal position' for good works and obedience?

Also, who said anything about not stumbling, sinning, or struggling? I did in fact say

"Say a man experiences freedom from a particular sin, then after 6 moths, a year (you choose how long)....he takes his eyes off the prize, thinks he stands, and falls for the temptation and sins."

The level that people know and walk in 'the knowledge of Christ' (what Christ has done and given us) has no effect whatsoever on the sanctification He has given. That's how Paul could tell carnal babe Corinth 'ye are sanctified' (1Co 1:2, 30, 6:11) now walk in the power of the gospel, and how a sinner can get saved, die, and be sanctified for salvation.

The problem is people have two sanctifications and the Bible only has one.
1. The complete work of Christ -1Co 1:30; Heb 9:13, 10:10, 14, 29, 13:12; Rom 6-8
2. lifelong process

The Bible doesn't have a #2 -lifelong process and call it sanctification. Sanctification is mentioned in this life in 1Thess 4-5.

1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where's the lifelong process? Does abstain and know how to possess sound like a lifelong process? If you know how (by faith in the complete work of Christ -dead to sin -crucified with Christ) to posses your vessel you will walk by faith in this life in your "legal position'. 5:23 is a prayer for this.
Then there's

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these (vessels to dishonour in previous verses), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Where's the lifelong process?

Sanctification made something acceptable for use in the temple. Paul said the gospel made Gentiles acceptable by the Holy Ghost -Rom 15:16. Hebrews says the same. The only thing we do to 'participate' in our sanctification is know and believe. That is, walk by faith in what Christ has done and given you. Jesus himself said "sanctified by faith that is in me". Anymore than that injects us into the salvation equation.

Can you show me a lifelong process of sanctification? I don't see it. I see the epistles telling people what they've been given. Telling them they should not still be carnal babes and on milk and to get off the milk and grow up.


Finally, it's a stretch to say that Jesus became a man and had one nature "just like us". The scripture in Hebrews we're wrestling with says that Jesus was tempted / tested in every manner that we are tempted / tested, but did not sin - but while scripture says that we'll become "like Him" when we see Him, I wasn't born of a virgin and have no concept of a divine nature in total unity with my humanity. So His "one nature" isn't really like my "one nature".Yes, well we were discussing one or two natures. I wasn't speaking of divinity.

the rookie
Feb 13th 2011, 01:04 AM
I partly did, but another thing was separation from the tree of life. Mainly they learned what sinning against God was like (eyes opened/knew good and evil). That's about as bad as it gets, I'd say, wouldn't you? I don't know why you'd insinuate I don't think anything really bad happened.

What I'm asking you to break down is the "legal position" and "living condition" of man from birth, since the only curse is knit to the law and there is no such thing as an "ungodly desire" (i.e. lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life)



First of all, may I point out that you have already stated we have a "legal position" -translated into the kingdom. So I don't understand why you have a problem with what I am saying. Do you think the 'legal position' is to remain in the spirit realm seated with Christ or that we were given this 'legal position' for good works and obedience?

The legal position changes the dynamics of our relationship to God and our ability to commune with Him. There are still ungodly desires, an unrenewed mind, darkened, hardened heart, ungodly habits, and strongholds of thought related to sinful patterns and ideas that have to be dealt with.


The level that people know and walk in 'the knowledge of Christ' (what Christ has done and given us) has no effect whatsoever on the sanctification He has given. That's how Paul could tell carnal babe Corinth 'ye are sanctified' (1Co 1:2, 30, 6:11) now walk in the power of the gospel, and how a sinner can get saved, die, and be sanctified for salvation.

Yes, related to the power available from heaven to bring them into victory. Implicit in every apostolic prayer in the New Testament is the process.


The problem is people have two sanctifications and the Bible only has one.
1. The complete work of Christ -1Co 1:30; Heb 9:13, 10:10, 14, 29, 13:12; Rom 6-8
2. lifelong process

I would think here the problem is idealism and selective quoting of verses in a manner that ignores the reality of the human condition.

For example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 speaks of sanctification, but the idea that we are fully sanctified at salvation is not even hinted at. It has to be inferred or read into the passage. In the Hebrews passage (after the one you quoted), "cleansing the conscience from dead works" speaks of the inner man but as I mentioned above there is far more beyond that issue (shame) hindering us from the fullness of God.


The Bible doesn't have a #2 -lifelong process and call it sanctification. Sanctification is mentioned in this life in 1Thess 4-5.

1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Instantly know or learn over time? Again, you're inferring the answer - it's deductive reasoning not inductive - and it doesn't line up with how life works.


1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where's the lifelong process?

Why would Paul pray that if it already happened? Why didn't he speak about it in the past tense?


Does abstain and know how to possess sound like a lifelong process?

Yes. I'm guessing you've never been involved in any kind of pastoral ministry - or if you have, it has been in the 2-3 year range not 20.


If you know how (by faith in the complete work of Christ -dead to sin -crucified with Christ) to posses your vessel you will walk by faith in this life in your "legal position'. 5:23 is a prayer for this.

That's reading the prayer through your lens, not actually expressing what the prayer actually says.


2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these (vessels to dishonour in previous verses), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

"Purging", as anyone who's ever had to clean their house and have a garage sale knows, takes time. The word "preparation" (prepared) unto every good work speaks of process, not instantaneous reality. See Colossians 1:9-11, for example, for a parallel thought. Add Philippians 1:9-11 as well.


Where's the lifelong process?

When you make the verses say what you want them to AND ignore how life works, I would suppose there is no process. But, logically, wouldn't "a man experiences freedom from a particular sin, then after 6 moths, a year (you choose how long)....he takes his eyes off the prize, thinks he stands, and falls for the temptation and sins." be a...process?


Sanctification made something acceptable for use in the temple. Paul said the gospel made Gentiles acceptable by the Holy Ghost -Rom 15:16. Hebrews says the same.

That's justification.


The only thing we do to 'participate' in our sanctification is know and believe.

Isn't that a process? Meaning, discipleship, for example? Attending church? Small group? Learning? Or do you know the whole Bible at salvation?


That is, walk by faith in what Christ has done and given you. Jesus himself said "sanctified by faith that is in me". Anymore than that injects us into the salvation equation.

Yes, that's called "work out your salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure." God does His part, we do our part. We're judged by our works and deeds, after all. Immaturity to maturity (the subject of the book of Ephesians) is a process. Likening the relationship of Jesus to us as "a bride and a bridegroom" speaks of process, for example.


Can you show me a lifelong process of sanctification? I don't see it.

If I showed you, you still wouldn't see it :)


I see the epistles telling people what they've been given.

Reading the epistles and quoting them selectively are two entirely different things. Your doctrine is destructive and leads to much harm and much disillusionment, and I implore you to stop propagating it.


Yes, well we were discussing one or two natures. I wasn't speaking of divinity.

Yes, that's the point.

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 07:22 AM
What I'm asking you to break down is the "legal position" and "living condition" of man from birth, since the only curse is knit to the law and there is no such thing as an "ungodly desire" (i.e. lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life)Well, only the first (Adam) and second man (Jesus) could live w/o sin because God designated the rest sinners. Why do you think that is? Relationship. Having said that God did talk to Cain just like He did Adam. If there was a change in nature why doesn't any scripture make that implication for Adam or his descendants and why not even Cain? He also continued fellowship with man throughout Scripture -Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses......

The curse of the law applies to all because all are born with the Law written on their heart. You take the ungodly desire and call it the desire, which is incorrect. All ungodly desire is a perversion of a God given desire. Sexual desire between a man and woman for marriage is God given. Anything else is a perversion -ungodly desire, and without the God given (after Spirit) there'd be no ungodly (after flesh).



The legal position changes the dynamics of our relationship to God and our ability to commune with Him.Yes, it's apparent that's how God ensured all would sin. Adam sinned receiving the commandment directly from God. How much more those that have their heart to listen to?


There are still ungodly desires, an unrenewed mind, darkened, hardened heart, ungodly habits, and strongholds of thought related to sinful patterns and ideas that have to be dealt with.Yes, man spends a lifetime feeding his flesh and perverted desires until the day he is born again. Then what? What does he do with what being born again doesn't change? Deal with it? Really? Is that what the gospel teaches? Hardly. That's what Bible Colleges and Seminaries teach -sin management. The gospel however is a very fast, swift, and effective solution. Crucifixion. He crucified us. If we don't believe we are dead and therefore dead to the world and sin, we do not believe the gospel and our legal position.



Yes, related to the power available from heaven to bring them into victory. Implicit in every apostolic prayer in the New Testament is the process.Wrong. The idea presented in the epistles is Victory is won in Christ and ours if we walk by faith the same as we received Christ -Col 2:6, whether it's the first day one is born again or 20 years later. That's why Paul got onto his readers. He knew they had heard the gospel because he preached it to them and he wondered why they tried to accomplish in the flesh what they had started in the Spirit.



I would think here the problem is idealism and selective quoting of verses in a manner that ignores the reality of the human condition.Selective quoting? Do you want all of them, cuz I can do that!?! Just didn't think it was necessary as obvious as these are!

Reality of the human condition? How can you 'walk by faith, the same way you received Christ Jesus' -Col 2:6, if you are looking at your experience? This is the point entirely. You think sanctification is a long process because that's what religion has done for you. How is your religion any different than any other? Unlike any other religion Christianity offers a new creature with victory of the world the flesh and the devil, not one trying to overcome the human condition with a set of do's and don'ts to attempt to accomplish sanctification while claiming it really cannot be achieved. ;)

I'll have to address the rest tomorrow. :)

the rookie
Feb 13th 2011, 03:44 PM
Just so we're clear, you've argued here for a Christianity that has Jesus as less than impeccable (able to sin) and believers as entirely sanctified (perfect). Is that how you want to communicate these ideas?


Well, only the first (Adam) and second man (Jesus) could live w/o sin because God designated the rest sinners. Why do you think that is? Relationship. Having said that God did talk to Cain just like He did Adam. If there was a change in nature why doesn't any scripture make that implication for Adam or his descendants and why not even Cain? He also continued fellowship with man throughout Scripture -Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses......

Um, there was that "flood" thing ("Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.") and that "tower of Babel" thing, then the "Paul" thing I referenced earlier:

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.


The curse of the law applies to all because all are born with the Law written on their heart.

Verse?


You take the ungodly desire and call it the desire, which is incorrect. All ungodly desire is a perversion of a God given desire. Sexual desire between a man and woman for marriage is God given. Anything else is a perversion -ungodly desire, and without the God given (after Spirit) there'd be no ungodly (after flesh).

