Progressive Sanctification

Started by Christian Alexander
0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Sanctification is defined in Spurgeon's Catechism as, "the work of God's Spirit whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God and are enabled more and more to die to sin, and live to righteousness." Octavius Winslow simplifies this: "Briefly and emphatically, it is a progressive conformite of the whole man to the Divine nature."

Sanctification at our conversion consists of an act of God's Spirit where He sets us apart for holy living/purposes. We are commanded to live holy lives in several places:

Hebrews 12:14: "Make every effort to…be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."

1 Peter 1:15: "…be holy in all you do."

1 Peter 1:16: "Be holy because I am holy."

2 Peter 3:11: "…You ought to live holy and godly lives"

And that's just a select few. Hebrews 10:14 refers to us as "being made holy," while 3 verses up, Verse 10 says that we have "been made holy." This shows that there are two seperate and yet unified aspects of sanctification: the setting apart for a holy life, and the "advance of the believer in conformity of heart to the will and image of God."

1 John 3:3 sums it up nicely: "And every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

Cowboy4Christ–You said on another topic that you agree that "through the blood of Jesus I believe we are totally perfect and blameless in his sight, yes." As you know by now, we are not denying this. As COS has been continually saying, we were made holy at our justification/salvation (this is positional sanctification, where sin was overthrown as ruler over our hearts, and we died to it and began to live for Christ). Progressive sanctification is an ongoing work–not one that gets us to heaven, since we are already going there, but one that more perfectly conforms us to the image of Christ. This is necessary because, although sin is no longer ruler of our hearts–the Holy Spirit is–but it still remains in us, trying as hard as it can to trip us up with our old sins. But when we die and go to heaven to dwell with our Lord, the remaining sin will be destroyed, and we will be both positionally perfect (as we were at our conversion) and practically perfect (which we were not until we got to heaven). All this is backed up by what the Bible says.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

I don't think there can be much of a discussion regarding something that is so clear in the Bible.

Mainly, I think you and COS are only defining sanctification incorrectly, (or at least not as the Bible defines it), so I feel it is fruitless to be discussing something that is merely a terminology dispute.

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Charles Spurgeon gave that definition of sanctification. I'm the messenger. He's the one who said it. Are you arguing with the "Prince of Preachers"?

I realize that he was not perfect, as I am not, but he wasn't called the "Prince of Preachers" for nothing.

I don't see why you can't just accept the term that men have been using for centuries to describe growth in Christ. Progressive sanctification is a doctrine easily seen in Scripture. Just because it doesn't immediately sound right to you because it's not the term you've grown up with doesn't mean that it's wrong.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

Spurgeon wasn't the only one. I think I can say with confidence that CENTURIES of able commentators (who knew Greek) have made the biblical distinction between positional and practical sanctification.
But C4C, you're right, we are arguing about terminology, so there's not much use continuing.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@COS: You said: "Charles Spurgeon gave that definition of sanctification. I'm the messenger. He's the one who said it. Are you arguing with the "Prince of Preachers"?"

Yes, I am arguing with the "prince of teachers", but you are arguing with The "Prince of teachers". (with a capital "P").

The true "Prince of teachers" on sanctification: "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts 26:18

@Octavius: "You said: "Spurgeon wasn't the only one. I think I can say with confidence that CENTURIES of able commentators (who knew Greek) have made the biblical distinction between positional and practical sanctification." This a a very misleading and incorrect statement you have made here about "CENTURIES of able commentators".

John Calvin on sanctification:
"Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life".

Calvin also once said: "We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is of him. [I Cor. 1:30]."

This is actually a key issue, though it may just be a terminology dispute, it is a major one. Sanctification is required for salvation. If we put the work of sanctification on us, our salvation also hinges on us/our decisions. Progressive sanctification is not only not found anywhere in the Scripture, but is also an erroneous doctrine that takes away from Jesus' FINISHED work on on the cross, putting the focus on man's works. "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10

Earlier, COS asked me not to call this doctrine a heresy. If not a heresy, what would you call this erroneous false doctrine that takes away from what Christ did on the cross?

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Ephesians 4:14

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Yeah, in the quotes from Calvin you posted, he's talking about positional sanctification. Can you give evidence that he never once talked about progressive sanctification?

Please don't say the doctrine is found nowhere in Scripture without addressing all of the texts that I brought up. I gave you Scripture that speaks to the issue and you've ignored it.

We are not in any way saying that progressive sanctification is necessary for justification. We're saying that anyone who has been justified will not only be positionally sanctified (made holy and blameless in God's sight), but also practically, or progressively, sanctifed (continually conformed to the image of Christ).

We are not taking away from what Christ did on the cross. Christ purchased our ability to be sanctified. All of our sanctification, positional or progressive, comes from His work.

I asked you not to call this a heresy because a heresy is a damning doctrine. Unless you believe that we are unsaved and on our way to Hell because we believe in progressive sanctification, please do not call what we're saying heresy.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

No one of us has ever said that we purchase our positional sanctification OR our practical sanctification with our own works. Salvation is ALL of God. No one else.
Please stop imputing heresy on us. We don't believe that we save ourselves. Only Christ can save us (initially, continually, and in the future).
Oh, about the CENTURIES thing. I was saying that to point out the fact that we don't stand alone on this issue.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@COS: I'm not aware that I have called progressive sanctification a heresy since you told me not to, but if I do remember you were the one who pushed me to continue discussing this. :)

You said I have ignored Scripture you brought up. Which verses are you referring to, so that I may address them? Also, here are a few verses I'd like to hear you interpret, remain consistent with what you have just said:

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Acts 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Romans 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.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Thanks for reading!

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

You said: "@COS: I'm not aware that I have called progressive sanctification a heresy since you told me not to,"

You haven't called it a heresy since then. But you did ask me why you shouldn't call it a heresy. That was the question I was answering.

As for the Scriptures you seem to have ignored, I was referring to the Scriptures at the beginning of this topic that I posted that say that Christians are to be striving for continual holiness. You had previously stated that because Christians are made holy through (positional) sanctification at their conversion, they don't need to strive to be holy.

Here are my interpretations of your verses:

1 Corinthians 1:30: Jesus is our sanctification. He purchased our sanctification just as much as any other part of our salvation. It is only through His sacrifice that we are able to live continually holy lives.

2 Thessalonians 2:13: From the beginning, God has chosen that His elect would be saved through the positional sanctification of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives us a new heart, able to do good, and sets us apart so that we are no longer like the world.

1 Peter 1:2: We were chosen by God the Father through the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Again, the Spirit changed our position before God from rebel to reconciled child. We were made holy and blameless in His sight.

John 10:36: The Father set Christ apart and sent Him into the world.

