bEpistle of Strawb Teaches Negative Confession

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Jas. 4:13-17, <font size="-2">YLT</font>. Go, now, ye who are saying, `To-day and to-morrow we will go on to such a city, and will pass there one year, and traffic, and make gain;' who do not know the thing of the morrow; for what is your life? for it is a vapour that is appearing for a little, and then is vanishing; instead of your saying, `If the Lord may will, we shall live, and do this or that;' and now ye glory in your pride; all such glorying is evil; to him, then, knowing to do good, and not doing, sin it is to him.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>James exhorted his audience to confess 'if it be the Lord's will,' stating that it was quite possible that their time on earth could come to an abrupt end. Why did he not instead tell them to seek the Lord's will and confess what they heard from Him? The simplest answer is, admitting uncertainty about the future and about what is the Lord's will is not the boogie monster of doubt and unbelief that Freeman said it is.

[mark1124]

And your point is????

[christlicher_soldat]

What I am getting at more specifically is that it's perfectly fine to pray, "If it be Thy will."

[rachelengland]

When it all comes down to it..God gave us logic and we need to use that in order to make it in successfully in this world-playing games with confessions and faith magic, voodo tricks is non-sense.

Maybe I am being blunt BUT when a certain teaching takes life prematurely I will speak out against it. USE REASON when you need help, get it..that is God's will...That we keep advancing in Science and medicine in order to make the earth safe and livable(is that a word) for the future.

Hola mark1124, haven't seen you in a while-hope you are well..of course if you weren't well who would know, you probably wouldn't confess it(lol)R

[mark1124]

Rachel, I am well, healed and all of that. Thanks for asking. God is faithful and I am healed by the stripes of Jesus. God's word is true and He is true to His Word. There is nothing else that I can base my faith on.

Now concerning christlicher_soldat's comment that it is perfectly fine to pray "if it be thy will", yes I agree...if you do not have any specific promise in the word concerning an issue...namely what job to take, who to marry, etc. But when it comes to praying about a specific promise in the word, namely healing, finances, family salvation, or any of the other of the thousands of promises in the word, we do not need to tack on the words "if it be thy will" to those promises, as God already said that He will do so if we meet the conditions outlined in the word as well as holding fast to the promise which God made. God has made known in His Word His will in many matters. So there is no need to ask God for His will there. It is up to all of us to realize that God is faithful and He will do what He promises in His Word.

For example, if I were a sinner and in need of salvation, I would not ask the Lord to come into my heart if it is His will, for the Word clearly states that it is His will...so it is with the Holy Spirit baptism, healing, walking in victory. God's Word is His will. That's the bottom line. And it is His will to receive every promise in the Bible.

And I have heard the statement that Jesus used the words "if it be thy will." True...but that was not concerning a promise God made. That was a prayer of consecration. He already knew the will of God concerning the cross (as that was the reference) for He came to do the will of His Father.

So, as in the words of HEF, if you use the word IF concerning a promise of God, it means "I Fail". Faith is Forsaking All I Trust Him." I can't come up with anything better than that.

Enough of my soapbox.

God bless

Mark

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

For example, if I were a sinner and in need of salvation, I would not ask the Lord to come into my heart if it is His will, for the Word clearly states that it is His will...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Scripture reference, please.

I should hope you would not ask the Lord to come into your heart at all, since you will not find that false gospel of synergism anywhere in the Christian Bible, unless you count a misappropriation of Rev. 3:20. "I stand at the door and knock" is not a simile for Christ's readiness to save us and come into the chambers of our heart, so to speak, but -- as Lk. 12:36-37 elucidates -- is a simile for the imminency of his return and the consequent urgency of the Laodiceans' need to repent. The Laodiceans didn't need to "accept" Christ because they already had him.

It cannot be God's will because it is backwards. The unsaved human heart is no place for Christ to come to. Christ said that it was from the human heart that wickedness came (Mt. 15:19). Paul said it's dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). It is not we who accept Christ into us but we who are accepted into Christ (Eph. 1:6). It is only then, after he has declared us justified and we are rooted in love that he can make his abode in us (Eph. 3:17).