Verse?



Yes, it's apparent that's how God ensured all would sin. Adam sinned receiving the commandment directly from God. How much more those that have their heart to listen to?

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. God wanted to ensure that all sin?


Yes, man spends a lifetime feeding his flesh and perverted desires until the day he is born again. Then what? What does he do with what being born again doesn't change? Deal with it? Really? Is that what the gospel teaches? Hardly. That's what Bible Colleges and Seminaries teach -sin management. The gospel however is a very fast, swift, and effective solution. Crucifixion. He crucified us. If we don't believe we are dead and therefore dead to the world and sin, we do not believe the gospel and our legal position.

You're imposing some kind of idea of what people teach on me, and not really reading what I am saying. Secondly, how do you know what Bible Colleges and Seminaries teach? You've been to their chapel services? You have friends from every Bible College and Seminary in America? You should also define "sin management", as it's clearly a phrase you heard somebody preach that one time.


Wrong.

Are you telling me I'm wrong after reading through the apostolic prayers I referenced or are you just being contrary? If you're not going to engage with what I'm actually saying than this is simply a waste of my time.


The idea presented in the epistles is Victory is won in Christ and ours if we walk by faith the same as we received Christ -Col 2:6, whether it's the first day one is born again or 20 years later.

There's only one idea presented in the epistles?


That's why Paul got onto his readers. He knew they had heard the gospel because he preached it to them and he wondered why they tried to accomplish in the flesh what they had started in the Spirit.

"Paul go onto his readers"? You're talking about Galatians, of course. What were the actual dynamics that were happening to the Galatians that caused Paul to write that letter? Are you saying that Paul was correcting believers who thought that sanctification was a process?


Selective quoting? Do you want all of them, cuz I can do that!?! Just didn't think it was necessary as obvious as these are!

That's not what "selective quoting" means. It means "taking scriptures out of context".


Reality of the human condition? How can you 'walk by faith, the same way you received Christ Jesus' -Col 2:6, if you are looking at your experience? This is the point entirely. You think sanctification is a long process because that's what religion has done for you. How is your religion any different than any other? Unlike any other religion Christianity offers a new creature with victory of the world the flesh and the devil, not one trying to overcome the human condition with a set of do's and don'ts to attempt to accomplish sanctification while claiming it really cannot be achieved. ;)

Now you're just being arrogant, presumptuous, and quite silly. Of course I believe in the victory of the cross and the power of the blood of Jesus Christ to free us and sanctify us. I haven't said a thing about "do's and don'ts". You're making an assumption about what I believe without asking (arrogance) imposing a message and belief set I haven't professed or stated (presumptuous) while preaching at me truths that are not really the point here (silly).

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 06:47 PM
For example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 speaks of sanctification, but the idea that we are fully sanctified at salvation is not even hinted at. It has to be inferred or read into the passage.You are right. It is not hinted at, it is stated emphatically.

1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.



In the Hebrews passage (after the one you quoted), "cleansing the conscience from dead works" speaks of the inner man but as I mentioned above there is far more beyond that issue (shame) hindering us from the fullness of God.That's the point. His blood, unlike animal blood, actually sanctifies so that you can serve Him. You're looking for an outward sanctification but scripture says outward evidence shows what has taken place on the inside.



Instantly know or learn over time? Again, you're inferring the answer - it's deductive reasoning not inductive - and it doesn't line up with how life works.I did not say instantly know, although that certainly happens when the complete gospel is preached. The verses here state when you know how to possess your vessel you can abstain instantly. But you have to know first. You have to hear the complete gospel first. Those that don't proceed with religion's lifelong sin management process they call sanctification, which is no sanctification at all, but a works based religion. Looking at how life works is calling those thing that are as though they are, which is the opposite of how the Spirit works by faith. Why are you so concerned with how the course of this world works when that's what got us into this mess to begin with?



Why would Paul pray that if it already happened? Why didn't he speak about it in the past tense?Why did he pray the Ephesians eyes of understanding would be opened to the knowledge of Christ?



Yes. I'm guessing you've never been involved in any kind of pastoral ministry - or if you have, it has been in the 2-3 year range not 20.Been at it now for 21 years. The verses here state when you know how to possess your vessel you can abstain instantly. But you have to know first. You have to hear the complete gospel first. Those that don't proceed with religion's lifelong sin management process they call sanctification, which is no sanctification at all, but a works based religion.



That's reading the prayer through your lens, not actually expressing what the prayer actually says.How is that possible? Since sanctification is of God in Christ how could God be telling us to do anything?



"Purging", as anyone who's ever had to clean their house and have a garage sale knows, takes time. The word "preparation" (prepared) unto every good work speaks of process, not instantaneous reality. See Colossians 1:9-11, for example, for a parallel thought. Add Philippians 1:9-11 as well. You didn't read what I posted or the context that referred to what I posted. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with a process of sanctification. It says if you separate yourself from the vessels of dishonor God can use you. If you do not "shun profane and vain babblings" such as "saying that the resurrection is past already" God's not going to use you. It's very simple. Colossians 1:9-11 is not a long process and Philippians 1:9-11 is proving more and more what you claim to know, proving excellent things. Read them again.



When you make the verses say what you want them to AND ignore how life works, I would suppose there is no process. But, logically, wouldn't "a man experiences freedom from a particular sin, then after 6 moths, a year (you choose how long)....he takes his eyes off the prize, thinks he stands, and falls for the temptation and sins." be a...process?I don't see how it is a process when the man has already known, believed, and overcome, continually and consistently. A moment of failure doesn't have anything to do with a nonexistent process.



That's justification.Really?
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.



Isn't that a process? Meaning, discipleship, for example? Attending church? Small group? Learning? Or do you know the whole Bible at salvation?No it's not a process it's a lack of knowledge. Like most, I simply did not hear the complete gospel for 15 years and followed the false teachings of the modern church. Just how long does it take to learn you were baptized into Christ body and therefore into his death burial and resurrection, so just as Christ died once to sin, LIKEWISE account yourself also to be dead indeed to sin and alive unto God, and walk by faith believing that position and live as one alive from the dead? That's the gospel, that's the knowledge Paul is talking about and what he preached. Anything else is moving away from the hope of the gospel.



Yes, that's called "work out your salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure." God does His part, we do our part.Yes, it says believe.



We're judged by our works and deeds, after all. Immaturity to maturity (the subject of the book of Ephesians) is a process.Telling them the mystery and praying they see it so they can walk it is is a lifelong process?



Likening the relationship of Jesus to us as "a bride and a bridegroom" speaks of process, for example.and you tell me I am reading into the text and inferring? :lol:



If I showed you, you still wouldn't see it :)Ah, I see. So I'm expected to explain myself and you are excused, why? You are right however because I've been on the religious side of working to attempt to do what God has already done and it is impossible to go back to defeat from victory.



Reading the epistles and quoting them selectively are two entirely different things. Your doctrine is destructive and leads to much harm and much disillusionment, and I implore you to stop propagating it. I suppose you are excused from explaining yourself here as well?



Yes, that's the point.Yes it is. You said Jesus didn't have two natures but one and I agreed.

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 06:49 PM
Just so we're clear, you've argued here for a Christianity that has Jesus as less than impeccable (able to sin) and believers as entirely sanctified (perfect). Is that how you want to communicate these ideas?Of course. If Jesus was not able to sin you cannot be saved.
Sanctified doesn't mean perfect.
So to answer your question, I am not communicating what you claim on the second point. I do agree with almost everyone else on the first point though.

the rookie
Feb 13th 2011, 07:49 PM
I got about halfway through my last response to you and lost it, and then realized that your difficulties with me here are knit to some profound misunderstandings about what you think I'm saying as it relates to sanctification as a process and a journey - growing in love, growing in maturity, growing as a disciple of Jesus. I find none of these ideas objectionable, and find them in fact logical as it relates to the way in which believers grow into things over time (cf. Ephesians 4 and the purpose of the five-fold ministry). You have lots of energy to debate me on points that seem beyond debate.

I'm guessing it's because we believe similar things but are speaking a different language. So I'll try to be more clear: I hate works-based religion, which to me equals trying to please and placate God (and, as you say it, "sin management" or "sinning less") by doing works disconnected from the truth about our identity in Him (and our legal position), the truth about His emotions towards us, the truth about and the reality of the power available from Him and His help to do good works that shine before men, etc. It takes God working in us by grace to love God, please God, and serve God. I believe that, from the first day a believer receives truth by faith through grace, they are able to walk in complete victory over sin and authority over the works of darkness.

I believe that it takes more than believing, it takes believing and communing, fellowshipping with the Holy Spirit and participating in an ongoing "divine exchange" on the inside in which I reach for more of Him and I grow into someone more like Him. Demons believe. We have to believe and put that belief into practice by the power of God alive and at work within us.

I can be clearer about what I am NOT saying - but I would like to stop this conversation now if you are going to continue to relate to me by what you presume I am saying.

dagar
Feb 14th 2011, 01:48 AM
I got about halfway through my last response to you and lost it, and then realized that your difficulties with me here are knit to some profound misunderstandings about what you think I'm sayingThat's a two way street.



as it relates to sanctification as a process and a journey - growing in love, growing in maturity, growing as a disciple of Jesus. I find none of these ideas objectionable, and find them in fact logical as it relates to the way in which believers grow into things over time (cf. Ephesians 4 and the purpose of the five-fold ministry).I find none of these ideas objectionable either. However scripture doesn't indicate they are some type of sanctification. There's only one sanctification not two, so since we all know we are sanctified by God's doing, we're done here.



You have lots of energy to debate me on points that seem beyond debate.I know what you mean but I wouldn't say it. It's very clear to someone that has been on both sides of the fence that Christians have taken scriptures that are not associated with sanctification and put that label on it because it fits their experience. The scriptures themselves don't even hint they are related to sanctification. There's only one sanctification not two. I'll choose God's over mans any day because mans leaves me with absolutely zero confidence.



I'm guessing it's because we believe similar things but are speaking a different language.I definitely agree here and was thinking the same thing, as was my wife, when I made my last post. Sanctification is really justification and sanctified means perfect? We definitely have two completely different views that stems from our understanding of theological words.



So I'll try to be more clear: I hate works-based religion, which to me equals trying to please and placate God (and, as you say it, "sin management" or "sinning less") by doing works disconnected from the truth about our identity in Him (and our legal position), the truth about His emotions towards us, the truth about and the reality of the power available from Him and His help to do good works that shine before men, etc. It takes God working in us by grace to love God, please God, and serve God. I believe that, from the first day a believer receives truth by faith through grace, they are able to walk in complete victory over sin and authority over the works of darkness.That's good to hear! :pp :hug:
Far better than what we started with (not all).



