“The alternative to law is not grace; it’s lawlessness.”

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
In depth is not easy for me; I see the compensation the King paid to Abraham as the foundation of Abraham's wealth and I see this as coming from God; through Jacob came wealth for Abraham's descendants; the two have common elements, God, intrigue and wealth.

I am surprised you did not ask about the Beast; which is Rome a composite including Babylon, Persia and Greece that has left foot prints in the form of triangles; there is the masonic triangle and a flatter triangle that stands on pillars symbolizing a Pagan temple; these symbols can be found around Buckingham Palace, around the White House and around the Vatican; they can be found on court houses and public buildings around the world.

I was speaking more on the 'type' and 'anti-type'.

I did not ask because I am well informed of the intrigue of the enemy. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes it did, you said that Cain had no concept that murder was wrong and I showed where the LORD explained to him that his anger at his brother would produce sin if he didn't stem it. If the LORD says to Cain 'sin' then there must have been a given law to not murder.

AFA Abraham, do you understand the concept of pikuach nefesh?
Cain had no concept of murder in the sense that it had never been done before. He'd certainly seen the death of animals and knew what death was.

My feeling is that "the knowledge of good and evil" included a conscience which helped to guide people in what was right and wrong... and further that Adam was probably created with a lot of that knowledge.

No, I've never heard the term pikuach nefesh. Nefesh is 'life' but I'm not sure what pikuach is.
 
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟482,162.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I was speaking more on the 'type' and 'anti-type'.

I did not ask because I am well informed of the intrigue of the enemy. ;)



Now that I have looked into it I can understand your confusion, and mine. On the search engine I found, “One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type , such as a figure in the NT who has a counterpart in the OT.” In this example figure refers to a person or at least a physical entity, but the definition allows for historical and prophetical events; at leas that is the way I use typology; “The usage of the terminology has expanded into the secular sphere; for example, "Geoffrey de Montbray (d.1093), Bishop of Coutances, a right-hand man of William the Conqueror, was a type of the great feudal prelate, warrior and administrator".

I formed my understanding and usage after hearing Evangelists use it, in the past.

Christ is typically used as a place on timeline that separates type and anti-type but that does not have to be the case, only time is usually required to separate them.

Why the use of “anti” why not another prefix; anti suggests something is inverted; sometimes time itself maybe inverted, or the time line is a circle, and for the second half of the circle, the algorithm is measured in the opposite direction. We could cut the circle and twist it around into a sine wave such that even when upside down we are still travelling toward the climax; to make it right we need seven circles converted to a sine wave representing 7000 years, a day for a year, an anti-type of the seven days of creation. Adam, then 2000 years, Moses, another 2000 years the first Christ, 2000 years later the last Christ. Judah thought that way because in on of the Talmuds it is said, “Two thousand years with out the Law, 2000 years under the Law, and 2000 years under the Messiah”; I am not suggesting that, that was a true statement; but it is true that it is a statement.



I presume you already know this and you are testing me.
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
No, no testing, just trying to understand.:) I have heard of using type such as Joseph was a type of Messiah and there is much on that story. But I had not heard of anti-type.

'Anti' is usually understood to mean opposite or against whereas it really means 'instead of'.

"I have heard from reliable scholars that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, his deception was he withheld that she was his wife and this was profitable for him, and this is a type, of which Jacob's stealing the promise and the inheritance from his brother, is an anti-type."

So with Abraham not revealing that Sara was also his wife was a type, but of what?

And Jacob obeying his mother who spoke with God about what was going on in her womb and instructed him to make the stew and she bound the goat skins upon him is an 'anti-type' of what?
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Cain had no concept of murder in the sense that it had never been done before. He'd certainly seen the death of animals and knew what death was.

My feeling is that "the knowledge of good and evil" included a conscience which helped to guide people in what was right and wrong... and further that Adam was probably created with a lot of that knowledge.