Acts 20:32: "all them which are sanctified" i.e. Not of this world; seperate from it, holy in God's sight.

Acts 26:18: We are sanctified by faith in Christ. This can be referring to positional and/or progressive sanctification.

Romans 15:16: The Gentiles were only acceptable to God after the Holy Spirit sanctified them, taking them out from the world and making them holy and sacred.

1 Corinthians 1:2: We are sanctified in Christ Jesus. Through union with Christ, God sees us as holy and pure, just like He is.

1 Corinthians 6:11: We are cleansed, declared righteous before God, and made holy before Him, all in the Name of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 10:10: This verse also can be referring to progressive and positional sanctification, since both were obtained by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Hebrews 10:14: Jesus' death purchased our sanctification and glorification. Thus, we are presently set apart and holy, and yet we are to strive for practical holiness, because we have not yet reached the day when we will be perfected in our glorification, which was also bought by Christ.

Jude 1:1: God the Father is here said to also have a part in our being initially set apart for holy purposes at our conversion.

"Thanks for reading!" You're welcome! :)

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@COS: You said: "You (I) had previously stated that because Christians are made holy through (positional) sanctification at their conversion, they don't need to strive to be holy."

I am not aware I said any of that. I did say that: "as a believer we mature, and grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", which is the opposite of what you have just accused me of saying.

I have a question regarding how you just attempted to interpret all the verses listed to fit progressive sanctification. Right now, do you really feel that you are getting better and better ever day, holier and holier, maybe even almost being perfect? We all sin more then we want to. That's why we need Christ. We are made holy (sanctified) by his blood. Thank God for that free gift, that it is by no work or "continual work" of ours, but by His ultimate Work of dying on the cross. Thank God for that!

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

In the past you've said:

"Can we set ourselves apart and make ourselves Holy?" (You seemed to be answering, "No.")

and

"I agree that there was a battle for our Holiness, and that battle was won on Calvary and I'm thankful for that." (In saying this, you were countering my statement, "Thus we are in a continual battle to become more holy until the final Day of Redemption when we will be made totally perfect and complete.")

You seemed to be saying in those instances that because the Spirit has sanctified us, past tense, we no longer strive to be holy because we already are "100% sanctified and made Holy."

Thus I pointed you to the verses above, which say we are to be striving for holiness and purity. That doesn't mean that we do it by our own effort. Everything good we do is a result of God's grace.

You said: "I have a question regarding how you just attempted to interpret all the verses listed to fit progressive sanctification."

But I didn't attempt to do that. I interpreted them as they are. Most of them were actually referring to positional sanctification. Only a few were also referring to progressive sanctification.

You said: "Right now, do you really feel that you are getting better and better ever day, holier and holier, maybe even almost being perfect?"

Yes, all except the "almost being perfect" part. I can honestly say that, on a practical level, I am more holy now than I was at this point last year. I have conquered, to some extent, some sins, and I've grown more conformed to the image of Christ. No, I'm not almost perfect, but I'm moving in that direction.

You said: "We all sin more then we want to. That's why we need Christ. We are made holy (sanctified) by his blood. Thank God for that free gift, that it is by no work or "continual work" of ours, but by His ultimate Work of dying on the cross. Thank God for that!"

I don't disagree with any part of that statement.

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

C4C, you seem to be thinking that we don't agree with you on positional sanctification. We do agree–wholeheartedly! We are perfectly blameless in God's sight because of Christ's sacrifice for us, and nothing we could do did it or can change it. However, I am certain that you agree that we are not, right now, morally perfect on a practical level. We still sin all the time. So then, we need to (but only by the power of the Holy Spirit in us) strive to be holy, as the Bible mandates (see the verse references COS gave in the first post on this topic). Though we will still be quite sinful for the rest of our lives, Christ can help us to become more and more like Him as we progress through our time here.

Yes, we know that we are holy in God's sight and will go to heaven no matter what we do after we are justified and sanctified positionally (though if one lives sinfully with no remorse after claiming to be saved, he is very likely not saved). We believe that fully. But, since we love Jesus so much for what He has done for us, we will actually want to live holy lives! Only the Holy Spirit can sustain us, but we will grow in holiness if we are truly saved.

We agree with what you are saying, but I think you are missing that we also believe that we will grow in holiness (progressive sanctification) throughout our Christian lives, which is what the Bible teaches.

379435299ee5f4099f9e2a3fd8352aa7?s=128&d=mm

Talia "StoryMaker"

I'm sort of jumping into a discussion, I know, but I'd just like to ask - if we just don't think about all this sanctification terminology and just focus on the issue at hand: Cowboy4Christ, what COS and SBG are saying is (if I'm not mistaken - correct me if I'm wrong, COS and SBG!), in essence, is that we ARE made holy in the sight of the Lord by Christ's atoning work and THIS is 100% what gets us to heaven (NOT our own efforts in any way) AND that, in addition, God has sent us His Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and enable us to progressively grow to obey God more.

Perhaps the whole sanctification terminology has been a bit confusing, but boiled down to this, do you honestly disagree with Chief of Sinners and Saved by Grace?

Being made holy through sanctification is not what gets you to heaven. No one in this topic has ever argued that this is the case. It HAS been pointed out that, if a man calling themselves a Christian has NO evidence of sanctification in their lives, it's highly unlikely that they're truly a Christian. After all, becoming a Christian and therefore saved involves the totally honest confession of sin, and it's hard to imagine that, having honestly confessed your sins AND receiving the God's Holy Spirit (who, being God, enables us to resist sinfulness), one should altogether persist in sin. NO, I am NOT saying that Christians never sin - this is obviously ridiculous - but Christians do, if nothing else, WANT to get rid of sin in their lives and STRIVE, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to become less and less sinful.

This is not saying that you're saved by your own efforts. No one who has posted in this topic believes that or has insinuated that in any way. But if a man is saved, it's perfectly biblical to expect SOME fruit from that person's life. In Matthew 7:17 (ESV), Matthew says, "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." Don't you think that those who are truly saved should be considered as "healthy" and as such, bear at least some measure of "good fruit"? Obviously, we ALL bear different measures of good fruit. Don't get me wrong. But shouldn't we try, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to bear more and more?

We agree with the idea that Christians are legally considered perfect in God's eyes because Christ bore the penalty for our sins, enabling them to be cancelled out. This is often known as "justification", "salvation" or "positional sanctification". Of course, in the legal sense, Christians are instantaneously made perfect and holy at this point - but quite obviously, we aren't instantly transformed into perfect and holy people on this earth. But Christ has given His Spirit to us in order that we might progressively grow, not in salvation, not in justification, not in positional sanctification, but in holiness, love, good deeds, and overall "good fruit" on this earth. This is "progressive sanctification". It has nothing to do with our salvation except that it is a result of it and thus a sign of it. Do you see the difference? NOBODY here is arguing that progressive sanctification saves us!

