a thought

[Hazelelponi]

Christ, Christ, Christ is what I want others to see.

Me too!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Hey @twin1954 - as my husband disallowed debate with you (which is our definite impression of your intention through your posting) I'm just making a short post here..

You said you don't believe in progressive sanctification but there are three tenses to the word saved in scripture.

We are saved (past tense) we are being saved (present/current tense) we will be saved (future tense)

These three tenses show us three things that we call 1) Justification (when we initially come to Jesus and are indwelt with the Holy Spirit) 2) sancification (which we see as a process where we grow in knowledge and become more Christ-like throughout our lives) and 3) our glorification upon our death where we meet our Lord in heaven.

Sanctification is a process. We all have things we have to work on. We don't magically become perfect people when we are initially justified.

Our lives show progress throughout our entire lives, so we see it as a process.. where I am now, four years after my initial justification, is leaps and bounds ahead of where I was four years ago, and in 4 more years I'm sure I'll have grown in Christ even more.

This is why we see as a process. No, we aren't doing major sins, being saved is a life changing, life altering experience, but while the seed of God in us can't sin, our flesh still can so we have to learn how to walk in the Spirit - and as time goes on we get better at it and work on more and more of our own sins as we recognise what they are.

Okay, I said short post and went on and on, so I'll finish here and wish you well. God bless.

Here is a link so you can read more of what I was saying.

The 3 Tenses of the Gospel

Link looks interesting. I've never heard the three tenses before. I'll check it out.

Thanks

 

[JM]

I have to say I'm against the whole 'look for evidence' argument. We would spend our lives looking and never finding enough evidence to believe we are Christ's.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I have to say I'm against the whole 'look for evidence' argument. We would spend our lives looking and never finding enough evidence to believe we are Christ's.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

One of the most beautiful things about Calvinism/Reformed theology I know of is the emphasis on God/Christ, it truly is God/Christ centered. In this RT reels us back from the constant looking at ourselves which in our flesh is a constant temptation, and brings us to instead turn our eyes upon Jesus and His finished work on our behalf, to His perfection and Holy life, for undeserving wretches like us. We understand salvation is accomplished purely by the grace and mercy of God and to whatever extent we are sanctified is purely the work of God according to His will including His will to bring about repentance and change and the desires He produces in us. Our confidence is in God/Christ and not in ourselves, and looking at ourselves for evidence will only serve to shake confidence and allow doubts to creep in. Our faith and hope in God/Christ and His work is all the evidence we need to focus on, He'll take care of the rest.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have to say I'm against the whole 'look for evidence' argument. We would spend our lives looking and never finding enough evidence to believe we are Christ's.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by "looking for evidence".

For example, if you look back over your life and see growth and say "God, I'm grateful for that." (I see a change in me. I see a change in my attitude. I see a change in how I deal with things.) That's not the same as looking at our faults. Things that God has done for us, like helping us to grow and overcome things we've struggled with, we should be thinking about.

So yeah, it depends on your definition of "looking for evidence".

 

[The Righterzpen]

Hey @twin1954 - as my husband disallowed debate with you (which is our definite impression of your intention through your posting) I'm just making a short post here..

You said you don't believe in progressive sanctification but there are three tenses to the word saved in scripture.

We are saved (past tense) we are being saved (present/current tense) we will be saved (future tense)

These three tenses show us three things that we call 1) Justification (when we initially come to Jesus and are indwelt with the Holy Spirit) 2) sancification (which we see as a process where we grow in knowledge and become more Christ-like throughout our lives) and 3) our glorification upon our death where we meet our Lord in heaven.

Sanctification is a process. We all have things we have to work on. We don't magically become perfect people when we are initially justified.

Our lives show progress throughout our entire lives, so we see it as a process.. where I am now, four years after my initial justification, is leaps and bounds ahead of where I was four years ago, and in 4 more years I'm sure I'll have grown in Christ even more.