The point is that after the offerings were brought (and where did they learn they should do that?) that the LORD accepted Abels, but not Cains. Why? We see that Able brought the proper offering to the creator. Cain did not. How? The fruit of the ground or trees used as an offering to the LORD should be the first fruits, the very best as the Creator is deserving of the very best. Cain did not do that, he just picked something out of his garden and brought that.

While Abel brought the 'firstlings' of his flock AND the fat. The best of the best. There are various verses that proclaim that the fat belongs to the Lord, especially in Leviticus, but how did Abel know that?

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering
The point is that Cain had no respect for the LORD, and this was made plain by his offering. The text says he became 'wroth' but in the Hebrew it is seen that he was extremely angry, furious even.
The LORD told him that because of this sin was crouching at the door. The anger was towards his brother and if he kept stewing in it would lead to sin. And it did.

No, I've never heard the term pikuach nefesh. Nefesh is 'life' but I'm not sure what pikuach is.

It pertains to Life (nefesh meaning 'soul') Pikuach nefesh is the concept that saving a human life is more important than any mitzvot. It is belief in the sanctity of life.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Based solidly on" is in the eye of the beholder.

There was no change at the "customer level," for nothing of the sort was offered to the faithful until within the last 50-75 years.

If the improvement were based solidly on previous teachings, why was "salvation through faith, not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9) not promulgated to the faithful much sooner?
This is not a bad commentary and question. "Based solidly" refers to the actual teachings of the church, regardless of the beholder. At the customer level those teachings may or may not be promulgated as well as they should be, or practiced by the “promulgators” themselves so well either. Different eras have varied in that respect. Added to that is the fact that Catholicism became such a cultural phenomenon that one became Catholic by birthright alone, together with their baptism at infancy. While most were also catechized, that didn’t mean that being Catholic would necessarily mean little more than wearing the name and mechanically practicing the basics of the faith at most. Not the kind of stuff that Christian martyrs are made of, to say the least. This kind of merely practical and all-too-human legalistic approach is a trap that Protestantism hasn’t been immune to either.

So, I’ve studied Reformed theology a bit to try to understand their concepts of regeneration, justification and sanctification. It appears that regeneration is the beginning, consisting of rebirth- a new life of/in God. It’s Gods elective decree and work of grace that precedes justification and sanctification in order, and changes our disposition such that we’ll turn towards Him. Justification is strictly a forensic declaration of righteousness in response to faith while sanctification is a process of transformation whereby God makes us actually holy, conforming us to His image. Justification and sanctification are insistently kept separate-one is saved strictly by being declared or imputed to be just, not by being made actually just/righteous/sanctified. Righteousness is not at all a requirement or obligation for man in order to be justified and saved even though it will and must most definitely be accomplished in the elect as they’re sanctified. Related to this it’s interesting to me that William Perkins, a prolific 16th century Calvinist writer, had this to say:

“Though justification be before in nature, yet they are wrought at the same time. For when God accepts a man’s person, then he is made just, who is also sanctified.”

This is interesting because it means that, regardless of whether or not actual holiness is required of man in order to be just in the eyes of God, Calvinism nonetheless acknowledges that the elect can and will be made holy- that seed is planted and the process begun-at the same moment as justification. Calvinism also maintains that said holiness, while ensured, is nonetheless necessary in order for us to see God (Heb 12:6), to gain eternal life (Rom 6:21, 8:12-13)

Calvin insisted on the necessity of grace from beginning to end, and was much influenced and supported by Augustine who argued for the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved in his arguments against Pelagianism, during that controversy.