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

And I have heard the statement that Jesus used the words "if it be thy will." True...but that was not concerning a promise God made. That was a prayer of consecration. He already knew the will of God concerning the cross (as that was the reference) for He came to do the will of His Father.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Not exactly. I have made the statement that Jesus used words that were functionally equivalent to "if it be thy will." I have not denied that he came to do the will of the Father. The question is, what did he mean to demonstrate by that prayer of consecration?

(Message edited by Christlicher_soldat on September 28, 2007)

[mark1124]

OK You asked for it:

You stated: For example, if I were a sinner and in need of salvation, I would not ask the Lord to come into my heart if it is His will, for the Word clearly states that it is His will...

Scripture reference, please.

Try this one: 2 Peter 3:9 *¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Looks like we have the will of God already stated in the word of God, don't we. Not unless you are reading out of some per-version. But my Bible clearly states that God wants all of us to be saved. Or do you not know of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit? Then if Jesus does not come into the human heart, so to speak, answer me this one question...Who is this residing in my heart right now as I write this?

And by the way, I am not getting into any kind of arguments with you like you do with Hombre. I support his views wholeheartedly. Whether you agree with me or not, I could care less. I have the truth and that is in the word of God. All else is sinking sand.

You are too argumentative and that is one thing that I refuse to do...and that is argue over the word of God.

God bless.

End of discussion on this matter.

Exception...it almost sounds like a discussion that I once had with the Factnet false prophet (aka Fivefoldprophet) when he disagreed with me that our sins are under the blood. I have no time to waste regarding arguing over the word with you or with Fivefold. I have enough to do to live the word and not argue over it. You are entitled to believe what you want. I'll believe the scriptures.

God bless.

Or this one:

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Try this one: 2 Peter 3:9 ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Context is key in 2Pet. 3:9. If you confer to the previous verse, you will find that "us-ward" is referring to Peter and the "beloved" -- the same beloved of ch.3:1, which tells us that this is the second epistle to this particular audience. To whom was 1Pet. written? Those "elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father." Id est, saved people. Remember also that the passage in question involves the Lord's coming, just as it was in Rev. 3:20. 2Pet. 3:9 is a passage on sanctification, not evangelization.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Then if Jesus does not come into the human heart, so to speak, answer me this one question...Who is this residing in my heart right now as I write this?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I apologize; I edited too slowly to make clear that it is the order that this gospel gets wrong, not the topography. Christ indwells, but it is not because you have invited him to.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

You are too argumentative and that is one thing that I refuse to do...and that is argue over the word of God.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>That is most unfortunate, as you are commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). While I respect your polite attitude and am forbidden from making conjectures as to your motives, I must express that your unwillingness to discuss the matter does not help your case, but rather reinforces stereotypes of your doctrines as spiritual elitism.

[johiyom]

christlicher_soldat, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly on this point but how can a person be saved, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and at the same time be in danger of perishing by not being sanctified? Are you saying that salvation/regeneration is a process?
It also sounds like you believe sanctification is a second work of grace, a process, thus you believe in the two-natures theory, whereas I am in agreement with Hobart on this one, that all saved, Christian believers are already sanctified(set apart) once for all. We are not to confuse sanctification with perfection and glorification. See Deeper Life in the Spirit pgs. 88-108 for details on what Hobart Freeman taught.

[johiyom]

I Thess. 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification....
Am I then to pray, Father, in the name of Jesus, if it be thy will, sanctify me?
Perhaps this is what mark1124 is saying.
Now the question is, when does a Christian attain sanctification?