I believe that it takes more than believing, it takes believing and communing, fellowshipping with the Holy Spirit and participating in an ongoing "divine exchange" on the inside in which I reach for more of Him and I grow into someone more like Him.I know what you mean, but the fact of the matter is, one that believes and continues believing is going to do and/or have those things you listed because they believe.



Demons believe.They believe there is one God. That's what it says. Doesn't mean they believe God. That's what it doesn't say.



We have to believe and put that belief into practice by the power of God alive and at work within us. Again, I know what you mean, but the fact of the matter is, one that believes and continues believing is going to do and/or have those things because they believe.



I can be clearer about what I am NOT saying - but I would like to stop this conversation now if you are going to continue to relate to me by what you presume I am saying.Well, we were discussing sanctification. You don't seem to have changed your view that it is a lifelong process, well that's not true. You did backpedal a little to just a process from a lifelong process. Or am I wrong there too?

the rookie
Feb 14th 2011, 05:49 AM
Wrong; as I said, I was just clarifying. To be clear:

Sanctification - the inward perfecting / transformation of the believer by grace / the power of the Holy Spirit - is a lifelong process that begins at conversion / justification by which God imputes the full measure righteousness / perfection of Christ and His victory to the believer which provides for the full measure of the believer's victory over sin and death.

Righteousness imputed must still be righteousness imparted (discipleship and maturity) which involves the renewing of the mind in truth (washed with the water of the word) and the growth of the heart in love and obedience by grace. Discipleship is not an instantaneous reality but a lifelong process of being conformed into the image of Christ unto our glorification in the age to come.

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 02:03 AM
Wrong; as I said, I was just clarifying. To be clear:

Sanctification - the inward perfecting / transformation of the believer by grace / the power of the Holy Spirit - is a lifelong processThen why does Scripture say you are sanctified?


renewing of the mind in truth (washed with the water of the word)These two statements are not even remotely related. Eph 5:26 is the same thing as Tit_3:5.

Rom 12:2 is talking about being transfigured immediately.


and the growth of the heart in love and obedience by grace.where does scripture attribute growth or obedience to sanctification?


Discipleship is not an instantaneous reality but a lifelong processDiscipleship is not sanctification.


being conformed into the image of Christ unto our glorification in the age to come.there's no long process here either. You read all these that way, but it's not what they mean either when closely looked at in context, or in the Greek.

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 02:28 AM
I'll ask this simply, then: what is the practical difference between justification and sanctification?

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 03:24 AM
justification is our status
sanctification is our state

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 03:40 AM
So, practically, there is no difference between justification and sanctification then?

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 03:54 AM
Sure there is. One is position the other is condition. Righteousness accounted because you believed does not mean you are really righteous. You just believed. Justification is just a declaration. Sanctified by the Holy Ghost is something that actually happened and is effectual.

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 04:29 AM
And what is it that actually happened?

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 04:40 AM
You don't know you were sanctified by the Holy Ghost?

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 04:50 AM
I know that I'm being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Since I have a pretty thorough understanding of my view on it, I thought I'd try to get a feel for yours without arguing with you.

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 05:17 AM
I know, but you do not know you were sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Using scripture, please show me two sanctifications.

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 05:20 AM
Answering my question with a question, and then answering it with a command tend to be poor form on an internet discussion forum :)

dagar
Feb 17th 2011, 05:37 AM
I didn't ask a question -don't you know? is not really a question.
The 'command' was a question I've asked throughout that you never answered. Why didn't you answer?
Poor form of internet discussion :)

Look, either produce some kind of scriptural proof of two sanctification or do like everyone else does and concede the only sanctification that matters is the one accomplished by God 2000 years ago.

the rookie
Feb 17th 2011, 06:30 AM
I did answer. Repeatedly.

dagar
Feb 18th 2011, 03:38 AM
How could you have since you've never acknowledged a sanctification already accomplished by God?
Is there two justifications as well? Just couroius.
Is someone that is born again and dies a week later not as sanctified as they would have been had they lived 20 years in the Lord?

the rookie
Feb 18th 2011, 05:52 AM
I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about. You may want to try to make your questions clearer.

dagar
Feb 18th 2011, 06:26 AM
I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about. You may want to try to make your questions clearer.They are as clear as they can be. I understand your confusion.

the rookie
Feb 18th 2011, 12:41 PM
They are as clear as they can be. I understand your confusion.

Then I'll let someone else answer them.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 20th 2011, 03:25 PM
I'm glad this thread took this turn, even though at least one of you is frustrated. Now I see what dagar is saying, which is much different than I originally thought from other threads.

Original Sin is a feeble attempt to explain "the sin in our members" and "the body of this death", etc.

Progressive Sanctification is the same kind of thing. We were sanctified once for all by faith. The "process" is something else entirely. Semantics plays a role, but sanctification is what it is.

BroRog
Feb 20th 2011, 05:13 PM
The term "sanctification" has a wide range of meaning. Let me illustrate two.

1. Sanctification as a state of being.

Suppose I have two bowls, each identical in every way. I consecrate one bowl to use in the service of God; and I use the other bowl to eat my cheerios. The consecrated bowl is holy, or sanctified because I use the bowl exclusively in the service of God and nothing else. I might store incense in that bowl. Or I might use the bowl in a sacrifice ritual. The point is, the sanctified bowl will never be put to common use. I set it aside for a holy use in the service of God. The bowl is sanctified, not because it is physically different than my cheerios bowl, but rather, it is sanctified simply because I designated it to be so.

2. Sanctification by association with God.
God is holy and so, anyone else who is holy, or sanctified will be holy as God is holy. As it pertains to God, holiness is defined according to his character, motives, temperament, disposition toward others, righteousness, goodness, and love. To be holy as God is holy is to be set apart from this world, and to have the character of God -- the love of truth and the love of others. To be holy as God is holy is to like what God likes, love what God loves, hate what God hates, and want what God wants.

Saints
The term "saint", simply means "holy one" and the holy ones are those in whom the first and the second descriptions above are found in the same person. A man or woman becomes a saint, first by election, then by a process of growth becoming increasingly godly. In the first sense, the saint is holy because God has consecrated that person, setting him or her aside to serve and worship him. There is nothing physical, psychological, or spiritual to distinguish the saint from the common person. The saint is a holy one, not because he or she is different from his fellow human being, but the saint is holy because God has so designated this to be the case. Saints, however, are not born saintly. We all start life as rebels against God, but as the saint's life is lived in real time he or she will experience a watershed moment or paradigm shift of perspective, or a moment of clarity and epiphany; the eyes are opened and the ears are unstopped and the things of God begin to make sense. From this point forward, the saint is educated, and reared by the Holy Spirit in a growth process toward the second sense of sanctification. The saint by election grows toward being the saint by constitution so that he or she finds him or herself sharing God's perspective, orientation, motives, character, and etc. ever increasing in knowledge, wisdom, and a godly love toward others.

dagar
Feb 20th 2011, 05:37 PM
However it needs to be said that the second sense is not found in Scripture. Scripture does not call the second sense "sanctification". It simply does not. How could it? Partly sanctified? Where is this concept found in scripture? It is not. You either are, or you are not. You are not 2/3 a saint.

the rookie
Feb 20th 2011, 05:57 PM
It would probably be good to consider Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; 5:23; 2 Timothy 2:21; Hebrews 10; Jude 1:1

The problem is that, depending on your viewpoint, you could argue on either side of these verses (which is what happened earlier with Eph. 5 and 1 Thess. 4) - which is why I bailed from the discussion. The question as it relates to sanctification is: are we speaking of being "sanctified", which is speaking in terms of "set apart and made holy"; are we speaking of "sanctification", which seems to be speaking of process ("to purify"), and "sanctify", which speaks in terms of either one depending on context. The word usage and its meaning (hagiazō) varies depending on context and the translators interpreted accordingly.

BroRog
Feb 20th 2011, 06:45 PM
However it needs to be said that the second sense is not found in Scripture. Scripture does not call the second sense "sanctification". It simply does not. How could it? Partly sanctified? Where is this concept found in scripture? It is not. You either are, or you are not. You are not 2/3 a saint.

Nevertheless, as Rookie points out, the concept is multifaceted and complex. Yes, we are "sanctified" at a moment in time, which if I understand things as the Bible pictures them, results in being given a "righteous subjectivity" (as my friend Jack Crabtree puts it). But having been given this righteous subjectivity, the saint works this out in real time as Paul suggests to the Thessalonians, who had issues with their sexuality. These saints were being asked to apply their righteous subjectivity to real-world issues, challenges and problems, working out their salvation in real time. He tells them, "this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor . . .", which is a process of redirecting sexual behavior to come in line with the commandments, teaching, instructions of both Paul and the Holy Spirit.

Isn't this how you see it?

dagar
Feb 20th 2011, 07:49 PM
Nevertheless, as Rookie points out, the concept is multifaceted and complex.No they did not. No scripture was given for a process called sanctification.


Yes, we are "sanctified" at a moment in time,then we're done here.


which if I understand things as the Bible pictures them, results in being given a "righteous subjectivity" (as my friend Jack Crabtree puts it). But having been given this righteous subjectivity, the saint works this out in real time as Paul suggests to the Thessalonians, who had issues with their sexuality.What the sanctified work out doesn't effect their sanctification.


Isn't this how you see it?No

dagar
Feb 20th 2011, 09:05 PM
It would probably be good to consider Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; 5:23; 2 Timothy 2:21; Hebrews 10; Jude 1:1

The problem is that, depending on your viewpoint, you could argue on either side of these verses (which is what happened earlier with Eph. 5 and 1 Thess. 4) - which is why I bailed from the discussion. The question as it relates to sanctification is: are we speaking of being "sanctified", which is speaking in terms of "set apart and made holy"; are we speaking of "sanctification", which seems to be speaking of process ("to purify"), and "sanctify", which speaks in terms of either one depending on context. The word usage and its meaning (hagiazō) varies depending on context and the translators interpreted accordingly.Yes, for instance

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

"being sanctified" doesn't mean a long process -being. It is when a Gentile believes the gospel of God that he is made acceptable because he is sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Now, show me one that goes the other direction and shows a process. You can say you have, but I am telling you and have shown you that none of them do.

the rookie
Feb 20th 2011, 10:08 PM
Yes, for instance

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

"being sanctified" doesn't mean a long process -being. It is when a Gentile believes the gospel of God that he is made acceptable because he is sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Now, show me one that goes the other direction and shows a process. You can say you have, but I am telling you and have shown you that none of them do.