And, interestingly enough, the Catholic church’s doctrine of the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved is essentially the same, dating back centuries ago, and supported in official Church teachings largely with those same arguments against Pelagianism. The main difference involves the will of man, where, in Catholic teaching, grace is resistible; man cannot possibly say “yes” to God without grace, but he can still say “no” at any point. He can refuse to open the door when God knocks, or he can close the door, turning back away from Him at any point later, after being justified. And in order to be just in the eyes of God He must…make us actually just. Then our justice, our righteousness: our faith, hope, and, most importantly, our love will grow and become stronger and surer as we remain in Him and He in us. In Catholicism it begins with faith in response to grace. God draws and prompts and appeals to and moves us, but won’t overwhelm or totally change our wills or dispositions towards Him, because He wants our wills involved, however weakly at first. He wants us to own the justice/righteousness/holiness/sanctity/love because unless we do we won’t ever have any, in truth. That justice, that love, while a gift is also necessarily a choice. And this growth necessarily involves struggle-against sin. And then He judges us- at the end of the day, on what we’ve done with whatever we’ve been given. Absolute assurance of eternal security or OSAS was unanimously denied by the ancient churches east and west along with the ECFs.

Then, for us simple folk, with even simpler folk yet in ages past in regard to education and literacy, there are the sacraments, or “mysteries” as the east calls them, the act and operation of grace within a believer’s life through which he can understand and live out the basics of the faith. Christian theology is “built into” them. Baptism, known as “the sacrament of faith”, is that point where God forgives, washes, cleanses, and makes us new creations as we turn to Him in faith and witness to it with that first formal, public profession. Also in this case the early churches and ECFs unanimously possessed no other understanding while, as with OSAS, Sola Scriptura adherents argue between themselves over these matters.

Baptism unites us with God, the reason Jesus came, while the Eucharist acknowledges our continuous need for remaining in that union as we partake of Him while examining our worthiness prior to doing so (1 Cor 11:28). While acknowledging that we’re never worthy in the absolute sense by declaring, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”, we also know that there are sins that are so grave and opposed to love of God and neighbor that we can alienate ourselves from Him all over again by persistence in them, as Scripture attests. And that leads us to a third sacrament.

Confession/Reconciliation provides that means by which a believer, with a sincere change of heart and Godly sorrow and repentance, can return to the fold if he’s strayed, if he’s compromised and lost his state of just by living unjustly, now desiring and embracing and realizing God’s forgiveness and mercy, not merely taking for granted that it’s automatically applied but knowing that we must turn back, responding to His ever-present grace, and be reconciled and healed anew.

Again, any of this can be abused and done mechanically, legalistically, insincerely, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be done authentically as well, as can happen with any approach to our faith. It’s those who take the ball, the grace, and run with it who please God, as do the teachers who truly know the faith, and teach it well.
Actually that is salvation.

Justification because of faith is simply a declaration by the Judge of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal of guilt, and an imputed righteousness (Romans 4:1-11), just as it was with Abraham.
Alright, so acquittal does not involve the forgiveness and remission of sin. Not sure how that would work but, ok....??
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Bible acknowledges there were many other things Jesus did, not many other teachings, that were not recorded.

Likewise, most of our NT doctrine is not from the gospels, but from the epistles, where there is no such claim regarding doctrine not being recorded.
Well... what Jesus did could easily include His teaching and preaching. And in his 2nd epistle to the Thessalonians Paul had this to say:
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings [traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Again the bible was never intended to serve as an exhaustive catechism to begin with-the church received and spread the gospel before any of it was written down.

And much of what we know of the new covenant comes from the gospels-we need the whole input and Jesus offers much in Matt 5 with the sermon on the mount, for example, along with His diatribe against the Pharisees in chap 23 as well as John’s contributions in his gospel, such as in chapter 14-15, etc.
And does not purgatory, nowhere presented in the NT, negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:7)?
Even there we must become repentant first-and then He purifies us. And as Scripture tells us that no sinners enter heaven, and as Jesus tells us we must not even have sin in our hearts, purgatory has as its purpose that very repentance and purification -if it wasn’t fully accomplished in this life.
Just as adding works to salvation negates salvation being by the Lord--him and him alone, so that there could not be even the possibility of anyone boasting (Romans 3:27, Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Ephesians 2:9)?
No reason for anyone to boast for simply doing what’s right and expected of them. God can’t make us righteous? If we ever boasted about the sanctity that comes from God…that would mean that we didn’t really have any. So our obedience, our doing God’s will, only affirms and supports the work of Christ, just as Paul’s sufferings made up for Christ’s sufferings (Col 1:24)-because the whole point is to make us little Christs! We can only succeed at it because of His success, His victory over sin and death.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The main difference involves the will of man, where, in Catholic teaching, grace is resistible; man cannot possibly say “yes” to God without grace, but he can still say “no” at any point. He can refuse to open the door when God knocks, or he can close the door, turning back away from Him at any point later, after being justified... God draws and prompts and appeals to and moves us, but won’t overwhelm or totally change our wills or dispositions towards Him, because He wants our wills involved, however weakly at first. He wants us to own the justice/righteousness/holiness/sanctity/love because unless we do we won’t ever have any, in truth.