Do you honestly disagree with the idea that Christians should strive to, through God's Spirit, become more holy and more perfect - not more saved, but more distinct from the world, more bearing good fruit?

Have you read Romans 8? It has some good information on this topic - 12-17 are especially relevant.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

You did a VERY good job illustrating our point, Talia. Thanks.
I just saw this verse while memorizing:
Romans 6: "I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification."

The word sanctification in this context can ONLY mean our practical sanctification. Any other interpretation would be very hard to explain and would not be what the text says. The distinction we have made IS a biblical distinction. Both positional AND practical sanctification are in the scriptures.

I must admit, however, that I have overlooked until this conversation the IMPORTANT aspect of sanctification, our positional sanctification. Thank you for stimulating me to study more about sanctification, it has really helped, C4C!
I hope we can all say that we have learned from this conversation.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

I haven't had time to post in a few days, and WOW, ya'll sure have been posting. Thanks for all the responses, and taking the time time to respond to my posts. I'm going to go through and respond to your posts one at a time to eliminate confusion. (To clarify, eliminate confusing myself. :)

@chiefofsinners:

You said: "You (I) seemed to be saying in those instances that because the Spirit has sanctified us, past tense, we no longer strive to be holy because we already are "100% sanctified and made Holy."

I did not say we are not to strive to be Holy. I actually said that "as a believer we mature" and we "grow in Grace and knowledge." I don't see how you are reaching the conclusion that I believe we need not strive to be Holy. In 1st Peter 1 we read: "By ye holy for I am holy". However, this has nothing to do with Christ setting us apart as his, (our sanctification) and also please note the emphasis is on Christ, not ourselves like some have been implying in this discussion.

You said regarding the list of verses I gave about sanctification: "I (you) interpreted them as they are. Most of them were actually referring to positional sanctification. Only a few were also referring to progressive sanctification."

You're right that most of those verses we're referring to "positional sanctification", as you put it, or whatever you want to call Biblical sanctification…the only type of sanctification in the Bible, the sanctification of Jesus blood setting us apart as his, the sanctification by which now we may stand in the presence of God spotless. Covered by His blood, and NO WORK OF OUR OWN. As a matter of fact, ALL of the verses were referring to our past sanctification, (the only one we have). Could you give me any verses that refer to what you believe is "progressive sanctification"?

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@SBG:

You said: "However, I am certain that you agree that we are not, right now, morally perfect on a practical level. We still sin all the time. So then, we need to (but only by the power of the Holy Spirit in us) strive to be holy, as the Bible mandates (see the verse references COS gave in the first post on this topic). Though we will still be quite sinful for the rest of our lives, Christ can help us to become more and more like Him as we progress through our time here."

I don't disagree with any part of that statement.

You also said: "Yes, we know that we are holy in God's sight and will go to heaven no matter what we do after we are justified and sanctified positionally (though if one lives sinfully with no remorse after claiming to be saved, he is very likely not saved). We believe that fully. But, since we love Jesus so much for what He has done for us, we will actually want to live holy lives! Only the Holy Spirit can sustain us, but we will grow in holiness if we are truly saved."

Once again well said, SBG! This statement is Biblically sound.

You said: "We agree with what you are saying, but I think you are missing that we also believe that we will grow in holiness (progressive sanctification) throughout our Christian lives, which is what the Bible teaches."

I agree that we should strive to be Holy. The only part of this statement that is not Biblical, and takes away from Christ and puts the emphasis on us, (as if we can do some work of making ourselves holy), is "progressive sanctification". Could you give me at least one verse that supports this, Biblically? I have given 12, and that is not even beginning to scratch the surface of the verses supporting that sanctification was a work of Christ, and not of our own.

Thanks for reading!

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

C4C, if you want to see a good verse on progressive sanctification, with the word "sanctification" actually in the verse, look five posts to Octo's post on a verse in Romans 6. Also, some of the 12 verses that you gave are actually talking about progressive sanctification as well. I see that you fully agree with the idea of growing in holiness, but we are mainly disputing what we call that. What has been accepted for hundreds of years, and can be backed up by the Bible, are the terms "positional sanctification" and "progressive sanctification."

And you keep seeming to imply (like when you said "sanctification was a work of Christ, and not of our own") that we think that positional sanctification did not occur, but we do. We fully agree with you on everything you are saying except the terminology, which you have changed from centuries of acceptance.

Thanks for reading this and for understanding our position. :)

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@Talia "StoryMaker":

Welcome to this discussion, and thanks for posting!

You said: "I'm sort of jumping into a discussion, I know, but I'd just like to ask - if we just don't think about all this sanctification terminology and just focus on the issue at hand: Cowboy4Christ, what COS and SBG are saying is (if I'm not mistaken - correct me if I'm wrong, COS and SBG!), in essence, is that we ARE made holy in the sight of the Lord by Christ's atoning work and THIS is 100% what gets us to heaven (NOT our own efforts in any way) AND that, in addition, God has sent us His Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and enable us to progressively grow to obey God more."

First of all, if you are implying that "progressively grow(ing) to obey God more." (as you put it) has anything to do with our sanctification, this is not a Biblical grounded view and I disagree with it. However, if you are NOT referring to our sanctification I totally agree with you.

You said: "Being made holy through sanctification is not what gets you to heaven. No one in this topic has ever argued that this is the case. It HAS been pointed out that, if a man calling themselves a Christian has NO evidence of sanctification in their lives, it's highly unlikely that they're truly a Christian. After all, becoming a Christian and therefore saved involves the totally honest confession of sin, and it's hard to imagine that, having honestly confessed your sins AND receiving the God's Holy Spirit (who, being God, enables us to resist sinfulness), one should altogether persist in sin. NO, I am NOT saying that Christians never sin - this is obviously ridiculous - but Christians do, if nothing else, WANT to get rid of sin in their lives and STRIVE, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to become less and less sinful."

I will argue the contrary to this statement, and agree with what the Bible says. Sanctification IS necessary for salvation. I think some of you are throwing around "sanctification" and are not really referring to Biblical sanctification. It is only through our sanctification that God can look upon us as Holy through the blood of his Son. Are you saying that we affect our standing in God's eyes, and we make ourselves Holy?

The arminian doctrine of progressive sanctification does not take in account the there is no merit system with grace, and salvation is by no work of our own. To clarify what I said in the previous paragraph, note that sanctification, (God setting us apart as His) IS necessary for our salvation. If you put the sanctification on us, it puts us in the position to determine our salvation, to earn it through our own good works.