[johiyom]

After reading through II Peter 3 again and checking some commentaries I don't think the "usward" is referring exclusively to the saved, the beloved, the elect....but to EVERYBODY, mankind in general terms, and specifically to the "some men" who count slackness, to scoffers in the last days, unbelievers, the willingly ignorant concerning the coming of the Lord, all the more reason they should get saved and come to repentance. After all, what did Peter need to repent of that would cause him to be in danger of perishing? He had already repented of his sins and been saved, believed in Christ, and repented of his denying the Lord 3 times. I am not talking about the sins that Peter commited in his daily walk(I John 1:8-10); that he needed to repent of and confess(he being human and not perfectly sinless), but in some sin that might cause Peter to perish unless he was "sanctified." He was already sanctified as well as the the beloved, the elect, the ones he was writing to once again.
They were in no danger of perishing. It was the some men who count slackness concerning God's promise of Christ returning to judge the world in righteousness, who were scoffers, the unbelievers, the willingly ignorant.
I'm not sure I'm being clear on this or explaining it in a way that makes sense, but in my thinking II Peter 3:9 is most definitely evangelistic in nature. He's not talking about sanctification.

(Message edited by JOhiyOM on September 29, 2007)

[hombre]

Blah, blah, blah.

More deceit and crapola from deceivers attempting to dissuade others from believing what the Word of God clearly teaches.

Hey, Devil-Boot-Licker:

You're confusing the sovereign will of God with reference to His plan for our individual lives with His clearly stated sovereign will with reference to how He wants us to exercize faith in Him for everything from our daily needs to our hearts desires.

In that, you error greatly.

Mark: Good to see you, and know that you are doing well.

[studious]

Hombre: your simplistic use of "daily needs" makes me cringe. I assume that you use common sense, but some Freemanites didn't (don't) and end up hurting due to a failed sense of "give it to me now, God"--instead of getting up off their heinies (sp?) and seeking what they need, trusting that God will guide them. No one's going to give me anything I don't seek!

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

johiyom: I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly on this point but how can a person be saved, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and at the same time be in danger of perishing by not being sanctified? Are you saying that salvation/regeneration is a process? It also sounds like you believe sanctification is a second work of grace, a process, thus you believe in the two-natures theory, whereas I am in agreement with Hobart on this one, that all saved, Christian believers are already sanctified(set apart) once for all.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Don't be put off by the term "sanctification;" there is altogether too much confusion over it in the Church today. The verse you cite, 1Thes. 4:3, in its context defines sanctification as abstinence, but Dr. Freeman left off its second half on pp. 89 in order to solidify his case against progressive sanctification. Sanctification is that continual process of abstinence, but it is also an event; we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10). Progressive sanctification, which I view not as a second work of grace but a continuation of the first, is necessary because, as Martin Luther put it, the Christian is simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously justified and sinful.

Another verse which reveals progressive sanctification, and which is left out of Freeman’s discussion in Deeper Life is Heb. 12:14, “Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord…” The word “holiness” there is the same Greek word (hagiasmos) that is translated as “sanctification” in 1Cor. 1:30, 1Thes. 4:3-4, 2Thes. 2:13, and 1Pet. 1:2. It is also translated as “holiness” in Rom. 6:19 &amp; 22 and 1Tim. 2:15, which also describe a progressive sanctification. Remember, all the people of Israel were sanctified -- set apart as God's exclusive people to serve and worship God -- but they still had to sanctify themselves from time to time in the progressive sense.

Freeman commits a classic fallacy in Deeper Life by casting positional and progressive sanctification in terms of an “either-or” choice. According to the logic presented on pp. 92, sanctification is positional, therefore it cannot be progressive. He never acknowledges the “both-and” possibility, but rather dodges it by moving immediately from knocking down his straw man to unsupported rhetoric: “Therefore, the terms ‘past,’ ‘present,’ and ‘future’ sanctification do not occur in the Scripture, but were invented by theologians in an attempt to explain the disparity between what the Bible teaches concerning believers… and the apparent absence of such an experience in the life of most Christians.” A cursory knowledge of Christian history, namely of the Puritans (who believed in both pietism and two natures), should be enough to tell you that this is ridiculously off base. Such rubbishing is typical of Freeman -- “if it disagrees with me, it must have been invented so we can excuse sin and godless unbelief.” It is a dishonest tactic that distracts you from the holes he has just left in his argument.