How do you know that "being sanctified" doesn't mean a long process? You haven't proven, you've asserted - huge difference.

dagar
Feb 20th 2011, 10:57 PM
Because all instances and the shadow of the law say so? Because there is not one example of a long process? If there were examples of both I'd be right there with ya. But there's not even one.

AndyBern
Feb 20th 2011, 11:10 PM
Sanctification for someone who is saved is both a past event and a present process:


...And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:10,14 ESV)

...the church of God which is in Corinth, those having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called-out saints, ... (1 Corinthians 1:2 LITV)

Then having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilements of flesh and of spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1 LITV)

...but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct (1 Peter 1:15 LITV)
Sanctification has to do with holiness. Christ makes us positionally holy (the "have been sanctified" part), and the Holy Spirit is given to us to make us holy in the practical sense ("are being sanctified"). In the Old Testament, the Israelities were a people set apart by God for Himself which made them positionally holy. They were not practically holy however.

- - - - -

On the earlier question in this thread about if Jesus could sin or not, I had written this (http://dtjsoft.com/disp/devo0039) a couple of months ago. Basically I see Jesus as having the physical capacity to sin, but (besides His diety) His continual filling with the Holy Spirit, and the foreknowledge of God made it impossible for Him to sin. It still took effort and suffering for Him to resist temptation (sweating great drops of blood was not some theatrical effect), but it was a sure thing that He would resist successfully.

the rookie
Feb 20th 2011, 11:12 PM
Because all instances and the shadow of the law say so? Because there is not one example of a long process? If there were examples of both I'd be right there with ya. But there's not even one.

You could go that route, or you could get to the bottom of what Paul is actually saying in Romans 15 as it relates to the rest of his letter. Paul in Romans 15:13-21 begins the section with a prayer (that they would be "filled" and that they would "abound"); he follows that prayer with an affirmation of confidence that they will heed his words, though they were at times strong (as they come from an apostle they have never met) - but there is a grace on Paul to say these things because of his ministry. As Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles, he is describing process - the manner in which Gentiles (pagans) are purified by the Holy Spirit - in word and in deed, by the power of the Holy Spirit, building the "household of God" according to the uniqueness of his calling.

In other words, the nature of the word "sanctified" and how it is to be understood ("set apart and acceptable for use" or "purified and made holy") is laid out in v. 17-21.

BroRog gave another example of the process of sanctification from 1 Thessalonians. Your counterpoint was an assertion, not proof. That seems to be your communication style, but saying it is so does not make it so.

the rookie
Feb 20th 2011, 11:26 PM
Sanctification for someone who is saved is both a past event and a present process:


...And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:10,14 ESV)

...the church of God which is in Corinth, those having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called-out saints, ... (1 Corinthians 1:2 LITV)

Then having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilements of flesh and of spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1 LITV)

...but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct (1 Peter 1:15 LITV)
Sanctification has to do with holiness. Christ makes us positionally holy (the "have been sanctified" part), and the Holy Spirit is given to us to make us holy in the practical sense ("are being sanctified"). In the Old Testament, the Israelities were a people set apart by God for Himself which made them positionally holy. They were not practically holy however.

- - - - -

On the earlier question in this thread about if Jesus could sin or not, I had written this (http://dtjsoft.com/disp/devo0039) a couple of months ago. Basically I see Jesus as having the physical capacity to sin, but (besides His diety) His continual filling with the Holy Spirit, and the foreknowledge of God made it impossible for Him to sin. It still took effort and suffering for Him to resist temptation (sweating great drops of blood was not some theatrical effect), but it was a sure thing that He would resist successfully.

Appreciate both points - and I appreciate your insight on Jesus and sin, possible but impossible. It's an interesting angle to think about, for sure.

I still tend towards "impossible" without possibility of succumbing, and think that "tested" doesn't have to imply the possibility of failure for it to be a true test. This seems to be the main point most make about the humanity of Christ - that to be "truly and fully" human Jesus had to have possessed the possibility to sin. I find that view of humanity - and what humanity was meant to be - to be flawed; that the "last Adam" demonstrated for all mankind what man was created to be from the beginning. Sin wasn't (at the beginning) - and won't be again in the age to come - part of that equation. So while Jesus was tested (like we are) the testing revealed the "true Man" in His glory and the beauty of His holiness. For us, testing reveals....well, that we need more sanctification :)

dagar
Feb 21st 2011, 05:36 AM
Sanctification for someone who is saved is both a past event and a present process:

...And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:10,14 ESV)

...the church of God which is in Corinth, those having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called-out saints, ... (1 Corinthians 1:2 LITV)

Then having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilements of flesh and of spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1 LITV)

...but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct (1 Peter 1:15 LITV)Sanctification has to do with holiness. Christ makes us positionally holy (the "have been sanctified" part), and the Holy Spirit is given to us to make us holy in the practical sense ("are being sanctified"). In the Old Testament, the Israelities were a people set apart by God for Himself which made them positionally holy. They were not practically holy however.
Why'd you have to go to a passage (clean ourselves) that has nothing to do with sanctification?

Heb 10:14 is not 'are being sanctified'. I know the modern translations say that but they are wrong. It's understandable why they do it, they just a little confused. The YLT actually shows the meaning of the Greek in a way that may help you understand it.

Heb 10:14 for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified;

dagar
Feb 21st 2011, 05:56 AM
You could go that route, or you could get to the bottom of what Paul is actually saying in Romans 15 as it relates to the rest of his letter. Paul in Romans 15:13-21 begins the section with a prayer (that they would be "filled" and that they would "abound"); he follows that prayer with an affirmation of confidence that they will heed his words, though they were at times strong (as they come from an apostle they have never met) - but there is a grace on Paul to say these things because of his ministry. As Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles, he is describing process - the manner in which Gentiles (pagans) are purified by the Holy Spirit - in word and in deed, by the power of the Holy Spirit, building the "household of God" according to the uniqueness of his calling.

In other words, the nature of the word "sanctified" and how it is to be understood ("set apart and acceptable for use" or "purified and made holy") is laid out in v. 17-21.Wow...the opposite of what it says.


BroRog gave another example of the process of sanctification from 1 Thessalonians. Your counterpoint was an assertion, not proof. That seems to be your communication style, but saying it is so does not make it so.I explained that already though certain it was done poorly, and of course I assert proof. I have complete confidence in the words of God -proof. You can check out the JFB Commentary on this passage. It's kinda what I was trying to say.

the rookie
Feb 21st 2011, 06:08 AM
Wow...the opposite of what it says.

The assertion (without proof) that I interpreted it to say the opposite of what it says would imply that (1) Paul doesn't start the section with a prayer; (2) that there is no affirmation of confidence and (3) his words were not strong; (4) Paul had no grace to say these things; (5) pagans are not being purified and there is no process related to his ministry. Though you may be interested in knowing that Young's Literal Translation says, "may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (the KJV just flips it and says "might be acceptable, being sanctified" - but it's the same idea) which speaks of the process of purification, over time. So if you say it's the opposite you're disagreeing with Young, who you agreed with in an earlier post.


I explained that already though certain it was done poorly, and of course I assert proof. I have complete confidence in the words of God -proof. You can check out the JFB Commentary on this passage. It's kinda what I was trying to say.

I have confidence in the words of God too, but that's not proof - nor should it be.

dagar
Feb 21st 2011, 08:41 AM
The assertion (without proof) that I interpreted it to say the opposite of what it says would imply that (1) Paul doesn't start the section with a prayer; (2) that there is no affirmation of confidence and (3) his words were not strong; (4) Paul had no grace to say these things; (5) pagans are not being purified and there is no process related to his ministry. Though you may be interested in knowing that Young's Literal Translation says, "may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (the KJV just flips it and says "might be acceptable, being sanctified" - but it's the same idea) which speaks of the process of purification, over time. So if you say it's the opposite you're disagreeing with Young, who you agreed with in an earlier post.I was referring to what we were discussing -sanctification. In this passage, sanctification of the Gentiles by the Holy Ghost, making them acceptable if and for those that (Young's Literal Translation says, "may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit") believe the gospel. In doing so they would be "obedient, by word and deed,
Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

There's no process of sanctification here. You simply are not understanding the passage.


I have confidence in the words of God too, but that's not proof - nor should it be.If the word of God is not proof, what else is? There's only one correct interpreation here. Scripture is not proof? What else do you propose?

the rookie
Feb 21st 2011, 12:44 PM
There's no process of sanctification here. You simply are not understanding the passage.

There's a process of sanctification here. You simply are not understanding the passage.


If the word of God is not proof, what else is? There's only one correct interpreation here. Scripture is not proof? What else do you propose?

Sure - I propose that it's my interpretation that's correct :)

Point being, to simply quote scripture and say "I'm right, you don't understand" is unproductive and unconvincing.

Looking at what you quoted above, Paul states, "...to bring the Gentiles to obedience - by word and deed." The very thing you are referencing is a process - obedience by word and deed takes the renewing of the mind, the purifying of the heart, the pulling down of strongholds of thought, power from the Spirit to walk according to the will of God, etc. To bring someone into obedience - much less an entire planet filled with people - takes time. It isn't instantaneous. That you would argue that the "sanctification" of the Gentiles according to Paul's calling was an instantaneous event ignores the progression of the book of Acts and the decades Paul gave to this calling as he himself describes it in this passage. It's common sense.

Secondly, when Paul speaks of the "priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit..." he is echoing a theme he talks about throughout his epistles - related to the responsibility he carried as an apostle before God to present the Gentiles as a "chaste virgin to Christ" which is why he was "jealous" for the Corinthians with "godly jealousy" (2 Cor. 11:2). He says the same thing about Jesus Himself in Ephesians 5:27 - that the "washing" or purifying of the Bride is unto the Bride being presented "to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish." In Colossians 1:28, he says, "Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. " When Paul talks about this process, he would also speak of the diligence necessary to come into it, as in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." All of this is knit to a process of purification / maturation in love and holiness that is called "sanctification".