This is why we see as a process. No, we aren't doing major sins, being saved is a life changing, life altering experience, but while the seed of God in us can't sin, our flesh still can so we have to learn how to walk in the Spirit - and as time goes on we get better at it and work on more and more of our own sins as we recognise what they are.

Okay, I said short post and went on and on, so I'll finish here and wish you well. God bless.

Here is a link so you can read more of what I was saying.

The 3 Tenses of the Gospel

Hazelie

Just checked this in a couple of my concordances. I checked the two concordances to see if the grammatical notations were consistent to each other and they are.

Interesting. I think I can see where they got their conclusions from and I think they are theologically sound, although my first thought would not be to note if the word "saved" was "past" or "present" tense. That would not have been a question I would have thought to ask - so - intriguing.

Keeping in mind that grammatical notations like "passive" or "active" could be denoted either way and still be correct. Which way the translator goes with it, depends on where they choose to stress the subject of the action.

Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15; are grammatically consistent to each other. Romans 5:9 as well as Romans 8:29-30 are grammatically different.

Ephesians and Corinthians, as well as Romans 5 the verbs (save & justified) are all in the plural. Which I never knew before and is interesting.

Ephesians and Corinthians are "Present participle middle or passive". Which "passive voice" is often translated as "having already been (fill-in verb)". Which this to English looks like "past tense".

Middle voice doesn't have an English carryover.

Present obviously means "present tense". But just because something is "present tense" does not mean it did not originate in the past (still carrying forward) and so therefore the base grammatical notation is "present tense".

The "will be saved" in Romans 5:9 is definitely future. "Having been justified" Aorist participle passive - makes contextual sense as "past".

The other thing worth noting (which is where I think they get their "past" to "present"; is that most of these words (except Romans 8); are in the plural. This also applies to the word "perishing". Both are same grammatical structure.

Now what could this mean that they are plural? That's what intrigued me. And here's where translator's interoperation plays a role. We have "be saved" and "perishing" are both plural, but "be justified" is singular. So those who "be saved" happen(ed) "twice" and those who "perishing" happen(ed) "twice", but those "justified" only happen(ed) once.

Fascinating!

Justification obviously took place at the cross and was proven by the resurrection. "Be saved" and "perishing" though are a bit of a stumper. It does make sense that "having been saved" at the point of regeneration and "being saved" through the process of sanctification would be applicable in a plural term.

Perishing on the other hand though? Could it be that because the law is the knowledge of sin, that when one who "is perishing" first is aware of their transgression that is their "having at one point to become perishing" runs on the opposite dynamic of "being saved"? That does make sense when we consider the passage that says they store up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath. (Romans 2:5)

Another thought that crossed my mind about the plural term is that maybe the original "saved" is referencing back to the Godhead's salvation plan that They'd agreed upon from before the foundations of the world. (But to keep with consistency of language - including the "perishing"; that would not hold true, because someone doesn't become a transgressor of the law until they actually commit the transgression. Someone who doesn't exist yet can't transgress, so therefore God being just would not condemn anyone prior to transgressing. Which in theological speak this nixes the idea of "double predestination". One is not predestine to judgment because judgement is the wages of sin earned by extent of transgression. And those wages aren't earned until one actually "does the labor".

So, my theological ramblings for the day - does it make any sense? LOL

 

[JM]

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by "looking for evidence"

Yeah, obviously. That's the point people are getting at. They disagree with your definition which includes an emphasis on works to prove or demonstrate you are a Christian.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

Hazelie

Just checked this in a couple of my concordances. I checked the two concordances to see if the grammatical notations were consistent to each other and they are.

Interesting. I think I can see where they got their conclusions from and I think they are theologically sound, although my first thought would not be to note if the word "saved" was "past" or "present" tense. That would not have been a question I would have thought to ask - so - intriguing.

Keeping in mind that grammatical notations like "passive" or "active" could be denoted either way and still be correct. Which way the translator goes with it, depends on where they choose to stress the subject of the action.

Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15; are grammatically consistent to each other. Romans 5:9 as well as Romans 8:29-30 are grammatically different.