You said: "This is not saying that you're saved by your own efforts. No one who has posted in this topic believes that or has insinuated that in any way. But if a man is saved, it's perfectly biblical to expect SOME fruit from that person's life. In Matthew 7:17 (ESV), Matthew says, "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." Don't you think that those who are truly saved should be considered as "healthy" and as such, bear at least some measure of "good fruit"? Obviously, we ALL bear different measures of good fruit. Don't get me wrong. But shouldn't we try, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to bear more and more?"

We are not in the position to judge others redemption, that is only something God can do. Though in most cases it is, I do not agree that one must bear fruit to be redeemed. To be saved however, I agree. But not to be redeemed and be a Child of God. There is nothing we can do to be redeemed, and there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from that.

You said: "We agree with the idea that Christians are legally considered perfect in God's eyes because Christ bore the penalty for our sins, enabling them to be cancelled out. This is often known as "justification", "salvation" or "positional sanctification". Of course, in the legal sense, Christians are instantaneously made perfect and holy at this point - but quite obviously, we aren't instantly transformed into perfect and holy people on this earth. But Christ has given His Spirit to us in order that we might progressively grow, not in salvation, not in justification, not in positional sanctification, but in holiness, love, good deeds, and overall "good fruit" on this earth. This is "progressive sanctification". It has nothing to do with our salvation except that it is a result of it and thus a sign of it. Do you see the difference? NOBODY here is arguing that progressive sanctification saves us!"

Growing in "holiness, love, good deeds, and overall "good fruit"", as you put it, has nothing to do with our sanctification. Do you have any verses that state otherwise? Also, sanctification IS necessary for salvation.

You said: "Do you honestly disagree with the idea that Christians should strive to, through God's Spirit, become more holy and more perfect - not more saved, but more distinct from the world, more bearing good fruit?"

I do not disagree with this statement, though it has nothing to do with sanctification.

You also said: "Have you read Romans 8? It has some good information on this topic - 12-17 are especially relevant."

Yes, Romans 8 is a great chapter. What verse(s) are you referring to that have anything to do with sanctification?

Thanks for reading! Sorry about all the quotes, it helps me from getting confused.

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

You seem to continue to mix up our two definitions of sanctification (which, I would argue, are backed up by the Bible). Please try to keep these separate, in the categories we mean them to be in. We are not saying that any part of salvation is of ourselves!

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@Octavius:

You said: "I just saw this verse while memorizing: Romans 6: "I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.""

Whatever Bible version that is, is totally taking Romans 6:19 out of context! SANCTIFICATION DOES NOT APPEAR IN ROMANS 6:19!

Romans 6:19 KJV "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."

This verse is not referring to sanctification.

379435299ee5f4099f9e2a3fd8352aa7?s=128&d=mm

Talia "StoryMaker"

NOTE~ This post was made when I saw only a couple of C4C's new posts, and it doesn't contain that much new material for the length…so keep that in mind.

C4C - I'm not going to respond to you argument by argument, because I just feel that's not my place, but I'd just like to make a few comments -

I can't help but have the feeling we're getting too bogged down in terminology. The word "sanctification", in my mind, isn't very important at all - but it's really blocking us from agreeing nonetheless.

Now, there's one thing - you can call it salvation, justification, sanctification, whatever; it doesn't really matter (all of the terms I mentioned certainly have a true basis) - that refers to the believers' standing before God. Because of God's regeneration, we have been enabled to accept the work of Christ (not ourselves) on the cross, we have a right relationship with God. We are considered holy, righteous, perfect, and just because of Christ's work, and as a result our eternal destination will most certainly be in heaven.

Now, there's another thing that is a RESULT of the above event; it absolutely DOES NOT cause the above event, but it's most assuredly a result of the above event. SavedByGrace and ChiefOfSinners call this "sanctification" or "progressive sanctification". It has been explained before and it basically is just believers growing in their faith and continuing to bear good fruit. This is a perfectly Biblical notion. Colossians 1:9-13 and the Romans 8 passage I previously referenced are good passages to support this. I believe, C4C, that you basically agreed with this notion in your last post (IF I'm not mistaken - if I am, don't hesitate to correct me.)
ALSO: C4C indicated that others have indicated that this is a work of man…well, it's not, really; it's the Spirit working in our lives. None of us think that we can claim credit for growing in our faith; it's all God's work. I don't think SBG or COF have ever indicated this is a work of man, but if they did, I highly doubt it was intentional. It is a work of the Spirit within us, which is something I'm sure we ALL agree on.

These are two basic things, and I honestly don't think there's any contention between anybody in this topic on them…I think we're just getting extremely bogged down on terminology. I might as well address this point:

What exactly does sanctification mean? It means, basically, to be made holy. Holiness is, basically, pure, set-apart righteous goodness. Christ took our sins as a substitute, and as a result, the moment we are saved, his holiness is imputed to us, so that we stand before God as though we are holy, even though we may still sin in our lives (though we will NOT be totally fruitless, as I stated before). This is what SBG and COF and myself call "positional sanctification", because it refers to our standing with God.

We all - every one of us - agree on the doctrine of sanctification.

Now, the moment we are saved, I think we can all agree that, in addition to having Christ's righteousness imputed to us so that we stand right with God, the Holy Spirit is also given to us at the exact same moment we stand before God as righteous, and this Spirit (NOT ourselves) brings us more into conformity with God - in a literal, what-are-we-doing-right-now-on-this-earth sense. Note two important things:

1) This is the SPIRIT working within us. We do not sanctify ourselves.

2) Unless some of us here believe in Wesleyan-Christian-perfectionism, I'm pretty sure we all agree that we simply CANNOT become perfectly holy people (in the non-positional how-we-actually-act sense; we ARE holy in the sense that, because of Christ's sacrifice, we stand holy before God - I'm not talking about the positional sense right now, of course).

This, my friend and brother, is what we (SBG, COS, me, and others) call "progressive sanctification". You may feel as though the term "sanctification" is not appropriate for this ongoing event. But just because progressive sanctification does not make us into perfectly holy people on this earth doesn't mean it doesn't guide us toward the direction of being more and more holy. It's a different kind of sanctification than the positional kind. I hate to be bogged down in terminology, but hey, I guess we have to use words - it's how we communicate.

Perhaps we simply don't agree on what "holiness" is. C4C, do you believe that "holiness" always means "the pure, unadulterated holiness that God has"? If so, let's be clear that we're working on a different definition. We believe that, if you look at holiness primarily in terms of "set-apart-ness", there ARE degrees of holiness (and thus, degrees of sanctification - down-to-earth, what-we're-doing-how-we're-living sanctification, I mean, ~NOT~ positional, are-we-right-before-God sanctification - of the latter kind, there are NO degrees; there's only "you are or you aren't"). God, however, is the ONLY one who has pure, totally undefiled, completely-utterly-incomprehendibly-good holiness. Let's be clear on that. No holiness of any Christian can compare to God's holiness!!! Nonetheless, we CAN be - at least to a small extent - holy.