To state that "sanctification" is solely an instantaneous reality where we are fully holy and blameless, pure and spotless from the new birth, is an error and a direct refutation of what scripture actually says at times throughout the New Testament. As stated, there are instances you are correct as it relates to the word "sanctify" but you have truly misunderstood the word as Paul uses it in many instances. You earlier in this thread said the exact opposite of what Paul asserted in Ephesians 2:1-3 as it relates to the nature of man in sin and trespass and ungodly desires related to the "course of this world" and the spirit (principle) at work in the "sons of disobedience" - by nature "children of wrath". When asked for scripture to prove your assertions you provided none. So no, in that sense, "scripture is not proof" because your interpretation has been continually suspect.

dagar
Feb 22nd 2011, 01:45 AM
Looking at what you quoted above, Paul states, "...to bring the Gentiles to obedience - by word and deed."word and deed refer to Paul, not the Gentiles.


The very thing you are referencing is a process - obedience by word and deed takes the renewing of the mind,Rom 12:2 is not a process. Paul is telling them to roll with all they had just heard for 11 chapters. You can't expect me to believe Paul is telling them to sanctify themselves over time after telling them they are dead to sin by the body of Christ and to just believe that gospel truth and walk as those alive from the dead in a 'resurrected state' as a new creature. It's like in another epistle, awake from your slumber, do the truth, and sin not.


To bring someone into obedience - much less an entire planet filled with people - takes time.Jesus brought all who will believe the gospel to obedience 2000 years ago, giving them a position to believe and walk in by faith, bringing their position into their experience instantaneously because they are already sanctified, because he already accomplished victory over the world the flesh and the devil -be of good cheer I have overcome. You are crucified with Christ and crucified to the world and the world to you. Do not frustrate the grace of God by not believing it and so not walking in the gift of it. That's what Paul preached, not some long process.


It isn't instantaneous.I just showed you it is. If you do not think it is then you must not believe the gospel Paul preached.


That you would argue that the "sanctification" of the Gentiles according to Paul's calling was an instantaneous event ignores the progression of the book of Acts and the decades Paul gave to this calling as he himself describes it in this passage. It's common sense.That's why I said word and deed referred to Paul not the Gentiles. Sanctification is not a long process anywhere in scripture. Not one example has been provided.


Secondly, when Paul speaks of the "priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit..." he is echoing a theme he talks about throughout his epistles - related to the responsibility he carried as an apostle before God to present the Gentiles as a "chaste virgin to Christ" which is why he was "jealous" for the Corinthians with "godly jealousy" (2 Cor. 11:2).The time it took Paul is not a process of sanctification of a Gentile.


He says the same thing about Jesus Himself in Ephesians 5:27 - that the "washing" or purifying of the Bride is unto the Bride being presented "to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish."Again, this is the same found here

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

which is obviously not a long process.

"by the word" in Ephesians 5:26 in the Greek is "in the word" -word of faith. This is being born again, not a long process.


In Colossians 1:28, he says, "Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. " When Paul talks about this process, he would also speak of the diligence necessary to come into it, as in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." All of this is knit to a process of purification / maturation in love and holiness that is called "sanctification".This is you calling it sanctification.


To state that "sanctification" is solely an instantaneous reality where we are fully holy and blameless, pure and spotless from the new birth, is an error and a direct refutation of what scripture actually says at times throughout the New Testament. As stated, there are instances you are correct as it relates to the word "sanctify" but you have truly misunderstood the word as Paul uses it in many instances. Yet, you admit sanctification is indeed mostly instantaneous. This is why I have asked for


two sanctification concept
example of a long process

What's the point of two? One effectual one not? Where is the concept found? It's not in the shadow of law. What establishes the concept that it may be verified in the NT? Again, when the few instances in the NT that could lead a person to think a believer sanctified himself are looked at closely, we find there's no connection to the sanctification accomplished by our high priest for the believer, or that it is simply separating from vessels of dishonor in the house.


You earlier in this thread said the exact opposite of what Paul asserted in Ephesians 2:1-3 as it relates to the nature of man in sin and trespass and ungodly desires related to the "course of this world" and the spirit (principle) at work in the "sons of disobedience" - by nature "children of wrath". When asked for scripture to prove your assertions you provided none. So no, in that sense, "scripture is not proof" because your interpretation has been continually suspect.Was I asked? Either I missed it, or the discussion turned to this, which is far more important since there are so many threads on original sin/sin nature that clearly refute it. I'll go back and see if I can find what you are talking about since it's important to you.

the rookie
Feb 22nd 2011, 04:31 AM
word and deed refer to Paul, not the Gentiles.

That makes a difference...how, exactly?


Rom 12:2 is not a process. Paul is telling them to roll with all they had just heard for 11 chapters. You can't expect me to believe Paul is telling them to sanctify themselves over time after telling them they are dead to sin by the body of Christ and to just believe that gospel truth and walk as those alive from the dead in a 'resurrected state' as a new creature. It's like in another epistle, awake from your slumber, do the truth, and sin not.

Renewing the mind is a process. Your difficulties with these passages prove as much. Our insufficiencies and strongholds of thought prove that the "renewing of the mind" isn't instantaneous. Unless you're claiming to have zero wrong ideas.


Jesus brought all who will believe the gospel to obedience 2000 years ago

You obey the gospel at all times, fully and completely?


giving them a position to believe and walk in by faith, bringing their position into their experience instantaneously because they are already sanctified,

That's goofy. Sorry. The logical conclusion, or logical progression of this statement is that there is no sinful action, darkness, brokenness, or weakness in a believer's life experience at all from the regeneration / new birth.


because he already accomplished victory over the world the flesh and the devil -be of good cheer I have overcome. You are crucified with Christ and crucified to the world and the world to you. Do not frustrate the grace of God by not believing it and so not walking in the gift of it. That's what Paul preached, not some long process.

No, it's not. Not at all. For if this assertion were true there would be no need for you to discuss it, and no need for Paul to write about it. There would be no epistles. Corinth would have been guilty of no carnality and would have had no need for Paul to correct them. Their position had already been brought into their experience irregardless of their immaturity - their reality in Christ would be self-evidently true regardless of what one believes. In fact, according to your view there can be no such thing as maturity. That's what it means for "position to be brought into experience as it relates to the fullness of Christ's victory completed 2000 years ago".


I just showed you it is. If you do not think it is then you must not believe the gospel Paul preached.

As you are demonstrating in the other thread, you don't really have a firm grasp on the gospel Paul preached, much less the one Jesus preached.


That's why I said word and deed referred to Paul not the Gentiles. Sanctification is not a long process anywhere in scripture. Not one example has been provided.

They have, and you have not refuted them. You've simply made assertions to the contrary.


The time it took Paul is not a process of sanctification of a Gentile.

Huh?


"by the word" in Ephesians 5:26 in the Greek is "in the word" -word of faith. This is being born again, not a long process.

Yes, it's as I thought. This is extreme word of faith teaching that you are propagating here, as I suspected. The fruit of this teaching is disastrous and destructive, I can assure you.

dagar
Feb 22nd 2011, 05:08 AM
That makes a difference...how, exactly?Because when it is about Paul fulfilling his call it has nothing to do with a long process of sanctification for Gentiles.



Renewing the mind is a process. Your difficulties with these passages prove as much. Our insufficiencies and strongholds of thought prove that the "renewing of the mind" isn't instantaneous. Unless you're claiming to have zero wrong ideas.Don't pull the verse out and apply other concepts to it and slap a label on it. Read the passage in context and purpose of the book.



You obey the gospel at all times, fully and completely?That's not what made obedient means. Made is not even in the Greek. It means he made the way of escape, and made us meet to be partakers of the divine nature through the circumcision made with out hands -Rom 15:16 ......the gospel of God. You do believe we are free indeed through Christ? You said that earlier, did you not?



That's goofy. Sorry. The logical conclusion, or logical progression of this statement is that there is no sinful action, darkness, brokenness, or weakness in a believer's life experience at all from the regeneration / new birth.Huh? It's goofy to believe Gal 2:20 Rom 6 and Col 2? Believing them means there's no sinful action, darkness, brokenness, or weakness in a believer's life experience at all from the regeneration / new birth? Sorry but you'll have to explain how that would work seeing we walk by faith and not by sight believing God that calls those things that are not as though they are. Again, you are not seeing that being seated in heavenly places doesn't automatically mean we walk in victory. We must believe what Christ has given us before we can walk in it.



No, it's not. Not at all. For if this assertion were true there would be no need for you to discuss it, and no need for Paul to write about it. There would be no epistles. Corinth would have been guilty of no carnality and would have had no need for Paul to correct them. Their position had already been brought into their experience irregardless of their immaturity - their reality in Christ would be self-evidently true regardless of what one believes. In fact, according to your view there can be no such thing as maturity. That's what it means for "position to be brought into experience as it relates to the fullness of Christ's victory completed 2000 years ago".You still do not understand ones level of understanding and knowledge of Christ does not effect their position. That's why Paul could say they ARE sanctified. That's why Paul prayed for Ephesians' eyes of understanding to their position to be opened. The degree ones eyes open has no effect on their position.



As you are demonstrating in the other thread, you don't really have a firm grasp on the gospel Paul preached, much less the one Jesus preached.I'm not the one with two sanctification, one of which I accomplish. ;)



They have, and you have not refuted them. You've simply made assertions to the contrary. Like you said Paul asserted earlier?



Huh?You talked of the time it took Paul to take the message to the Gentiles (plural) but that's not a process of sanctification of a Gentile (singular).



Yes, it's as I thought. This is extreme word of faith teaching that you are propagating here, as I suspected. The fruit of this teaching is disastrous and destructive, I can assure you.Huh? I assure you I am as far from the word of faith movement as one can get. Look it up. Word of faith is scripture
Rom 10:8, 9, 17; Joh 15:3; Joh 17:17 1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 3:21; Act 10:36, 37, 44
What did Abraham believe? That by God his and Sara's dead body could produce a child because it was God's promise? God promised us our alive bodies are dead by the body of Christ. That because we were crucified with Christ we are free from and dead to sin. Do we believe our bodies or God? What did Abraham do? You call it goofy. Jesus calls it the gospel. We are supposed to be obedient to the gospel.

Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
Joh 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

dagar
Feb 22nd 2011, 05:54 AM
Look it up. Word of faith is scripture
Rom 10:8, 9, 17; Joh 15:3; Joh 17:17 1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 3:21; Act 10:36, 37, 44
What did Abraham believe? That by God his and Sara's dead body could produce a child because it was God's promise? God promised us our alive bodies are dead by the body of Christ. That because we were crucified with Christ we are free from and dead to sin. Do we believe our bodies or God? What did Abraham do? You call it goofy. Jesus calls it the gospel. We are supposed to be obedient to the gospel.

Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
Joh 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.Let me ask you.....


Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Col 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
How are you overcoming the world the flesh and the devil, walking by faith, with this long process? How is it different than other religions? How does it glorify the cross and the Lord, since it and He are the only two things we can glory in concerning victory over the world the flesh and the devil? Are you walking by faith when you read/study scripture, pray, go to services etc....all things good to do? Do you think that is what the Spirit means by walk by faith as you received Christ/walk after the Spirit?

I don't. Like other religions they make you a better person but they do not give you power over temptation and victory over sin and these strongholds you keep talking about. They just don't. I've never known it to work for anyone in 20 years. No one ever reaches the end of this process the Keswick Movement and Christian Life book writers like Nee, Murray, Hession and many others, including most preachers, tell us exists. No one reaches its end to proclaim to its followers, "it works!" Why work for a sanctification that'll never be finished? Does that sound like Christianity? The end result of that is that you will not be set apart and holy, having not finished sanctification. Why would you want to go down that road of defeat when Christ offers a finished and complete Sanctification?

the rookie
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:24 PM
Let me ask you.....Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

The treasures are hidden in the vast endless beauty of His person - the knowledge of Him being more precious and valuable than fine gold. But you have to pursue it, and in pursuing you grow in the knowledge and likeness of Him over time. The more you behold Him, the more you become like Him. You have conflated two very different aspects of what it means to be alive in God and what it means to pursue God in the beauty of holiness.


Col 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

So why did Paul just pray Colossians 1:9-11 - that we would be "filled with the knowledge of His will" in all spiritual wisdom and understanding - that we might walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God..."? Because what we now walk in we must grow in. Immaturity into maturity in love and obedience. Having been perfected, we are being made perfect. It's why we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works" in us "to will and to do according to His good pleasure". We do not automatically "will and do" (desire and act) according to His good pleasure. The process of sanctification changes our desires (you still have not produced a verse about all desires being good and godly from birth), our mindsets, and our actions. This is Paul in Philippians 2:12-13.


Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Paul is speaking here of the sufficiency of Christ related to knowledge, doctrine, life, etc. There is nothing that needs to be added to what God has given for our understanding, edification, life together, and growth / maturity. It's primarily a "sufficiency" or a "divine resource" point that Paul is making here, not a "fully sanctified" point.


Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Again, this is speaking of the sufficiency of the work of Christ to free us / liberate us from the bondage of sin into the fullness of life. The availability and possibility of fullness through the glorious victory of Christ now possible by our liberation from sin does not mean we have attained it, as Paul himself notes in Philippians 3. He himself is "pressing on towards the goal".


How are you overcoming the world the flesh and the devil, walking by faith, with this long process?

One step, one choice, one moment at a time. The victory of Christ has secured for me liberation from the "course of this world" and the "course of the prince", and I am no longer subject to the principle at work in the "sons of disobedience" when I was, by nature, a child of wrath. I now have a new nature, and new identity, and a newness of spiritual life and spiritual desire that enables me to pursue the things of God and the power of God to be transformed on the inside - desires, thoughts, and actions.


How is it different than other religions?

What I just said above is impossible in any other religion. Other religions focus on better behavior and have little to no framework for the knowledge of God and the things of God. I would think that this is self-evident and you are overstating / exaggerating your point grossly here.


How does it glorify the cross and the Lord, since it and He are the only two things we can glory in concerning victory over the world the flesh and the devil?

Irrelevant question, in that it presumes that I am glorying in something other than Christ and His victory.


Are you walking by faith when you read/study scripture, pray, go to services etc....all things good to do? Do you think that is what the Spirit means by walk by faith as you received Christ/walk after the Spirit?

Yes, and much more besides.


I don't. Like other religions they make you a better person but they do not give you power over temptation and victory over sin and these strongholds you keep talking about. They just don't. I've never known it to work for anyone in 20 years. No one ever reaches the end of this process the Keswick Movement and Christian Life book writers like Nee, Murray, Hession and many others, including most preachers, tell us exists. No one reaches its end to proclaim to its followers, "it works!" Why work for a sanctification that'll never be finished? Does that sound like Christianity? The end result of that is that you will not be set apart and holy, having not finished sanctification. Why would you want to go down that road of defeat when Christ offers a finished and complete Sanctification?

I'm sorry to hear that. As to your other point ("I've never known"; and "no one ever"), I'm not going to take your word for it as I am sure that you don't really know or interact with that many people.

the rookie
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:33 PM
Huh? I assure you I am as far from the word of faith movement as one can get. Look it up. Word of faith is scripture

And I assure you, though you are apparently unaware, that the roots of this teaching are found in the extremes of the word of faith movement. The fruit is ultimately destructive, and the immediate fruit is disillusionment. Yes, rhema is scriptural, and it means more than "word of faith". I have no problem with the application of rhema as "word of faith" and even appreciate many elements of "word of faith" teaching. Again, however, this teaching - what you are saying here - is from the fringe extreme of the word of faith movement - whether you are connected to that or not.


What did Abraham believe? That by God his and Sara's dead body could produce a child because it was God's promise? God promised us our alive bodies are dead by the body of Christ. That because we were crucified with Christ we are free from and dead to sin. Do we believe our bodies or God? What did Abraham do? You call it goofy. Jesus calls it the gospel. We are supposed to be obedient to the gospel.

What Jesus called the "gospel" is very different than what you call the gospel, but I'll let you work that out in the other thread.

dagar
Feb 23rd 2011, 03:48 AM
The treasures are hidden in the vast endless beauty of His person - the knowledge of Him being more precious and valuable than fine gold. But you have to pursue it, and in pursuing you grow in the knowledge and likeness of Him over time. The more you behold Him, the more you become like Him. You have conflated two very different aspects of what it means to be alive in God and what it means to pursue God in the beauty of holiness.Still, there is no basis for thinking Scripture calls this process you describe sanctification. Recognizing they are two very different aspects by necessity means they cannot both be sanctification. Especially when one is never complete, which is contrary to God.



So why did Paul just pray Colossians 1:9-11 - that we would be "filled with the knowledge of His will" in all spiritual wisdom and understanding - that we might walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God..."? Because what we now walk in we must grow in. Immaturity into maturity in love and obedience. Having been perfected, we are being made perfect. It's why we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works" in us "to will and to do according to His good pleasure". We do not automatically "will and do" (desire and act) according to His good pleasure. The process of sanctification changes our desires (you still have not produced a verse about all desires being good and godly from birth), our mindsets, and our actions. This is Paul in Philippians 2:12-13.He prayed the same for Ephesians. Again, some don't know at all, others understand to varying degrees, but all are pointed to the fullness of what Christ offers, not part of it. How much one sees and walks in has no effect on what Christ offers. There's only one compete sanctification.



Paul is speaking here of the sufficiency of Christ related to knowledge, doctrine, life, etc. There is nothing that needs to be added to what God has given for our understanding, edification, life together, and growth / maturity. It's primarily a "sufficiency" or a "divine resource" point that Paul is making here, not a "fully sanctified" point.Compete is complete. Just is.



Again, this is speaking of the sufficiency of the work of Christ to free us / liberate us from the bondage of sin into the fullness of life. The availability and possibility of fullness through the glorious victory of Christ now possible by our liberation from sin does not mean we have attained it, as Paul himself notes in Philippians 3. He himself is "pressing on towards the goal". Complete is complete. How close one gets to the goal has no effect on what Christ did for us.



One step, one choice, one moment at a time. The victory of Christ has secured for me liberation from the "course of this world" and the "course of the prince", and I am no longer subject to the principle at work in the "sons of disobedience" when I was, by nature, a child of wrath. I now have a new nature, and new identity, and a newness of spiritual life and spiritual desire that enables me to pursue the things of God and the power of God to be transformed on the inside - desires, thoughts, and actions. Right. You do it by what you have been given. That's it. You can rest now.



What I just said above is impossible in any other religion. Other religions focus on better behavior and have little to no framework for the knowledge of God and the things of God. I would think that this is self-evident and you are overstating / exaggerating your point grossly here.What you said above is not a long process you accomplish. See what I mean?



Irrelevant question, in that it presumes that I am glorying in something other than Christ and His victory. Not at all irrelevant because I was pointing you to the things you do (below) and agree you do (below) and call walking by faith and after the Spirit. ...->



Yes, and much more besides.This is religious activity, not walking by faith and after the Spirit. How can you glory in these things you do when scripture says we can only glory in the Lord/cross?



I'm sorry to hear that.What?


As to your other point ("I've never known"; and "no one ever"), I'm not going to take your word for it as I am sure that you don't really know or interact with that many people.Well, aren't you the all knowing seeing judge in righteous judgment prophet :rolleyes:

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 04:11 AM
Still, there is no basis for thinking Scripture calls this process you describe sanctification. Recognizing they are two very different aspects by necessity means they cannot both be sanctification. Especially when one is never complete, which is contrary to God.

No, you don't recognize one. There is a difference. Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action.


He prayed the same for Ephesians. Again, some don't know at all, others understand to varying degrees, but all are pointed to the fullness of what Christ offers, not part of it. How much one sees and walks in has no effect on what Christ offers. There's only one compete sanctification.

You're more loyal to a concept than you are scripture.


Compete is complete. Just is.

Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action.


Complete is complete. How close one gets to the goal has no effect on what Christ did for us.

Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action.


Right. You do it by what you have been given. That's it. You can rest now.

I'm not striving, if that's what you mean. But I am being transformed on the inside by His great power at work within me by grace. So I'll just keep cooperating with the grace of God.


What you said above is not a long process you accomplish. See what I mean?

Nope.


Not at all irrelevant because I was pointing you to the things you do (below) and agree you do (below) and call walking by faith and after the Spirit. ...->

Man-made designations that you haven't proven scripturally.


This is religious activity, not walking by faith and after the Spirit. How can you glory in these things you do when scripture says we can only glory in the Lord/cross?

Who said I glory in these things? I glory in Christ and celebrate His kindness towards me. The book of James would be a great book for you to work through when you have time, by the way.


Well, aren't you the all knowing seeing judge in righteous judgment prophet :rolleyes:

I was being serious. There are 1 billion believers on the planet right now. There have been a billion more throughout church history. You have known a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent - and that's being generous with the math. So your statement holds no weight and your experience has no bearing on this discussion.

dagar
Feb 23rd 2011, 04:12 AM
And I assure you, though you are apparently unaware, that the roots of this teaching are found in the extremes of the word of faith movement.Poor Abraham.


The fruit is ultimately destructive, and the immediate fruit is disillusionment.The fruit is holiness, glorifying God. I'm not naming and claiming something that never happens. I'm believing and fulfilling just as scripture says I should. I do not expect anyone that has never has the eyes of their understanding opened to understand. So I understand.