To sum up, yes, I do believe in the two-natures theory -- I also believe that Christians are sanctified once for all; they are simply progressively sanctified, as well. As I have already demonstrated, this is not equivocation, but scriptural doctrine obscured by the KJV’s translation but easily illuminated with the use of a concordance and a little critical thinking.

(Message edited by Christlicher_soldat on September 29, 2007)

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

johiyom: After reading through II Peter 3 again and checking some commentaries I don't think the "usward" is referring exclusively to the saved, the beloved, the elect....but to EVERYBODY, mankind in general terms, and specifically to the "some men" who count slackness, to scoffers in the last days, unbelievers, the willingly ignorant concerning the coming of the Lord, all the more reason they should get saved and come to repentance. After all, what did Peter need to repent of that would cause him to be in danger of perishing? He had already repented of his sins and been saved, believed in Christ, and repented of his denying the Lord 3 times. I am not talking about the sins that Peter commited in his daily walk(I John 1:8-10); that he needed to repent of and confess(he being human and not perfectly sinless), but in some sin that might cause Peter to perish unless he was "sanctified." He was already sanctified as well as the the beloved, the elect, the ones he was writing to once again.
They were in no danger of perishing. It was the some men who count slackness concerning God's promise of Christ returning to judge the world in righteousness, who were scoffers, the unbelievers, the willingly ignorant.
I'm not sure I'm being clear on this or explaining it in a way that makes sense, but in my thinking II Peter 3:9 is most definitely evangelistic in nature. He's not talking about sanctification.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Again, the context is eschatological. Calls to repentance with the undertone of future judgment are typically to God’s own people. Read through it again, the whole chapter, and take special notice of the contrast between “they” and “ye.” Also take notice of where v.9 leads to: “[Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness [i.e. sanctification]” (v.11). “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye look for such things [i.e., the dissolving of the heavens, v.12, and the new heavens and earth, v.13], be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless” (v.14).

Now take the telescopic view of the text. What has Peter just done?

v.7-8, the world is going to be destroyed
v.9, [i]the verse in question
v.10, the world is going to be destroyed
v.11, pertain yourselves to godliness
v.12-13, the world is going to be destroyed
v.14-15, pertain yourselves to godliness

Now, if you are correct, and this “us-ward” is general, to all the unbelievers, then we have a pretty disjointed passage. If I am correct, and “us-ward” is referring only to the elect, then we have a marvelously organized, three-tiered argument for why Peter’s audience should look to their Christian walk, so that they do not end up like the apostate fellow in ch.2. Which makes more sense?

(Message edited by christlicher_soldat on September 29, 2007)

[johiyom]

Well, at this point, I'll have to do some homework, pondering and studying these things to come to an understanding. There's a lot to think about and chew on.

II Peter 3:15-16
....our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,...

[christlicher_soldat]

May God guide your study. Grace and peace.

[hombre]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Soldat: Freeman commits a classic fallacy in Deeper Life by casting positional and progressive sanctification in terms of an “either-or” choice. According to the logic presented on pp. 92, sanctification is positional, therefore it cannot be progressive.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Nice try and use of some confusing rhetoric yourself.

Sanctification IS 'positional'.

You either are or you are not.

One becomes sanctified or 'set apart' when one gets saved.

It IS NOT progressional, in the same way 'salvation' is not progressional.

YOU commit the 'classic error' of the Catholic Church, in assuming that one becomes 'sanctified' through a series of religious acts.

You make the same mistake again when you confuse 'sanctification' with 'holy conversation and godliness'.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Soldat: what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness [i.e. sanctification]” (v.11).<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

To put an end to the nonsense that sanctification is a process and can be earned, we need merely look to 1 Cor 7:14, where we find that in Gods' eyes, an unsaved spouse is deemed to be 'sanctified' merely by the associative relationship with their saved spouse.