…I hope that all made sense. I honestly don't get what all the hoopla is about. I think we just disagree on definitions, for the most part…oh well. I don't claim to be perfect, obviously, just wanted to share my two cents, that's all. I know I didn't quote much Scripture, but I do believe all my points are sufficiently backed by Scripture. Partially this is because I believe we fundamentally agree and the only REAL trouble is these pesky definitions - thus, not much need for Scripture. But maybe I'm wrong and I should've included more.

Well, God bless you all. I hope ALL of us come to a deeper understanding of the truth.

(ps - I'm a girl and I don't mean to lecture men on theology. I'm just sharing my opinions, and I'm sorry if I've ever acted like I'm an authority- obviously I'm not!)

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

You said: "C4C, if you (I) want to see a good verse on progressive sanctification, with the word "sanctification" actually in the verse, look five posts to Octo's post on a verse in Romans 6."

Sanctification in Romans 6? Sanctification does not appear in Romans 6.

You said: "We fully agree with you on everything you are saying except the terminology, which you have changed from centuries of acceptance."

You're right, accepted by those following those who came up with it, Wesley and Finney. It is also still widely accepted by Catholics.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

You seem to continue to mix up our two definitions of sanctification (which, I would argue, are backed up by the Bible). Please try to keep these separate, in the categories we mean them to be in. We are not saying that any part of salvation is of ourselves!

Could you give me an example of more than one definition of sanctification found in the Bible? Thanks!

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Sure! The verse Octavius gave you. :)

Even your translation says "leading to holiness." If we are already 100% holy, how can something be leading to holiness/sanctification?

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

As COS said, Romans 6:19 must be talking about a progressive "leading to holiness", not a positional one–if it were positional, why would we be commanded to grow in holiness? We certainly are holy in God's eyes, and that is because of Christ alone, but the Bible shows that we are to grow in holiness–this is not a doctrine formulated by Wesley and Finney!

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@COS:

Just a note, this is a different Greek word in Romans 6:19 then the word normally used for sanctification. I have to agree with the translation "holiness" that has been accepted for over 400 years.

I find it interesting I have given you 12 verses, and could give many more, and all you can come up with is one, that doesn't even have the word: "sanctification" in it. Too bad Wesley and Finney aren't around anymore, maybe they could come up with at least one verse to support this doctrine.

You asked the question: "If we are already 100% holy, how can something be leading to holiness/sanctification?"

This verse never says we will reach holiness, it says to strive for it, in essence. The Bible says "their is none righteous." But that said, we are to strive for holiness in our own lives. That said, this has absolutely nothing to do with our sanctification–which is a work done in the past, God legally setting us apart as His.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@SBG:

I agree, this is talking about our walk as a Christian/maturing as a believer, or "growing in grace and knowledge", and is an ongoing act.

You're right Wesley and Finney are not the only fathers of this doctrine; Catholics played a leading role also and, and along with arminians, still teach it today.

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Where are you getting the idea that the Wesleys and Charles Finney were the first to come up with this doctrine? I'm pretty sure the Wesleys are notorious for their "total sanctification" or "perfection" doctrine, not progressive sanctification, though I'm sure they held to that as well.

And Charles Finney is a whole different matter. He was the one who popularized the modern evangelistic methods of the altar call and the sinner's prayer and also the "once saved, always saved" mentality that gives false assurance to any person who has "made a decision" or "asked Jesus into his heart," no matter how they live afterwards. I doubt he was a big proponent of progressive sanctification, because it would have totally destroyed his whole philosophy. In fact, it probably would have been more advantageous to him to only believe in positional sanctification.

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Catholics do not teach the same doctrine that we are trying to teach you. Catholics teach that sanctification has a part to play in justification. We are not saying that at all. Catholics believe that believers are infused with some of Christ's righteousness upon their conversion, and they have to add their own works to that (sanctification) in order to become totally righteous and thus be justified before God.

We Protestants believe instead in imputed righteousness. At our conversion, our sinfulness is completely placed on Christ, and Christ's righteousness is completely placed on us. Thus we are fully justified immediately upon conversion, and we are seen as perfectly blameless in God's sight. At the same time, the Holy Spirit sets us apart for holy living, and we demonstrate our conversion by living holy lives by God's power, working out our salvation with fear and trembling. None of this is accomplished by our effort, but by God working in us–totally contrary to the Catholic doctrine of sanctification.

Bottom line: What we believe is totally different from what Catholics believe!

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

You have explained our positions very well, Talia.
in responce to your P.S.: You are an authority if you show wisdom and speak what is Scriptural, both of which you have done. BTW, please add young in front of man in my case.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

Romans 6:19 does not say we are to strive for holiness. We are to present our members to righteousness leading to sanctification (holiness in your translation). It is a command to present our members to righteousness as slaves. It does have everything to do with our (practical) sanctification!

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

As Octo said, please add "young" in front of "man" in my case–you can probably tell why from my picture!

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

I disagree doctrinally with Wesley, Finney, and the Catholics, sir. They didn't come up with this. It was the puritans and reformers (who used the mother of the KJV, the Geneva Bible, or the KJV itself, mind you) who made this biblical distinction.
You are (again) creating a straw man and lumping us in with those who we obviously do not agree with. Very bad argumentation.

So I looked up all the texts that have the words sanctification, sanctified, sanctifies, and sanctify in them in the little concordance in the back of my bible, and here goes for all of them. (BTW, I use the Extra-Spiritual Version) I will conclude each with the single word clarifying what aspect of sanctification is being propounded in the text.

Under the word 'sanctification' (the process of sanctifying, or being sanctified):
Romans 6:19 - "I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification."
And even if your version says "holiness", it means the exact same thing, because sanctification is unto holiness, so much so that one translation says sanctification, another says holiness. They are synonymous in this case. Practical.

1 Corinthians 1:30 - "And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption…" I already gave you this one once before, but I will explain again: The text says that Christ is our righteousness, meaning that we are righteous before God - 100% holy. It also says that He is our sanctification, meaning that not only are we 100% holy in our standing before God in Christ, but also that Christ will work his will in us practically (conformity to His own self). Then it says that He is our redemption, meaning that He alone can, was willing to, and did redeem us from hell, and put us on the straight and narrow way.
Sanctification in this text is a reference to both aspects of our sanctification (remember, we don't believe in two sanctifications, but two differing aspects of one sanctification). Positional and practical.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 - "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;" This text links our sanctification with our practical holiness of life, abstaining from sexual immorality. Now of course both aspects of our sanctification are the will of God, but this text stresses the practical aspect. Practical.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 - "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." The word 'saved' in the text refers us back to an event in time (initial salvation), a process in time (continual salvation), and an event in the future (glorification). One salvation, three aspects. And then it says that we are saved (initially, continually, and in our glorification) "through sanctification and belief in the truth". The sanctification in the text is also initial (positional) and continual (practical), just as our salvation has different aspects. Positional and practical.