Yes, rhema is scriptural, and it means more than "word of faith". I have no problem with the application of rhema as "word of faith" and even appreciate many elements of "word of faith" teaching. Again, however, this teaching - what you are saying here - is from the fringe extreme of the word of faith movement - whether you are connected to that or not.Poor Abraham. Remember, the message is foolishness to the world.


What Jesus called the "gospel" is very different than what you call the gospel, but I'll let you work that out in the other thread.Jesus said repeatedly the gospel was his death and resurrection. That's exactly what I have said here. Crucified with Christ and raised a new creature. The Spirit said this is it.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

When answering the question of continuing to live sin, the Spirit said we do not have to because of our death, burial, and resurrection, to newness of life with Christ. It's bible 101 really. I can't believe you call it another gospel. Sad.

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 04:30 AM
The fruit is holiness, glorifying God. I'm not naming and claiming something that never happens. I'm believing and fulfilling just as scripture says I should. I do not expect anyone that has never has the eyes of their understanding opened to understand. So I understand.

The "eyes of my understanding being enlightened" is in relationship to "knowing the hope of His calling". What's the hope of his calling?


Jesus said repeatedly the gospel was his death and resurrection. That's exactly what I have said here. Crucified with Christ and raised a new creature. The Spirit said this is it.

What is the gospel of the kingdom, then?


When answering the question of continuing to live sin, the Spirit said we do not have to because of our death, burial, and resurrection, to newness of life with Christ. It's bible 101 really. I can't believe you call it another gospel. Sad.

Your view of the gospel is as incomplete as your view of sanctification.

dagar
Feb 23rd 2011, 05:47 AM
No, you don't recognize one. There is a difference. Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action.I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in. I could make the stubbornness assertion too.



You're more loyal to a concept than you are scripture.I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in.



Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action. I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in. I could make the stubbornness assertion too. I don't need to convince anyone. They see it or don't. I'm not alone here. I'm not the only one here that takes this stand.



Stubbornness isn't a substitute for understanding scripture. Thankfully, you're convincing no one but yourself with this course of action. I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in. I could make the stubbornness assertion too. I don't need to convince anyone. They see it or don't. I'm not alone here. I'm not the only one here that takes this stand.



I'm not striving, if that's what you mean. But I am being transformed on the inside by His great power at work within me by grace. So I'll just keep cooperating with the grace of God. Great! but it's not sanctification.



Nope. I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in. I could make the stubbornness assertion too. I don't need to convince anyone. They see it or don't. I'm not alone here. I'm not the only one here that takes this stand.



Man-made designations that you haven't proven scripturally.That's the point....There's not two sanctifications in the shadow of the law. The definition itself is a ceremonial designation that occurs quickly not over a process of time. The religious premise is absurd from the get-go. Either God sanctified us or we do, but in either case it is not a long process. Since we know it is not something we can accomplish that leaves us with only one option. One that we can rest in. Sanctification was accomplished by our Savior and received and lived by faith, just like he said -Act 26:18 .



Who said I glory in these things? I glory in Christ and celebrate His kindness towards me. The book of James would be a great book for you to work through when you have time, by the way.We glory in what accomplishes. That simple. If you sanctify yourself guess what you glory in. I was thinking about James earlier and justification. If I remember, you believe only God justifies. There's only one not two. So when James speaks of word and deed, do as you say, and the one that does as he says is justified, is he justified before God, before men, or both? Is that one or two justifications? :D



I was being serious. There are 1 billion believers on the planet right now. There have been a billion more throughout church history. You have known a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent - and that's being generous with the math. So your statement holds no weight and your experience has no bearing on this discussion.and I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale ;)

dagar
Feb 23rd 2011, 05:58 AM
The "eyes of my understanding being enlightened" is in relationship to "knowing the hope of His calling". What's the hope of his calling?That you would walk in what he has given



What is the gospel of the kingdom, then? his arrival. The glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord was on him and anointed him to preach. Certainly wasn't the glad tidings we are talking about because he sent out his disciples to preach it early on.



Your view of the gospel is as incomplete as your view of sanctification.Yeah, that's why Jesus said if he die there'd be much fruit and that we'd be baptized with his baptism.

What's that PP says? about religious sacred cows? You'll hold onto it if you cannot see otherwise. That's just how it is.

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 06:17 AM
I'm perfectly comfortable with being one of the four types of ground the seed is sown in. I could make the stubbornness assertion too.

You could, but I've taken the time to break down and explain scripture. You've continued to make assertions with no proof. So it would be right in line with the rest of this discussions to throw another baseless assertion in.


I'm not alone here. I'm not the only that takes this stand.

Point me in the direction of who that would be, as I'm sure I'd have a far more productive discussion with whoever it is you're talking about.


Great! but it's not sanctification.

Since one of the definitions of "sanctification" is "purification", it actually fits the word quite well.


That's the point....There's not two sanctification in the shadow of the law.

No one has said that there is.


The definition itself is a ceremonial designation that occurs quickly not over a process of time.

That's one of five definitions of the word, absolutely.


The religious premise is absurd from the get-go. Either God sanctified us or we do, but in either case it is not a long process.

So - if one is fully sanctified without the need for a process, is it final? When one sins, does one need to repent (already holy and purified, right?) What is the condition of the believer that sins - and how would it be possible for a fully sanctified believer to grieve the Holy Spirit? Why does the book of Revelation speak of "unclean garments" adorning believers? Why does Peter exhort us to "be holy" in 1 Peter 1 - aren't we already holy? Hasn't Peter heard or believed the gospel of Paul?


We glory in what accomplishes. That simple. If you sanctify yourself guess what you glory in.

Who said anything - one time - about "sanctifying myself"? I've been talking about what Christ accomplishes in me by grace according to the power of His Holy Spirit. You have conversations in a very similar manner to how you read the word...


and I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale ;)

Again, I was being serious. Your last post had an unnecessarily mocking tone to it.

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 06:24 AM
That you would walk in what he has given

There's a bit more to it than that, but for the sake of the conversation - what does the next verse say about the manner in which we are to walk out that calling?


his arrival. The glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord was on him and anointed him to preach. Certainly wasn't the glad tidings we are talking about because he sent out his disciples to preach it early on.

Matthew 24:14 - that same gospel fills the earth prior to His return...


What's that PP says? about religious sacred cows? You'll hold onto it if you cannot see otherwise. That's just how it is.

Since your other arguments are ineffective and your exegesis of scripture is inadequate, this approach is kind of all you're left with - making it personal. Inevitable, I suppose.

RollTide21
Feb 23rd 2011, 04:53 PM
I got about halfway through my last response to you and lost it, and then realized that your difficulties with me here are knit to some profound misunderstandings about what you think I'm saying as it relates to sanctification as a process and a journey - growing in love, growing in maturity, growing as a disciple of Jesus. I find none of these ideas objectionable, and find them in fact logical as it relates to the way in which believers grow into things over time (cf. Ephesians 4 and the purpose of the five-fold ministry). You have lots of energy to debate me on points that seem beyond debate.

I'm guessing it's because we believe similar things but are speaking a different language. So I'll try to be more clear: I hate works-based religion, which to me equals trying to please and placate God (and, as you say it, "sin management" or "sinning less") by doing works disconnected from the truth about our identity in Him (and our legal position), the truth about His emotions towards us, the truth about and the reality of the power available from Him and His help to do good works that shine before men, etc. It takes God working in us by grace to love God, please God, and serve God. I believe that, from the first day a believer receives truth by faith through grace, they are able to walk in complete victory over sin and authority over the works of darkness.

I believe that it takes more than believing, it takes believing and communing, fellowshipping with the Holy Spirit and participating in an ongoing "divine exchange" on the inside in which I reach for more of Him and I grow into someone more like Him. Demons believe. We have to believe and put that belief into practice by the power of God alive and at work within us.

I can be clearer about what I am NOT saying - but I would like to stop this conversation now if you are going to continue to relate to me by what you presume I am saying.I'm glad you posted this. I sensed the same misunderstanding that you have addressed here. I also agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.

***Edit clarify: The misunderstanding that dagar seemed to have is that you were advocating a works-based sanctification. I think it's more along the lines of learning to trust and abide in the Holy Spirit to overcome sin. It's certainly not any measure of "good works" that we do in order to be declared "sanctified". dagar, I apologize if that wasn't your meaning.

Another point: rookie CLEARLY doesn't hold the belief that his idea about sanctification is the equivalent of ACHIEVING salvation. With that being said, the argument here is merely over semantics, is it not?

RollTide21
Feb 23rd 2011, 06:12 PM
Let me ask you.....


Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Col 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
How are you overcoming the world the flesh and the devil, walking by faith, with this long process? How is it different than other religions? How does it glorify the cross and the Lord, since it and He are the only two things we can glory in concerning victory over the world the flesh and the devil? Are you walking by faith when you read/study scripture, pray, go to services etc....all things good to do? Do you think that is what the Spirit means by walk by faith as you received Christ/walk after the Spirit?

I don't. Like other religions they make you a better person but they do not give you power over temptation and victory over sin and these strongholds you keep talking about. They just don't. I've never known it to work for anyone in 20 years. No one ever reaches the end of this process the Keswick Movement and Christian Life book writers like Nee, Murray, Hession and many others, including most preachers, tell us exists. No one reaches its end to proclaim to its followers, "it works!" Why work for a sanctification that'll never be finished? Does that sound like Christianity? The end result of that is that you will not be set apart and holy, having not finished sanctification. Why would you want to go down that road of defeat when Christ offers a finished and complete Sanctification?To broaden the scope, does not the path of the New Testament from the Resurrection through Paul's letters indicate God's blueprint for Believers in how they can grow in Faith? How does the concept that Sanctification is an instantaneous transformation fit with Paul's letter to Corinth? Are not milk drinkers and meat eaters at different points in their Walk?

Or...would you say that Paul's letters emphasize your point? That Believers today are like those in Corinth. We do not claim what is rightfully ours (which, by the way, I have never quite understood practically what this means) and, thereby are not transformed immediately?

I still am a tad unclear as to this: Do you believe that Christians naturally will grow and mature in Christ, but that this process is not called "sanctification"? Or, do you believe that Christians should be completed in their transformation of thought and mind immediately upon Salvation?

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 08:00 PM
I'm glad you posted this. I sensed the same misunderstanding that you have addressed here. I also agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying.