Ephesians and Corinthians, as well as Romans 5 the verbs (save & justified) are all in the plural. Which I never knew before and is interesting.

Ephesians and Corinthians are "Present participle middle or passive". Which "passive voice" is often translated as "having already been (fill-in verb)". Which this to English looks like "past tense".

Middle voice doesn't have an English carryover.

Present obviously means "present tense". But just because something is "present tense" does not mean it did not originate in the past (still carrying forward) and so therefore the base grammatical notation is "present tense".

The "will be saved" in Romans 5:9 is definitely future. "Having been justified" Aorist participle passive - makes contextual sense as "past".

The other thing worth noting (which is where I think they get their "past" to "present"; is that most of these words (except Romans 8); are in the plural. This also applies to the word "perishing". Both are same grammatical structure.

Now what could this mean that they are plural? That's what intrigued me. And here's where translator's interoperation plays a role. We have "be saved" and "perishing" are both plural, but "be justified" is singular. So those who "be saved" happen(ed) "twice" and those who "perishing" happen(ed) "twice", but those "justified" only happen(ed) once.

Fascinating!

Justification obviously took place at the cross and was proven by the resurrection. "Be saved" and "perishing" though are a bit of a stumper. It does make sense that "having been saved" at the point of regeneration and "being saved" through the process of sanctification would be applicable in a plural term.

Perishing on the other hand though? Could it be that because the law is the knowledge of sin, that when one who "is perishing" first is aware of their transgression that is their "having at one point to become perishing" runs on the opposite dynamic of "being saved"? That does make sense when we consider the passage that says they store up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath. (Romans 2:5)

Another thought that crossed my mind about the plural term is that maybe the original "saved" is referencing back to the Godhead's salvation plan that They'd agreed upon from before the foundations of the world. (But to keep with consistency of language - including the "perishing"; that would not hold true, because someone doesn't become a transgressor of the law until they actually commit the transgression. Someone who doesn't exist yet can't transgress, so therefore God being just would not condemn anyone prior to transgressing. Which in theological speak this nixes the idea of "double predestination". One is not predestine to judgment because judgement is the wages of sin earned by extent of transgression. And those wages aren't earned until one actually "does the labor".

So, my theological ramblings for the day - does it make any sense? LOL

Have you ever heard of Federal Headship?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Have you ever heard of Federal Headship?

Yes, I have heard of Federal Headship; but this post was not addressed to you.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yeah, obviously. That's the point people are getting at. They disagree with your definition which includes an emphasis on works to prove or demonstrate you are a Christian.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

They "disagree with my definition" yet.... it's not an un-Biblical one.

The entire chapter of James 2 explains this. If you say you have faith but there is no manifestation of obedience to God, than that faith doesn't mean anything.

If I tell my son. "Oh I love you." but don't ensure the kid is fed, clothed and that his medical needs are cared for. (He has epilepsy.) Than by all means, he has the right to question the validity of my "love".

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intensions." The same principle applied to Jesus. None of what he claimed of the Father would have mattered if he didn't die and none of what he proclaimed about the power of God and His own being the King would have mattered if He hadn't risen from the dead.

Jesus learned obedience through the things that he suffered. We are all called to be obedient.

 

[JM]

They "disagree with my definition" yet.... it's not an un-Biblical one.

The entire chapter of James 2 explains this. If you say you have faith but there is no manifestation of obedience to God, than that faith doesn't mean anything.

If I tell my son. "Oh I love you." but don't ensure the kid is fed, clothed and that his medical needs are cared for. (He has epilepsy.) Than by all means, he has the right to question the validity of my "love".

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intensions." The same principle applied to Jesus. None of what he claimed of the Father would have mattered if he didn't die and none of what he proclaimed about the power of God and His own being the King would have mattered if He hadn't risen from the dead.

Jesus learned obedience through the things that he suffered. We are all called to be obedient.

The emphasis is different.

You are essentially telling people to look to their works, to their flesh, to satisfy the need to know if they are saved when the New Covenant clearly states, "for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them..." Salvation is knowing a person not a set or works.