'....For the unbelieving husband is SANCTIFIED by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is SANCTIFIED by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ....' ~ 1 Cor. 7:14

One last note:

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Soldat: May God guide your study. Grace and peace.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

He did. ...and may your eyes be opened to behold the truth that is simple enough for a child to understand.

[hombre]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Studious: Hombre: your simplistic use of "daily needs" makes me cringe. I assume that you use common sense, but some Freemanites didn't (don't) and end up hurting due to a failed sense of "give it to me now, God"--instead of getting up off their heinies (sp?) and seeking what they need, trusting that God will guide them. No one's going to give me anything I don't seek!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Well, I'm sorry if it makes you cringe.

What do you think of the Lord teaching us to pray in that manner in 'The Lords' Prayer' ( Matt. 6:11 ).

I don't know your circumstances, but perhaps you have never been needy and unable to provide for yourself. I have. Many times....and I have seen also...many times.....God provide for that which I couldn't.

I understand your honest assessment of people who 'don't get off their heinies' and take care of their own responsibilities; however, I don't find that one can equate 'faith' with the boy scout motto of always being prepared, or the Baptist credo that 'God helps those who help themselves'.

Faith and taking care of ones' responsibilities are two different things.

I am assuming that one has already done what is within their power to do, that that is a given, and beyond that, the answer lies within the realm of faith.

[studious]

Good answer--thanks!

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Hombre: Sanctification IS 'positional'. You either are or you are not. One becomes sanctified or 'set apart' when one gets saved. It IS NOT progressional, in the same way 'salvation' is not progressional. YOU commit the 'classic error' of the Catholic Church, in assuming that one becomes 'sanctified' through a series of religious acts.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Number one, you have not really addressed any of my arguments. Number two, you have falsely stated that I said one becomes sanctified through religious acts -- I have said nothing of the sort. Number three, you have used that misrepresentation to make a weak analogy (%20http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html) so you can commit what is the religious equivalent of a logical fallacy known jokingly as Argumentum ad Nazium (%20http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html), or playing the Hitler Card.

If I wanted to play your game, I could easily step out of line and say something to the effect of, “Yes, to the Roman Catholic Church one of the most damnable doctrines out of the Reformation was two natures theory, because God supposedly cannot declare a man righteous unless he is actually righteous. By poo-pooing two natures theory, you and others who give ear to Freeman find yourself on the same side as vain, antichrist Popery.” I could play that game, but I do not want to.

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

You make the same mistake again when you confuse 'sanctification' with 'holy conversation and godliness'.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>There is no confusion, hombre. Holiness is a state; sanctification is the act of setting something apart unto holiness. Therefore, the exhortation to “holy conversation and godliness” is essentially a call to personal sanctification. We were monergistically and positionally sanctified when we were called unto grace and set apart as God’s peculiar people. We are synergistically and progressively sanctified by the chastening of the Lord and our responsive repentance. If you want to criticise this doctrine, then please take up the issue with my exegesis instead of making character assassinations and repeating key phrases from Freeman’s books.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

To put an end to the nonsense that sanctification is a process and can be earned, we need merely look to 1 Cor 7:14, where we find that in Gods' eyes, an unsaved spouse is deemed to be 'sanctified' merely by the associative relationship with their saved spouse.

'....For the unbelieving husband is SANCTIFIED by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is SANCTIFIED by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ....' ~ 1 Cor. 7:14<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Number one, it is interesting that the verse you pick demonstrates the clear relationship between the terms “sanctify” and “holy.” Number two, you have simply quoted the verse without offering any exegetical information as to how it disproves progressive sanctification. Number three, 1Cor. 7;14 is about neither positional nor progressive sanctification. It has long been recognized that the Apostle is speaking of this consecration with it in mind that “to the pure all things are pure” (Tit. 1:15). Namely, the fact that the spouse is unsaved and content to dwell with the Christian does not mean one is continuing in an invalid marriage, but one that is blessed by God. Furthermore, Paul is probably answering protests (see v.1) that this situation creates a pressure on the Christian to work unrighteousness; Paul effectively counters by saying that, contrarily, the Christian is in the position to exert a pressure of his or her own. There is nothing supportive of positional sanctification here, and even if there were, it would not disprove progressive sanctification, which I have already shown to be supported by other verses.