1 Peter 1:2 - "…according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:" The key words are "of the Spirit". This refers to practical. Where it puts on sanctification on Christ's account, I think it is always referring to positional. But here it's: "sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ" , which seems very obviously to link our sanctification to obedience. Practical.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

Now there's more.

Texts with the word 'sanctified' in them:

John 17:19 - "And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth" The "sanctified" in the text means 'set apart [for holy service to God]' according to the footnote. Practical.

Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ Largely referring to positional.

Romans 15:16 - "…to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." This does not really relate to our topic. The Holy Spirit set the offering of the gentile's apart as holy, and for holy service to God.

1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Positional.

1 Corinthians 1:2 - "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" Positional.

Hebrews 2:11 - "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,"
Both. Remember, we have one santification, just two aspects of it.

Hebrews 10:10 - "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Positional.

Hebrews 10:29 - "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?" This is a reference to positional, but this person was never REALLY sanctified in any way. He just gave the appearance of it, so much so that from our perspective, he WAS sanctified. But the fruit proved the badness of the tree.

Texts with the word 'sanctifies' in them:

Leviticus 20:8 - "Keep my statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you." Both. God sanctifies us initially and continually, positionally and practically.

Hebrews 2:11 - "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,"
Refers to Christ as the one who sanctifies (initially and continually).

Texts with the word 'sanctify' in them:

Exodus 31:13 - "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you." Both positionally and practically, God sanctifies us.

John 17:17 - "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." Jesus just said, 'sanctify them in your word.' That's practical.

Ephesians 5:26 - "that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word," Again, He will sanctify both positionally and practically.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 - " Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." If sanctify means only the making us holy positionally, why would this text pray that God would sanctify us completely? This refers to the second aspect. Practical.

Heb 13:12 - "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood." Yeah, he died to sanctify us completely and initially, gradually and in time. Both.

Positional sanctification: What God does for us.
Practical sanctification: What God does in us.
One sanctification.
Two aspects.
Sanctification is the setting apart as holy (positional) for holy service to God (practical).

171a13c462ce725475c408309a6cc8fb?s=128&d=mm

Wretched Man

I don't know, @Octo, you still seem a little vague.

Are you sure you're not Catholic? Is that a Charles Finney t-shirt you're wearing?

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

I'm not WAERING anything, Mr. Wretched Man! Rest assured, however, I am WEARING clothing (though NOT a Finney tee).

Sorry for the "vagueness".

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

@Octavius:

I don't appreciate the fact that you once again accused me of a "straw man argument". First of all, I am not arguing, and am only discussing my views in love. Secondly, calling anything you can't refute a "straw man" is cheap argumentation. Plus, it's closer to hay season then the time of year we bale straw. :) To back up what I previously said, here is a quote from Catholic.com: "A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don’t make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you’ll get to heaven"

The article went on to describe sanctification as an "ongoing processes in the life of the believer." Sounds like what you have been saying to me. Plus, you've said you agree with progressive sanctification, and it's a well-know-fact that Catholics believe in progressive sanctification.

On Wesley, from morechristlike.com: "Wesley taught the long method and that most people would experience progressive sanctification throughout their life…"

However, though you have said you believe in progressive sanctification, I agree with you that you do not agree with progressive sanctification, because those who hold the view of progressive sanctification believe that we are causing are sanctification, and it doesn't seem you believe that. You seem to be in-the-closet in agreement with complete sanctification like the Bible teaches, and are confused by terminology, as Talia put it.

You said: "Under the word 'sanctification' (the process of sanctifying, or being sanctified):
Romans 6:19 - "I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification."
And even if your version says "holiness", it means the exact same thing, because sanctification is unto holiness, so much so that one translation says sanctification, another says holiness. They are synonymous in this case. Practical."

Sanctification does not appear in Romans 6. Sanctification and holiness are NOT synonyms. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the word sanctification. Sanctification is a beautiful word we must not distort. It is the act of God setting us a apart as his. How awesome!

1 Corinthians 1:30: "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"

Thank you, my friend and brother, for bringing up such a beautiful verse regarding Christ's finished work of sanctification! CHRIST is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. What a great truth of the Bible.

1 Thessalonians 4:3: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:"

Sanctification here is clearly being used in the sense of being "set apart". It's clear from the context, (the next verse actually sheds some light on the subject), and Greek grammar.

2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Sanctification is once again past perfect in the Greek in this verse. This not only means it was a one time deal completed in the past, but the perfect implies it is 100% completed, by someone. How amazing. Christ has set us apart as his, before the foundation of the world!

1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.)

Once again, sanctification is complete, by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is writing through Peter here to scattered believers. There sanctification is complete, just as is there election, as the verse states.

You brought up some great verses supporting sanctification as a work of God completed in the past, and not a work of our own. If you ever come across any Biblical evidence for progressive sanctification, please let me know. I've read every occurrence in the Bible and can't find one. Please, my friend, could you tell me where they are to be found? Should I look in the Apocrypha, is that where the verses supporting this doctrine of progressive sanctification are found? Or is it some extra-Biblical article I am missing? Should I look in the Koran? Please, my good friend, could you tell me where the verses are to be found?

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

A straw man is a distortion of an opponents view so that it is easily admitted to be foolish and un-defendable. It is a straw man logical fallacy to say that we believe as Wesley, Finney, and the Catholics. I hope you know by now that WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. So to say that we are somehow in agreement with them IS INDEED a straw man argument (by which is meant logical fallacy). I'm not saying we are having an argument, just saying it's bad technique.

I agree with you that our sanctification is 100% completed in the past, only by Jesus. But the word sanctification means more than merely "set apart as holy". It means "set apart as holy for holy service to God." We see this all throughout the old testament when all the instruments and components of the temple were sanctified. When they were sanctified, they were holy. Done deal. But their service had only just begun.
So it is with us. We are set apart as holy. Done deal. But the holy service to God is not completed until we are glorified. The "holy service to God" is just as much a part of our sanctification as the "set apart"-ness of our sanctification.

Here's another distortion of our position. You ask where you should look, and then imply that what we have said is not supported by scripture. Just look above, please. I gave you plenty of verses. You can explain them however you want, but you can't deny them.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

The definition of sanctification as used in the Old Testament is totally different then sanctification as used in the New Testament. In a previous post, you used Leviticus 20:8, and said that "God sanctifies us initially and continually, positionally and practically."