Okay, but is it still not the same as a human parent/carer's relationship with their child? They want their child to love them freely because otherwise it's not love, so they don't want to change their child into some kind of robot with love diodes all down their left sides, but they're equally not going to give up on them just because the child is rebelling or being difficult in some way. I think one of the insidious effect of ECT is that we think God has to have a cut-off point and randomly change from being a seventy-times-seven forgiving father to a torturing monster at the moment of our death on earth. This makes about as much sense to me as having a genuinely loving human father/mother/carer changing from being loving towards their child to wanting to torture or kill them if they're not quite up to scratch as soon as they reach their 18th birthday.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Because any such teaching must be in agreement with what was written, for God does not contradict himself.

So we are all left with Sola Scriptura for our authority and judge of what is God's truth, as in "salvation is through faith, not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
No, and that's the point. Because the church received the gospel at the beginning, and had preserved it intact thereafter, the problems, the disagreements, associated with sola sciptura on the basics of the faith are precluded. So while sola scriptura adherents disagree plausibly enough over baptismal regeneration, the nature and importance of the Eucharist, and eternal security as examples, none of that was ever even controversial among the ancient churches and ECFS-they were unanimous in their unified and single-minded view on these and many other matters.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Okay, but is it still not the same as a human parent/carer's relationship with their child? They want their child to love them freely because otherwise it's not love, so they don't want to change their child into some kind of robot with love diodes all down their left sides, but they're equally not going to give up on them just because the child is rebelling or being difficult in some way. I think one of the insidious effect of ECT is that we think God has to have a cut-off point and randomly change from being a seventy-times-seven forgiving father to a torturing monster at the moment of our death on earth. This makes about as much sense to me as having a genuinely loving human father/mother/carer changing from being loving towards their child to wanting to torture or kill them if they're not quite up to scratch as soon as they reach their 18th birthday.
I think-I know- God wants the every best for us-and because that means no robotics, He won't force us to do His will, perfect for us as it is. While He'll patiently guide and prompt and draw us towards the telos and purpose and perfection He made us for, which also happens to be our state of true, uncompromised happiness, He may well give up if we persistently and obstinately refuse-just as a good parent might one day have to do the same with their children.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟482,162.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
No, no testing, just trying to understand.:) I have heard of using type such as Joseph was a type of Messiah and there is much on that story. But I had not heard of anti-type.

'Anti' is usually understood to mean opposite or against whereas it really means 'instead of'.

"I have heard from reliable scholars that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, his deception was he withheld that she was his wife and this was profitable for him, and this is a type, of which Jacob's stealing the promise and the inheritance from his brother, is an anti-type."

So with Abraham not revealing that Sara was also his wife was a type, but of what?

And Jacob obeying his mother who spoke with God about what was going on in her womb instructed him to make the stew and she bound the goat skins upon him is an 'anti-type' of what?

You still have not grasped it. Abraham not revealing Sara was his wife was a type of mischief; Jacob's dealing with his brother and father concerning the inheritance that should have gone to his brother was a type of mischief; for the purpose of communicating a perceived comparison between the two mischiefs you could call them type and antitype.

below is an answer from Got Questions:

In the Bible, an antitype is a fulfillment or completion of an earlier truth revealed in the Bible. An antitype in the New Testament is foreshadowed by a type, its counterpart in the Old Testament.