[hombre]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Soldat:Blah, blah, blah...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

...and to think that Jesus said that a child could understand it....

The early church fathers decided upon the present canon of scripture that we have, based upon its' universal and personal meaning for every man.

I don't need to give 'exegetical' or 'confimation by some mans' own philosophy' to anything that clearly means what it says, and 1 Cor. 7:14 means exactly what it says.

It absoluetly denies the idea of 'progressive sanctification'.

For the reference of those who are not familiar with this idea, or who are bowled over by the presentation, here are some references, other than myself:

http://grace-for-today.com/222.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1100/progressivesanctification.html

http://www.geocities.com/genebrooks/sanctification.html

http://www.grace-bible.com/messages_What_is_progressive_sanctification.htm

That's quite enough stuff for now.

The point is, Soldat, is that you are promoting a form of works-salvation, in which one eventually attains unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, through his own effort.

We cannot do that; however, if we follow the leading of the Spirit, and merely submit to Him, then we maintain a right standing with Him.

'...This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law...' ~ Gal. 5 : 16-18

This is a passive submittal unto God by oneself, whose only active part is through denying oneself.

Does one change from glory to glory?

Yes.

...but can one be 'set apart' or 'made holy' in a progressive manner?

No.

One is already 'sanctified' and made 'holy' before God through the blood of Jesus Christ. That cannot be made into something greater through ones' own works. One can say that a person becomes more and more remote from the ways of the world as one draws closer to Christ, but to say that one achieves a state of 'sanctification' progressively, is false. We are already as holy as we are ever going to be, in the eyes of God, through the blood of Christ. We are acceptable, IN Him.

Therefore, the term 'progressive santification' is:

1. ) used by Catholics and works salvationists to justify their positions.

2. ) used by others who confuse the 'progressive' work of God in a person, as being related to the 'sanctification' that is provided through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It is nothing more than an effort by intellectuals to pigeon-hole God: encapsulating their theology into bundles that allow them to turn the infinite God into something more manageable....

..problem is, that's where error begins...when one starts reasoning, instead of believing what one has read, in this case becoming a serious error that supports works as an addition to grace for right standing with God.

(Message edited by hombre on October 02, 2007)

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

hombre: ...and to think that Jesus said that a child could understand it....<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Jesus said, “Suffer little children and forbid them not,” and “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.” That is a far cry from saying that a child could comprehend the Scriptures. The passage 2Pet. 3:15-17 testifies to quite the opposite -- that the Scriptures are often difficult to understand, especially to an undiscerning mind -- and reality confirms it when we observe such groups as the Restoration Movement, which uses Acts 2:38 to support baptismal regeneration.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The early church fathers decided upon the present canon of scripture that we have, based upon its' universal and personal meaning for every man.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>No, most scholars agree that the Church Fathers selected the present canon based on criteria of inspiration, apostolic authorship, internal and external consistency, and its usage in the Church.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I don't need to give 'exegetical' or 'confimation by some mans' own philosophy' to anything that clearly means what it says, and 1 Cor. 7:14 means exactly what it says.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>And yet it is interesting that you cite the canonical authority of men who routinely wrote out long, intellectual, philosophy-crammed apologia which were sometimes delivered to kings and emperors with the end in mind of persuading them through reason that Christianity was beneficial to the internal stability of their nations.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

It absoluetly denies the idea of 'progressive sanctification'.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Yet you have not demonstrated how.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

For the reference of those who are not familiar with this idea, or who are bowled over by the presentation, here are some references, other than myself:

http://grace-for-today.com/222.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1100/progressivesanctification.html
http://www.geocities.com/genebrooks/sanctification.html
http://www.grace-bible.com/messages_What_is_progressive_sanctification.htm

The point is, Soldat, is that you are promoting a form of works-salvation, in which one eventually attains unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, through his own effort.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Your second and fourth sources are engaged in the same one-sided, spurious rhetoric that you have used. They present verses that demonstrate the undisputed truth of positional sanctification and take it as self-evident that this means progressive sanctification is contradicted; meanwhile, superficial comparisons to works righteousness religions swing emotions such that the logical fallacies committed are soon forgotten.