In the Old Testament, sanctification means to be: "set apart".

Family Bible Notes on Leviticus 20:8 says: "Sanctify you; separate them from other nations, and set them apart for himself. Le 20:24,26"

You definition: "God sanctifies us initially and continually, positionally and practically." regarding Leviticus 20:8 is irrelevant, and does not apply.

Note: To those of you I haven't responded to, (Tali, etc.) I don't have time now, but will try to later.

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

Octavius called your argument a straw man argument because you were grouping us together with sects we both know are wrong (Catholicism and Arminianism), as if what we believe was the same as what they believe. So maybe we should instead have called your weak argumentation by the "guilt by association fallacy." ;)

Neither of us denied that Catholics believe in progressive sanctification. Catholics believe in a lot of things that Protestants believe in–the Trinity, the infallibility of Scripture, the hypostatic union, and etc. And neither did we deny that the Wesleys taught the doctrine. We denied that they were the originators. No matter how much you'd like to deny it, even the Reformers taught this doctrine.

You said that true proponents of progressive sanctification believe that it is by our works that we are continually, practically sanctified. I don't appreciate that, because we've shown you that that's not what progressive sanctification is. That's like me telling you that you shouldn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, because, really, the word "Trinity" has been used to refer to the modalist god, so we shouldn't use that terminology. Ridiculous. Just because the doctrine has been perverted under the same name doesn't mean that the orthodox understanding is therefore wrong as well.

You said: "Sanctification does not appear in Romans 6. Sanctification and holiness are NOT synonyms. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the word sanctification. Sanctification is a beautiful word we must not distort. It is the act of God setting us a apart as his. How awesome!" Seriously…? You didn't even try to adress Octavius's comments disproving this statement, which you already made before. Please stop making the same statements, even after we have attempted to disprove them, without adressing our arguments.

And then this paragraph:

"You brought up some great verses supporting sanctification as a work of God completed in the past, and not a work of our own. If you ever come across any Biblical evidence for progressive sanctification, please let me know. I've read every occurrence in the Bible and can't find one. Please, my friend, could you tell me where they are to be found? Should I look in the Apocrypha, is that where the verses supporting this doctrine of progressive sanctification are found? Or is it some extra-Biblical article I am missing? Should I look in the Koran? Please, my good friend, could you tell me where the verses are to be found?"

I think was totally uncalled for. How can you say something like that and then contend that you're not trying to argue, but rather to discuss your views in love? I apologize if I'm getting a little hot-headed here, but it's a little hard not to when you go somewhere totally unnecessary to prolong a point we've already adressed. Seriously? The Koran?! Please don't go there again. :
93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

C4C–You said, "I don't appreciate the fact that you once again accused me of a "straw man argument". First of all, I am not arguing, and am only discussing my views in love. Secondly, calling anything you can't refute a "straw man" is cheap argumentation."

We are accusing you of a straw man argument because that is exactly what it is. We are clearly addressing the Bible, not apocryphal books or the Koran. Based on what you said against us, you can hardly say that you are not arguing, and if you insist that you are only discussing, how can you say that you are doing it in love if you insinuate that we are using a Muslim holy book to back up our beliefs?? Also, we are not calling something that we can't explain a straw man. We are calling you accusing us of something we obviously did not mean or say a straw man. As for inability to defend our position, we have given you many reasons as to why we believe what we believe.

I think I have boiled our entire argument down to a simple cause–terminology. We all believe the EXACT SAME THINGS, as we have seen from each others' comments, except for the meaning of "sanctification." You believe that it only involves our being made holy in God's sight at salvation, while we believe that it means both that and our growth in holiness. The word translated "sanctification" in some translations and "holiness" in others, like the KJV, is the word "hagiasmos," which literally means "the process of making or becoming holy, set apart, SANCTIFICATION, HOLINESS, consecration." The growth in holiness in many of the verses we have seen mean both "sanctification" and "holiness"!

We are backed up by Biblical Greek and centuries of acceptance by the church (and not just by the Wesleys and Finney!). You are backed up only by what your personal preference is, as far as I have seen. If you have further, and trustworthy, backing, please show us. But we have more propelling arguments on our side, not you. If I am wrong, show me. Otherwise, listen to what we are saying.

P.S. Please read this comment in its entirety, or you may draw wrong conclusions, and possibly create another straw man. Thank you!

0aeb4024e469ca3f8a6d5da4e10a09b8?s=128&d=mm

Christian Alexander

After the advice of my mom, I (and probably SBG also) will not be contributing to this discussion anymore. It has gone absolutely nowhere since it started, and you don't seem to be giving much attention to any of our arguments, so it's futile and foolish to go on. When you start making as ridiculous comments as the one you made above, it's a sign that the conversation should stop.

70233aeb909b2f7dd3bf140d3658ba56?s=128&d=mm

Octavius

Please, go ahead and look in the apocrypha, and see that the origins of our teaching is NOT there.
If you feel compelled, even look within the pages of the Koran, and see that it is NOT there, but above all, I beg you, my friend, to LOOK WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES!!!!!!
And if you cannot see the origin of our teaching there, it is neither the fault of the texts nor of we who have shown them to you.

I think it should be obvious by now that we are not going to either persuade each other or agree with one another. In the grand scheme of things, our difference is not very great. We both believe that our view is backed by Scripture, which is how our views should be. That being said, I too am withdrawing from this conversation.
In the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Octavius

P.S. Thank you for bringing to my attention the oft-overlooked aspect of our sanctification, vis., the positional. This conversation has been a growing experience for me.

2575e23d2a1745e3783370f1a12506f4?s=128&d=mm

Cowboy4Christ

In response to ChiefOfSinners, SavedByGrace, and Octavius:

I agree that this conversation is going nowhere. Like I said in my first post in this conversation: "I feel it is fruitless to be discussing something that is merely a terminology dispute."

Some closing remarks:

First, some background on my "straw man". SBG said: "We fully agree with you on everything you are saying except the terminology, which you have changed from centuries of acceptance". I responded: "Accepted by those following those who came up with it, Wesley and Finney." So anyways, I wouldn't call it a straw man to bring up the fathers of a doctrine. Also, progressive sanctification has not been accepted for years, second I have not changed the definition. However, along the lines of changing the definition, SBG, in a recent post, said that the definition of hagiasmos, (The Greek word used for sanctification) is:

"the process of making or becoming holy, set apart, sanctification, holiness, consecration."

I would like to know how he came up with this definition. This is simply inaccurate. The Strong's definition of hagiasmos is:

"properly, purification, i.e. (the state) purity; concretely (by Hebraism) a purifier:–holiness, sanctification."