"Our terms type and antitype in this situation largely stem from the word tupos in the Greek New Testament. Tupos originally referred to the mark of a blow, like a stamp, and by extension was used to refer to a copy or image, a pattern, or, in many cases, a type. One might say that types have the stamp of the antitype.

One example of type and antitype in the Bible is seen in the theme of the two Adams. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Here, Christ is the antitype, and Adam is the type. Just as death from sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and thus cursed all of humanity, life entered the world through one man, Jesus, and became available to all who would believe. The first Adam is the type fulfilled by the second Adam, Jesus.

Another example of type and antitype is the bronze serpent in the wilderness and the cross. When the Israelites spoke against God in the desert, He sent venomous snakes among them, and many were bitten and died. But upon the prayers of Moses, the Lord provided salvation. “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Numbers 21:8–9). This parallels and foreshadows the cross. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14–15).

Sometimes in the Bible, types are referred to as “shadows” of antitypes (Hebrews 10:1). In this way, one might think of the types in the Old Testament as shadows cast by their antitypes in the New Testament—sometimes distorted in scope and shape, but an indication of something to come.

One can find dozens of types and antitypes in the Scriptures. Often, New Testament writers point out these correlations with language we typically translate into English as “just as” paired with “so.” For example, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish was a type of Jesus’ time in the tomb. Jesus is again the antitype of something in the Old Testament.

Types and antitypes can be people, events, ceremonies, objects, positions (e.g., the priestly office), or even places. The sacrificial lamb foreshadowed Jesus’ sacrifice, bondage in Egypt mirrored bondage to sin, and the flood of Noah is used by Peter as a metaphor for the waters of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21). Not all things in the Old Testament can be construed as a type, but the Bible does reveal that many elements in the Old Testament were meant as a prophetic foreshadowing of the antitypes to come."
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is not a bad commentary and question. "Based solidly" refers to the actual teachings of the church, regardless of the beholder. At the customer level those teachings may or may not be promulgated as well as they should be, or practiced by the “promulgators” themselves so well either. Different eras have varied in that respect. Added to that is the fact that Catholicism became such a cultural phenomenon that one became Catholic by birthright alone, together with their baptism at infancy. While most were also catechized, that didn’t mean that being Catholic would necessarily mean little more than wearing the name and mechanically practicing the basics of the faith at most. Not the kind of stuff that Christian martyrs are made of, to say the least. This kind of merely practical and all-too-human legalistic approach is a trap that Protestantism hasn’t been immune to either.
So, I’ve studied Reformed theology a bit to try to understand their concepts of regeneration, justification and sanctification. It appears that regeneration is the beginning, consisting of rebirth- a new life of/in God. It’s Gods elective decree and work of grace that precedes justification and sanctification in order, and
changes our disposition such that we’ll turn towards Him. Justification is strictly a forensic declaration of righteousness in response to faith while sanctification is a process of transformation whereby God makes us actually holy, conforming us to His image.
Well done. . .better than a lot of Protestants.
Justification and sanctification are insistently kept separate-
Because justification is by faith apart from faith's works (Romans 3:28), while
sanctification is by faith's works of obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16-19).
So justification apart from faith's works must always be kept separate from sanctification by faith's works.
one is saved strictly by being declared or imputed to be just, not by being made actually just/righteous/sanctified.
Not quite. . .one is saved strictly by faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty."
Justification then follows salvation (in the order of their nature).
Righteousness is not at all a requirement or obligation for man in order to be justified and saved
God justifies the wicked/ungodly (Romans 4:5) who come to faith.
even though it will and must most definitely be accomplished in the elect as they’re sanctified. Related to this it’s interesting to me that William Perkins, a prolific 16th century Calvinist writer, had this to say:
“Though justification be before in nature, yet they are wrought at the same time. For when God accepts a man’s person, then he is made just, who is also sanctified.”
This is interesting because it means that, regardless of whether or not actual holiness is required of man in order to be just in the eyes of God,
No one is righteous when they come to faith, all are condemned by the sin/guilt of Adam imputed to them (Romans 5:12-15, Romans 5:18) by birth, their (fallen) nature making them objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), enemies of God (Romans 5:10).
Calvinism nonetheless acknowledges that the elect can and will be made holy- that seed is planted and the process begun-at the same moment as justification. Calvinism also maintains that said holiness, while ensured, is nonetheless necessary in order for us to see God (Heb 12:6), to gain eternal life (Rom 6:21, 8:12-13)
And all in agreement with Scripture where we see:
this process of holiness mentioned in Romans 6:16-19 and
the mandate to holiness in Hebrews 12:14.
Calvin insisted on the necessity of grace from beginning to end, and was much influenced and supported by Augustine who argued for the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved in his arguments against Pelagianism, during that controversy.
And, interestingly enough, the Catholic church’s doctrine of the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved is essentially the same, dating back centuries ago, and supported in official Church teachings largely with those same arguments against Pelagianism.
The main difference involves the will of man, where, in Catholic teaching, grace is resistible; man cannot possibly say “yes” to God without grace, but he can still say “no” at any point. He can refuse to open the door when God knocks, or he can close the door, turning back away from Him at any point later, after being justified.
The "free will of man" is a human notion, it's not a reference point in the NT.
"Free will" as seen in Scripture is not the power to make all moral choices, because one cannot choose to always be sinless.
Biblically, "free will" is simply the power to freely and voluntarily choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.