I agree with much of what you posted, works will follow faith, but the Reformed emphasis on looking to those works for assurance is misplaced.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Righterzpen]

The emphasis is different.

You are essentially telling people to look to their works, to their flesh, to satisfy the need to know if they are saved when the New Covenant clearly states, "for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them..." Salvation is knowing a person not a set or works.

I agree with much of what you posted, works will follow faith, but the Reformed emphasis on looking to those works for assurance is misplaced.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Well, how do you obtain assurance than with no evidence? Do you just wish for it enough and tell yourself you are redeemed even if living a life of sin?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Know by this verse that it is a substance and has an evidence. If you are not examining yourself as to whether you are in the faith, than how would you ever know?

So you quote "they shall know me...." How do they "know Him". Is it a warm fuzzy feeling inside? Is it a lighting bolt out of the sky? Is it how many times your dog barks between 7 and 8 PM?

What does the Scripture say? The Scriptures talk about showing forth the fruit of the Spirit. They talk about showing forth your faith by your works. Which..... isn't anything different than what I've said!

 

[JM]

Well, how do you obtain assurance than with no evidence? Do you just wish for it enough and tell yourself you are redeemed even if living a life of sin?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Know by this verse that it is a substance and has an evidence. If you are not examining yourself as to whether you are in the faith, than how would you ever know?

So you quote "they shall know me...." How do they "know Him". Is it a warm fuzzy feeling inside? Is it a lighting bolt out of the sky? Is it how many times your dog barks between 7 and 8 PM?

What does the Scripture say? The Scriptures talk about showing forth the fruit of the Spirit. They talk about showing forth your faith by your works. Which..... isn't anything different than what I've said!

Faith is the substance. Thanks.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Faith is the substance. Thanks.

And James 2 tells you how that substance is made manifest. Thanks!

 

[twin1954]

Yes, I have heard of Federal Headship; but this post was not addressed to you.

It’s a public forum. If you want a private conversation use PM.

I responded because of a couple of statements you made. I was wondering if you knew about Federal Headship because they seemed to be contrary to it.

 

[JM]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

Yes, faith is the substance.

Look not to your works, have them, but do not find comfort in them. The sum and substance of our faith, from justification to assurance is Jesus. We have assurance of salvation because of who Jesus is, not the works we produce or fail to produce, but based in the Federal Headship of Christ. It's the very nature of the new covenant.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Righterzpen]

It’s a public forum. If you want a private conversation use PM.

I responded because of a couple of statements you made. I was wondering if you knew about Federal Headship because they seemed to be contrary to it.

And in a public forum I have the choice to not respond to you.

 

[JM]

And in a public forum I have the choice to not respond to you.

Let's calm down a little. You are not making a good impression.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes, faith is the substance.

Look not to your works, have them, but do not find comfort in them. The sum and substance of our faith, from justification to assurance is Jesus. We have assurance of salvation because of who Jesus is, not the works we produce or fail to produce, but based in the Federal Headship of Christ. It's the very nature of the new covenant.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Yet we take comfort in seeing that we have stronger trust in God today than we had 5 years ago. That is a positive aspect of growth. That is not something that creates pride. It creates assurance in the individual; in recognizing that God is working. There is a difference there. It is not to say that "I'm better than Joe for my performance of task X,Y, or Z".

I totally agree with you that we have assurance because of who Jesus is; the promises He made working themselves out in us based on fruit we come to recognize as God working out in our lives. This is why James says. "You say you have faith, show me your works." Works don't prove "holiness" they prove obedience. What does a child of God want more in life to express their gratitude to God than to be obedient? This is why Paul talks about his own recognition "I ran the race. I fought the good fight. Well done, good and faithful servant."

Other factor I realize now that we may be facing too is differing understanding / definitions of theological jargon. What certain things mean to certain people (or what it may have meant 200 years ago) does not necessarily translate into someone's current intension / attempted explanation.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Let's calm down a little. You are not making a good impression.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM - I refuse to argue with someone who's only looking to find fault with whatever I say.