Not only "the process of" is not in the definition, (as SBG put it), but also in most cases sanctification is in the past perfect voice in the Greek, not only meaning it was completed in the past, but the perfect adds that it was completed by someone in the past, and is 100% complete–perfect. Titus 3:5 says: "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;" I'm thankful that it is by not work of our own that we are sanctified, but by Christ's finished work!

SBG said: "You (I) are backed up only by what your (my) personal preference is." Unlike SBG, I didn't draw conclusions but kindly asked where this doctrine of progressive sanctification could be found, since it was inconsistent with the Greek grammar, and countless verses I brought up. None of you have even given me even one verse that is relevant and supports progressive sanctification. In response to my simple question of where verses supporting your beliefs could be found, (since I had given 12 verses and tried to explain the Greek definition several times and no one was able to bring up one verse supporting progressive sanctification), I was answered with statements like these:

"…if you cannot see the origin of our teaching there, it is neither the fault of the texts nor of we who have shown them to you."

"…you don't seem to be giving much attention to any of our arguments…"

"When you start making as ridiculous comments as the one you made above, it's a sign that the conversation should stop."

"You are backed up only by what your personal preference is…"

"…we have more propelling arguments on our side, not you."

"…listen to what we are saying."

"…totally uncalled for…"

Instead of all these insults, I would have appreciated if someone could have simply answered my question with something supporting progressive sanctification, like I asked for. I am trying to understand where you are coming from, but throughout this whole conversation I haven't been given any Biblical evidence, and insulting remarks aren't helping me see where you are coming from either.

At the end of the day however, I agree with Tali, (and what I said at the beginning of the conversation), that we mainly just disagree on terminology. Though a big terminology disagreement it may be, we essentially all believe the same things. I fully agree with all the great points you all have brought up, like imitating Christ as believers, striving to be Holy through Christ, etc. However, since sanctification is necessary for our salvation, I think it is vital not to put the work of sanctification on man as a continual act, but rather like the Bible teaches, as a finished work of Christ.

It has been humbling to be involved in a conversation with people of such stature and intellect as you all. May the Lord Bless and keep you all,

Cowboy4Christ

93fcb35bede1ac128cb83b71e8060885?s=128&d=mm

SavedByGrace

I'm sorry to keep this conversation going longer than I intended, but I feel like I have to…

First, I got my definition of "hagiasmos," which, in a verse in 1 Peter, is describing growth in holiness, from Strong's concordance. We must have gone to different places to find it, but I did find it in Strong's.

Second, all those quotes that you called "insults" were either in your refusal to realize why we believe what we believe, or to your ridiculous comment about us getting our beliefs from apocryphal books or the Koran. That certainly was completely uncalled for.

Third, the Wesleys and Finney, as we said before, were NOT the "fathers of the doctrine." It would not have even fit with what Finney believed, and it was certainly around, and widely believed, before the Wesleys. So yes, you are going against centuries of acceptance.

Fourth, I was not "drawing conclusions" when I said that your belief was based on your personal preference. We believe in our terminology because of centuries of acceptance, and because we believe that is what the Bible teaches, and you are basing your terminology on what your personal preference is.

Fifth, you are making many more straw men by taking out snippets of what we said without showing our explanation. That is bad argumentation. Another straw man was when you put in my quote,

"You are backed up only by what your personal preference is,"

without putting in the rest of that quote,

"as far as I have seen. If you have further, and trustworthy, backing, please show us. But we have more propelling arguments on our side, not you. If I am wrong, show me. Otherwise, listen to what we are saying."

This is about the worst straw man you have created yet. I gave you the offer to prove me wrong when I said what I said, but instead of doing so, you took out part of my comment and misrepresented it. PLEASE STOP DOING THAT. Very bad argumentation.

Sixth, we keep showing you why we believe in progressive sanctification, and you continue to say that we are giving you no evidence at all. Please look back at our previous comments!

"Romans 6:19 - 'I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.'
And even if your version says 'holiness', it means the exact same thing, because sanctification is unto holiness, so much so that one translation says sanctification, another says holiness. They are synonymous in this case. Practical."

"Hebrews 12:14: 'Make every effort to…be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.'

1 Peter 1:15: '…be holy in all you do.'

1 Peter 1:16: 'Be holy because I am holy.'

2 Peter 3:11: '…You ought to live holy and godly lives'"

"We are not in any way saying that progressive sanctification is necessary for justification. We're saying that anyone who has been justified will not only be positionally sanctified (made holy and blameless in God's sight), but also practically, or progressively, sanctifed (continually conformed to the image of Christ).

We are not taking away from what Christ did on the cross. Christ purchased our ability to be sanctified. All of our sanctification, positional or progressive, comes from His work."

"Being made holy through sanctification is not what gets you to heaven. No one in this topic has ever argued that this is the case. It HAS been pointed out that, if a man calling themselves a Christian has NO evidence of sanctification in their lives, it's highly unlikely that they're truly a Christian. After all, becoming a Christian and therefore saved involves the totally honest confession of sin, and it's hard to imagine that, having honestly confessed your sins AND receiving the God's Holy Spirit (who, being God, enables us to resist sinfulness), one should altogether persist in sin. NO, I am NOT saying that Christians never sin - this is obviously ridiculous - but Christians do, if nothing else, WANT to get rid of sin in their lives and STRIVE, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to become less and less sinful.

This is not saying that you're saved by your own efforts. No one who has posted in this topic believes that or has insinuated that in any way. But if a man is saved, it's perfectly biblical to expect SOME fruit from that person's life. In Matthew 7:17 (ESV), Matthew says, "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." Don't you think that those who are truly saved should be considered as "healthy" and as such, bear at least some measure of "good fruit"? Obviously, we ALL bear different measures of good fruit. Don't get me wrong. But shouldn't we try, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to bear more and more?"

Of course, you would probably argue that all of these are involving "growth in holiness." Again, it seems like this is your personal preference. IF NOT, PLEASE SHOW ME HOW IT IS NOT. But we are backed up by the Greek and centuries of acceptance. Show me by what you are backed up.

So, my challenges are:

1) Tell me how blaming us with taking our beliefs from the Koran or apocryphal books was not bad argumentation.

2) Tell me how taking pieces of quotes that do not portray the entire meaning of the comment is not bad argumentation.

3) Explain to me how Wesley and Finney were the originators of the doctrine that we believe has been around for centuries.

4) Show me how we are wrong for believing that the word "sanctification" means both our being made morally perfect in God's eyes because of Christ's sacrifice and our growth in holiness during our Christian life, when it has been believed for centuries.

5) Show me why you believe that sanctification only means one thing, our being made morally perfect in God's eyes because of Christ, when centuries are against you.

Thank you for your politeness at the end of your last comment. I know that you are not being malicious in any way, but you are using bad argumentation by portraying us wrongly. Thank you for reading this long comment. :)

Trans