What is missing in the Catholic Church's view here is how God operates in the disposition of man to accomplish his purposes; i.e.,
man's will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by his disposition (what he prefers, likes).
God works in the disposition of man, giving him to prefer God's will (Philippians 2:13), and so that is what he freely, willingly and voluntarily chooses, all in agreement with "free will."

And God's work in man is always effective, his arm is not too short, it does not fail in its goal.
All that the Father gives to Jesus will come to him (John 6:37), and
he shall lose none of all that the Father has given him (John 6:39).
And the Holy Spirit will give them to be willing and able to obey (Philippians 2:13).

So God does not violate man's "free will," God uses man's free will and choice (Philippians 2:13) to accomplish his purpose in their sovereign regeneration (John 3:3-8).
That being the case, the regenerate never apostasize, never lose eternal life, are never condemned
(2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:14).
And in order to be just in the eyes of God He must…make us actually just. Then our justice, our righteousness: our faith, hope, and, most importantly, our love will grow and become stronger and surer as we remain in Him and He in us. In Catholicism it begins with faith in response to grace. God draws and prompts and appeals to and moves us, but won’t overwhelm or totally change our wills or dispositions towards Him, because He wants our wills involved, however weakly at first. He wants us to own the justice/righteousness/holiness/sanctity/love because unless we do we won’t ever have any, in truth. That justice, that love, while a gift is also necessarily a choice. And this
growth necessarily involves struggle-against sin.
Agreed (Romans 6:16-19).
And then He judges us- at the end of the day, on what we’ve done with whatever we’ve been given. Absolute assurance of eternal security or OSAS was unanimously denied by the ancient churches east and west along with the ECFs.

Then, for us simple folk, with even simpler folk yet in ages past in regard to education and literacy, there are the sacraments, or “mysteries” as the east calls them, the act and operation of grace within a believer’s life through which he can understand and live out the basics of the faith. Christian theology is “built into” them. Baptism, known as “the sacrament of faith”, is that point where God forgives, washes, cleanses, and makes us new creations as we turn to Him in faith and witness to it with that first formal, public profession. Also in this case the early churches and ECFs unanimously possessed no other understanding while, as with OSAS, Sola Scriptura adherents argue between themselves over these matters.

Baptism unites us with God, the reason Jesus came, while the Eucharist acknowledges our continuous need for remaining in that union as we partake of Him while examining our worthiness prior to doing so (1 Cor 11:28). While acknowledging that we’re never worthy in the absolute sense by declaring, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”, we also know that there are sins that are so grave and opposed to love of God and neighbor that we can alienate ourselves from Him all over again by persistence in them, as Scripture attests. And that leads us to a third sacrament.