Your first source actually concedes progressive sanctification but falsely assumes that the theological term is synonymous with Wesleyan entire sanctification or Christian perfection.

Your third source is actually an intelligent and informed summary of different positions. I applaud its scholarship.

[christlicher_soldat]

I counter your references with mine own, and I think you will see that the logic presented far exceeds the dogmatic blustering:

http://www.biblicalspirituality.org/role.html
http://www.russpickett.com/system/study07.htm
http://www.sovgrace.net/TwoPhases.pdf
http://www.soundofgrace.com/v6n3/sanctjgr.htm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

One is already 'sanctified' and made 'holy' before God through the blood of Jesus Christ. That cannot be made into something greater through ones' own works. One can say that a person becomes more and more remote from the ways of the world as one draws closer to Christ, but to say that one achieves a state of 'sanctification' progressively, is false. We are already as holy as we are ever going to be, in the eyes of God, through the blood of Christ. We are acceptable, IN Him.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I have never contested this. Simply restating something which I have already affirmed does not obviate a doctrine that you maintain is contradictory.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

We cannot do that; however, if we follow the leading of the Spirit, and merely submit to Him, then we maintain a right standing with Him.

'...This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law...' ~ Gal. 5 : 16-18

This is a passive submittal unto God by oneself, whose only active part is through denying oneself.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>That is progressive sanctification, hombre, as borne out by the Bible verses which I have cited.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Therefore, the term 'progressive santification' is:

1. ) used by Catholics and works salvationists to justify their positions.

2. ) used by others who confuse the 'progressive' work of God in a person, as being related to the 'sanctification' that is provided through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>1. ) Woefully unsubstantiated. As a theological concept, “progressive sanctification” emerged during the Reformation, from the Reformers, and as a term, it was later applied by theologians in the Reformed tradition. They saw the doctrine as not only naturally proceeding from the Scriptures, but also a necessary complement to simul iustus et peccator. Sanctification as the Roman Catholic views it is the conveyance of blessings through the sacraments, is synonymous with justification, and is progressive only, with no positional quality whatsoever (this because justification is also viewed to be progressive). See http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002ii/anderson.html for a fuller discussion.

2. ) There is no confusion where the Greek word for “sanctification” and its cognates are clearly connected with godliness, undefiled conversation, and repentance from backslidings.

[johiyom]

James 1 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.But let him ask in faith,nothing wavering.For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.

Am I then to pray, Father, if it be thy will, give me wisdom? Or am I to pray in faith, nothing wavering, no doubting(Mark 11:24) because it seems God's will is already revealed to give me wisdom if and when I need it?

At this point I think there's a difference between praying about what we already know to be God's will and praying about what we don't know to be God's will for our lives. The prayer of faith is different from the "if it be thy will" prayer and both apply to our Christian lives.

[hombre]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

JohnnyJohn: At this point I think there's a difference between praying about what we already know to be God's will and praying about what we don't know to be God's will for our lives. The prayer of faith is different from the "if it be thy will" prayer and both apply to our Christian lives.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

...well, finally something we both agree on.

...as long as we choose to leave it in this veiled grey language without defining the the line between.