***Edit clarify: The misunderstanding that dagar seemed to have is that you were advocating a works-based sanctification. I think it's more along the lines of learning to trust and abide in the Holy Spirit to overcome sin. It's certainly not any measure of "good works" that we do in order to be declared "sanctified". dagar, I apologize if that wasn't your meaning.

Another point: rookie CLEARLY doesn't hold the belief that his idea about sanctification is the equivalent of ACHIEVING salvation. With that being said, the argument here is merely over semantics, is it not?

Super helpful dual posts, RT. For me, it goes a bit beyond semantics in that I have seen the fruit of this teaching have a negative impact in folks' lives related to disillusionment and shame:

The extreme word of faith as it relates to healing says, "you are sick because you do not have faith" when sickness and healing are lot more complex an issue theologically than that. So the sick person personalizes their healing in an unhealthy way and wrestles with real shame in their sickness.

The extreme word of faith as it relates to sin says, "you are stuck because you do not have faith" - it's the same dichotomy of what should be (either "you should be healed" or "you should be perfect") and the deficiency is personalized in an unbiblical way that causes much shame and hurt. The power of truth to break the power of shame in someone's life is....well, that it's "true". As Jonathan Edwards said, your theology has to have real, practical application - which is the test that it's true theology. It "works". It actually sets the heart free and gives us courage and boldness to run to Jesus to experience His love and power unto freedom versus running from Jesus in shame because we don't measure up. Extreme word of faith leaves believers feeling like they don't measure up. You should be healed; you should be sin-free; you should be perfect; you should have money - etc.

But what does the young believer do when reality doesn't measure up to the unbiblical "faith standard"? Justification is one of the most powerful and practical truths of the word of God because the free gift of righteousness that is given to us at the new birth - and the implications of that gift. It changed Martin Luther's life - and the entire course of church history - when that truth thundered in his soul. It explained the dichotomy between how God sees and relates to us (free and clean) and how we struggle and fail in compromise. How could God love us so freely and fully when we struggle so mightily? The doctrine of justification explains this powerfully and knits us to the most critical thing we can receive from God - free acceptance, which then gives us confidence in love that empowers us to stay steady through the process of being cleansed and renewed from sin's impact on the heart and mind.

The false doctrine of entire sanctification undoes these truths. It then says that, beyond a new legal position (as a new creation with a new relationship with your maker, and access to new power to live a new life) you now have a perfect living condition. When the young believer stumbles in sin, that perfection becomes a false promise and a false hope that leads to disillusionment. Rather than seeing sanctification as it is - a setting apart, a purifying, a cleansing, and a renewing to be made holy over time, life becomes a series of failures as we compromise what God supposedly accomplished in fullness from the new birth. What should be a life of victory through overcoming by grace (as Jesus urges us to go for in the book of Revelation) becomes a life of defeat through being overcome by sin.

So is it a semantics issue? Yes. But I don't think that it's "merely" a semantics issue.

the rookie
Feb 23rd 2011, 08:01 PM
To broaden the scope, does not the path of the New Testament from the Resurrection through Paul's letters indicate God's blueprint for Believers in how they can grow in Faith? How does the concept that Sanctification is an instantaneous transformation fit with Paul's letter to Corinth? Are not milk drinkers and meat eaters at different points in their Walk?

Or...would you say that Paul's letters emphasize your point? That Believers today are like those in Corinth. We do not claim what is rightfully ours (which, by the way, I have never quite understood practically what this means) and, thereby are not transformed immediately?

I still am a tad unclear as to this: Do you believe that Christians naturally will grow and mature in Christ, but that this process is not called "sanctification"? Or, do you believe that Christians should be completed in their transformation of thought and mind immediately upon Salvation?

These are really, really great questions.

dagar
Feb 24th 2011, 04:25 AM
Point me in the direction of who that would be, as I'm sure I'd have a far more productive discussion with whoever it is you're talking about. They posted earlier. If they want to discuss it with you they can do so.



So - if one is fully sanctified without the need for a process, is it final?Is the work of Christ incomplete? Being sealed by the Holy Ghost temporary?



When one sins, does one need to repent (already holy and purified, right?)You don't want to go here. The fact you asked the question shows you do not understand biblical repentance is when we first come to God or are at or near apostasy. It is never, I repeat never, used in connection with a believer in fellowship with God committing a sin and needing to repent. Don't come back with your opinion without an example of this in scripture. You will be ignored.



What is the condition of the believer that sins - and how would it be possible for a fully sanctified believer to grieve the Holy Spirit?forgiven
Do you mean frustrate the grace of God? If you know you are dead to sin by the body of Christ and do not have to sin and willfully choose sin over crucifixion with Christ you frustrate the grace of God.



Why does the book of Revelation speak of "unclean garments" adorning believers?Where?



Why does Peter exhort us to "be holy" in 1 Peter 1 - aren't we already holy? Hasn't Peter heard or believed the gospel of Paul?Again, you are not separating position/experience.



Who said anything - one time - about "sanctifying myself"? I've been talking about what Christ accomplishes in me by grace according to the power of His Holy Spirit. You have conversations in a very similar manner to how you read the word...According to what you said earlier then it is not you but Christ reading your bible, praying, going to church etc...

Is that correct?



Again, I was being serious. Your last post had an unnecessarily mocking tone to it.I've been seeing the same in yours for a few post as well.

dagar
Feb 24th 2011, 04:41 AM
There's a bit more to it than that, but for the sake of the conversation - what does the next verse say about the manner in which we are to walk out that calling?

Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

Now, what's the next 4 verses? :D



Matthew 24:14 - that same gospel fills the earth prior to His return...Correct.



Since your other arguments are ineffective and your exegesis of scripture is inadequate, this approach is kind of all you're left with - making it personal. Inevitable, I suppose.I noticed you'd been doing that for a few posts now.

dagar
Feb 24th 2011, 05:18 AM
***Edit clarify: The misunderstanding that dagar seemed to have is that you were advocating a works-based sanctification. I think it's more along the lines of learning to trust and abide in the Holy Spirit to overcome sin. It's certainly not any measure of "good works" that we do in order to be declared "sanctified". dagar, I apologize if that wasn't your meaning.Well, as we have seen, people think walking in the Spirit is reading/studying scripture, praying, going to church etc..and by doing these things they become a better person. It doesn't matter they call it sanctification if scripture does not. I didn't say the goal was to declare to be sanctified. I've never known anyone that thought they'd ever reach it to be able to do so. That's kinda my point. Why call our walk sanctification if scripture does not? What good is an incomplete sanctification?

It allows people to continue in sin and not believe the gospel. When we fail we're just not mature enough or didn't have enough faith you know? Gotta study, pray, go to church more etc. Good things to do but they are not the gospel that is the power of God to those that are saved. Mean while we are bound by strongholds and continue in sin. All while claiming that God is working on us. In making this claim we attempt to remake or fix Adam when God crucified him and made a new creature. We have to die to self, but God crucified him and made a new creature. We ask for help but God has provided the way of escape for every temptation -the gospel -death,burial, resurrection --he just asks us to believe it. We try and get to the root and find out why we have this problem, but God crucified us and made us new creature. Christian counseling, they teach in bible colleges and seminaries. Where's that at in Scripture? Do you see all the 'we' in there? How do people claim God has anything to do with a long process they call sanctification that is never finished and is so contrary to walking worthy of the gospel in obedience to the faith and the sanctification Jesus already is?


Another point: rookie CLEARLY doesn't hold the belief that his idea about sanctification is the equivalent of ACHIEVING salvation. With that being said, the argument here is merely over semantics, is it not?No it's not, but again I agree rookie is not claiming it is achieving salvation outright but if we don't go through this process....?

dagar
Feb 24th 2011, 05:39 AM
To broaden the scope, does not the path of the New Testament from the Resurrection through Paul's letters indicate God's blueprint for Believers in how they can grow in Faith?What does this mean?


How does the concept that Sanctification is an instantaneous transformation fit with Paul's letter to Corinth?Perfectly. Milk drinkers, babes, and carnal were already sanctified. That's what he said of them. Not quite sure what you mean by "instantaneous transformation" though.


Are not milk drinkers and meat eaters at different points in their Walk?Sure. What does that have to do with their already obtained sanctification?


Or...would you say that Paul's letters emphasize your point? That Believers today are like those in Corinth. We do not claim what is rightfully ours (which, by the way, I have never quite understood practically what this means) and, thereby are not transformed immediately?Yes, Corinthians emphasizes my point as state above, but I'm not sure what you mean by transformed immediately.

I wouldn't say
We do not claim what is rightfully ours
I would say
We do not believe what we have been given.


I still am a tad unclear as to this: Do you believe that Christians naturally will grow and mature in Christ, but that this process is not called "sanctification"?Yes.


Or, do you believe that Christians should be completed in their transformation of thought and mind immediately upon Salvation?should be yes, as long as they are preached the gospel. Unfortunately, as has always been the case, it's not very popular or common. I was a Christian for 15 years before I heard it. Paul wrote to those that did understand (Thessalonians) and some at all the churches did. For others he prayed it would happen. He wouldn't have done that if it were not immediately possible, would he?

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 09:03 PM
For others he prayed it would happen. He wouldn't have done that if it were not immediately possible, would he?

Yes, he would have. That's a non sequitur.

dagar
Feb 25th 2011, 04:48 AM
How do you figure?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 07:20 AM
How do you figure?

This statement:


Paul wrote to those that did understand (Thessalonians) and some at all the churches did. For others he prayed it would happen. He wouldn't have done that if it were not immediately possible, would he?

Think about it as a logical construct:

Paul wrote to those that understood.

Some at all churches understood.

Paul prayed for those who did not understand.

Conclusion: Paul would not have prayed for those that did not understand if understanding were not immediately possible.

Let's just say that your statement would not be an optimum example of "sound logic".

Side note: yes, Paul would still have prayed if understanding were a process.

dagar
Feb 26th 2011, 04:06 AM
That makes no sense. You simply repeated yourself asserting something you cannot even explain. You can't just say "yes he could have". Means nothing. I'm sure it makes sense in your mind, but since you have not even attempted to expalin how it is possible Paul would pray something that is impossible, it is impossible to comment on 'your logic'.

your side note is a non sequitur.

I did not say they understood so Paul prayed they would. That's absurd.

the rookie
Feb 26th 2011, 04:47 AM
You might want to check with the other "dagar" who posts here in your name and have him explain some of his sentences and how they are structured, then. You're comment about how the statement "makes no sense" was the point I was trying to make. What you posted made no sense. So I'm glad we agree.

dagar
Feb 26th 2011, 05:10 AM
You've learned so much from PP ;)