Confession/Reconciliation provides that means by which a believer, with a sincere change of heart and Godly sorrow and repentance, can return to the fold if he’s strayed, if he’s compromised and lost his state of just by living unjustly, now desiring and embracing and realizing God’s forgiveness and mercy, not merely taking for granted that it’s automatically applied but knowing that we must turn back, responding to His ever-present grace, and be reconciled and healed anew.

Again, any of this can be abused and done mechanically, legalistically, insincerely, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be done authentically as well, as can happen with any approach to our faith. It’s those who take the ball, the grace, and run with it who please God, as do the teachers who truly know the faith, and teach it well.
Alright, so acquittal does not involve the forgiveness and remission of sin. Not sure how that would work but, ok....??
Not quite. . ."forgiveness" being an accounting term meaning to "cancel a debt."

By order of their nature, it's
new birth --> faith --> salvation (remission of sin, forgiveness) --> justification --> sanctification

Forgiveness, remission are the result of salvation, which is
the remission of sin by faith in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for that remission, prior to justification (in the order of their nature).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
because the whole point is to make us little Christs! We can only succeed at it because of His success, His victory over sin and death.

Nicely stated.

He may well give up if we persistently and obstinately refuse-just as a good parent might one day have to do the same with their children.

Okay, but is it still not the same as a human parent/carer's relationship with their child? They want their child to love them freely because otherwise it's not love, so they don't want to change their child into some kind of robot with love diodes all down their left sides, but they're equally not going to give up on them just because the child is rebelling or being difficult in some way. I think one of the insidious effect of ECT is that we think God has to have a cut-off point and randomly change from being a seventy-times-seven forgiving father to a torturing monster at the moment of our death on earth. This makes about as much sense to me as having a genuinely loving human father/mother/carer changing from being loving towards their child to wanting to torture or kill them if they're not quite up to scratch as soon as they reach their 18th birthday.

Why this in Torah?

NKJ Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 "then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 "And they shall say to the elders of his city,`This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.​
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
while sanctification is a process of transformation whereby God makes us actually holy, conforming us to His image. Justification and sanctification are insistently kept separate-one is saved strictly by being declared or imputed to be just, not by being made actually just/righteous/sanctified

Because justification is by faith apart from faith's works (Romans 3:28), while
sanctification is by faith's works of obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16-19).
So justification apart from faith's works must always be kept separate from sanctification by faith's works.

By order of their nature, it's
new birth --> faith --> salvation (remission of sin, forgiveness) --> justification --> sanctification

RE: Sanctification - What do you do with this verse?:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.​

Besides the question about this past sanctification stated with past justification, there is also the point that "you were washed" is translating the middle voice in Greek, which means the one washed was involved with the washing. At least one Greek reference says this should be translated, "you allowed yourselves to be washed" which would bring in the volition of the one washed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: fhansen
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
RE: Sanctification - What do you do with this verse?:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you.​
But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Besides the question about this past sanctification stated with past justification, there is also the point that "you were washed" is translating the middle voice in Greek, which means the one washed was involved with the washing. At least one Greek reference says this should be translated, "you allowed yourselves to be washed" which would bring in the volition of the one washed.
Well, was he not "involved" simply by being washed, whether he "allowed himself to be washed" or not?

And sanctification and justification are not in order there, just as the agents, Christ and the Holy Spirit, are not in the order of their stated agencies there, probably because rebirth and sanctification are the work of the Holy Spirit, while justification (sentence of acquittal of guilt) is due to the merit of Christ.

Also washing refers to several things in the NT: new birth (Titus 3:5), baptism (Hebrews 10:22), salvation (1 Peter 3:21), through the word (Ephesians 5:26).
Here it would be new birth.

Sanctify = "set apart, from sin to God" at rebirth.