Here's the line:

'Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. '
~Jesus Christ, Mark 11:24

[christlicher_soldat]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

johiyom: Am I then to pray, Father, if it be thy will, give me wisdom? Or am I to pray in faith, nothing wavering, no doubting(Mark 11:24) because it seems God's will is already revealed to give me wisdom if and when I need it?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I cannot be certain to whom you are directing this question, but I will answer it all the same. I have claimed wisdom by faith from this verse, and I hasten to point out that it was God-authored faith, because this passage is practically an island -- I have yet to find any other verse in the Bible that affixes a limit to it. My main objection to the demonization of "if it be thy will" is that it's a legalistic approach to a mere phrase that may be uttered in humble submission, as Jesus uttered it (or its equivalent), or in thoughtlessness, or in insecurity.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

hombre: Here's the line:

'Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. '
~Jesus Christ, Mark 11:24<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>And here's the limiters:

Delight thyself also in the Lord and He shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
--Ps. 37:4

If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.
--Ps. 66:18

Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears Him.
--Jn. 9:31

Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
--James 4:3

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
--1Pet. 3:7

And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
--1Jn. 3:22

And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that, if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us: And if we know that He hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him.
--1Jn. 5:14-15

That "what things soever ye desire" has an invisible star beside it that reads, "What you desire must be what the Father desires, and the prayer cannot be made with sins unrepented of. Have all the 'faith' you want, bub; but if you ain't meeting those two, you can forget it."

[hombre]

..that explains it all.

You have invisible stars in your Bible that no one else does.

But seriously, Johnny, I am asssuming that one IS meeting conditions...and then we DO have the confidence that He hears us and answers with a YES and an AMEN to His YES.

For all the PROMISES OF GOD in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
~ 2 Cor 1:20.

..if Mark 11:24 isn't a promise, I don't know what is.

[johiyom]

Before we go any further with this "study" or discussion, why do you now call me "Johnny" or "JohnnyJohn"? I'm trying to understand the motive for that. Am I Johnny Quest, Johnny Weismuller, or Johnny Come Lately? You can't seem to be cordial but insist on talking down toward myself and others. It's one thing for Jesus to have had "hard sayings" or to speak matter of factly things that offended people but it's another thing to delight in and make it one's mission, ambission, or sole aim to purposely offend. That's the problem I have with you. Unless you're sledge hammering people upside the head, or making snide remarks and getting your little dig in, you're not able to discourse with others and just present your arguments. And I know I've been guilty of that too in reaction. I realize I do not know you personally nor you me but can we please, from now on at least, dialogue without the belittling name calling jabs and keep some semblance of peace? I want to learn and hear what everyone has to say. And right now I'm still not convinced of "progressive sanctification" but agree with "positional sanctification" as Hobart taught. Everyone is not your enemy.

[hombre]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Johnny: Everyone is not your enemy.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

That is true, but that is sorta like what the devil told Eve too, and until you stop denying the reailty of the efficacy of Mark 11:24, and quit singing cumbaya with denom. doctrine, I ain'tcher buddy.

[christlicher_soldat]

hombre, I don't deny the efficacy of Mk. 11:24. It simply has got to be seen in light of the other Scriptures on the subject. If I read nothing but James, I suppose I'd be a Catholic trusting in my works, but because I read it in light of Galatians and Romans, I know what it's really talking about.

[johiyom]

hombre, is Apostolic Baptismal formula in Jesus' Name(Acts 2:38)Oneness denominational doctrine only skinning off the Sabellian/Modalistic view of the Godhead/Trinity?

[christlicher_soldat]

I correct myself: the Puritans most emphatically did NOT believe in two natures. This morning I was discussing the rant against progressive sanctification found in "The Deeper Life" with an Orthodox Presbyterian Doctor of Theology, and this guy nearly fell out of his pew laughing when I told him that Freeman conceptualized progressive sanctification as "two natures theory." He explained, "Two natures theory was something J.N. Darby came up with, not the Reformers. I don't know ANY Reformed theologian who has EVER taught two natures! We teach ONE nature, being continually sanctified and yet also definitively sanctified once for all -- just read it in the Westminster Confession, or in John Murray's writings. Freeman is falsely generalizing the theology of his Brethren seminary onto all of Protestant Christianity!"