Justified = sentence of acquittal of guilt at salvation (remission of sin).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, was he not "involved" simply by being washed, whether he "allowed himself to be washed" or not?

Sure, but that's not the point of the middle voice in Greek. If it were passive, then it would just be saying somebody washed him. The middle brings in the concept of this being volitional or playing an active role, thus the suggested translation.

And sanctification and justification are not in order there, just as the agents, Christ and the Holy Spirit, are not in the order of their stated agencies there, probably because rebirth and sanctification are the work of the Holy Spirit, while justification (sentence of acquittal of guilt) is due to the merit of Christ.

A couple things:
  • Jesus is not an agent there. The Holy Spirit is the agent.
  • You may be forcing the order of sanctification and justification in using a theological construct used by many such as: Justification > Sanctification > Glorification. But Sanctification is not restricted to that construct:
Sanctification:
  • God/Jesus Christ sanctifies:
    • NKJ Hebrews 2:9-11 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren
  • Sanctification was accomplished on the cross by Jesus Christ:
    • NKJ Heb. 10:5-10 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said,`Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.'" 8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all
  • NKJ Heb. 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
  • NKJ Heb. 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
  • Christians have been sanctified:
    • NKJ 1 Cor. 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been/are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
    • NKJ 1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
    • NKJ 2 Timothy 2:21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, [having been] sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.
    • NKJ Jude 1:1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, (who have been/are) sanctified by God the Father, and (who have been/are preserved in Jesus Christ:
    • NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all
    • NKJ Heb. 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
  • Christians are being sanctified completely in preparation for Christ’s return:
    • NKJ 1 Thess. 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
  • Other points regarding Sanctification:
  • NKJ Jn. 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth…17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
    • This is pre-cross and pertains to believers the Father had given to Jesus.
    • Is Jesus asking for:
      • Their initial sanctification that will be accomplished on the cross?
      • Their initial & complete sanctification?
  • NKJ Acts 20:32 "So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who have been/are sanctified.
    • Since this speaks of the building up of & future inheritance given to Christians, is this:
      • Their initial sanctification?
      • Their initial & complete sanctification?
  • NKJ Acts 26:18 `to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been/are sanctified by faith in Me.'
    • Since this speaks of forgiveness of sins & inheritance, is this:
      • Their initial sanctification?
      • Their initial & complete sanctification?
  • NKJ Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify (hagiazo - verb) and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy (hagios - noun) and without blemish
    • Since this speaks of the future sanctified/holy condition of the Church, is this:
      • Its initial sanctification?
      • Its initial & complete sanctification?
Sanctification is spoken of in the past tense and the present tense with a view to a future tense of being completely sanctified. This is similar to the way salvation is spoken of in past, present & future tenses.

I know you've done a lot of work on justification, and I agree with you that it does (mainly) have to do with an acquittal when we first come to Biblical Faith in Jesus Christ.

I'll look more at justification, and it may even make logical sense that the declaration of righteousness/acquittal is issued by the Judge and then the "set apart" to Him is done, but the typical construct of Sanctification being relegated only to the experiential phase of the Salvation Process is not correct. I don't know if this is how you are addressing Sanctification or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Clare73

I went back and looked at the Greek of this one and have changed it:

Christians are sanctifying themselves:
  • NKJ 2 Tim. 2:21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.

The NKJ makes this look like a noun "a sanctified one" or a verb attached to the cleansing, but it's a perfect passive verb, so I added it to the "Christians have been sanctified" section. It's interesting though how having been sanctified + having cleansed ourselves (under grace) - we become useful.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
@Clare73
I went back and looked at the Greek of this one and have changed it:
The NKJ makes this look like a noun "a sanctified one" or a verb attached to the cleansing, but it's a perfect passive verb, so I added it to the "Christians have been sanctified" section.
It's interesting though how having been sanctified + having cleansed ourselves (under grace) - we become useful.
Sanctified - set apart, from sin and to God
"Cleansed ourselves" - holy

"Without holiness, no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14)
 
Upvote 0