Freed from sin

[Xeno.of.athens]

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For he who has died is freed from sin.

Freed is (in Greek) δεδικαίωται and that word means be righteous.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Here "justified" is in Greek ἐδικαιώθητε and it means made just.

These verses are not about an imputed righteousness, at least not primarily and exclusively.

 

[FireDragon76]

If being justified means merely to be made a moral person, why use the term sanctification? Clearly, justification has a distinct meaning from sanctification in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Protestant scholars have generally understood the use of δεδικαίωται to be a law-court image, manumission from sin, to be judged no longer owned by sin.

 

[bling]

Do you still sin?
Is sin the problem or is unforgiven sin the problem?
How do we keep from sinning?
Can our indwelling Holy Spirit be involved in our sinning or do we have to quench the Spirit in order to sin?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If being justified means merely to be made a moral person, why use the term sanctification? Clearly, justification has a distinct meaning from sanctification in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

But it doesn't mean "be made a moral person" which seems too passive for it. It means to be made just, or to be made righteous. And one uses sanctification as a synonym. There is, if one tries very hard, a distinction between justification and sanctification but it is distinction of perspective rather than sharp distinction of meaning. The former is to be made righteous by God's grace, the latter is to see that work of change as a work in which the human subject participates. It is one act of grace from God and it is part of the grace that the human being participates in it. Like a human father teaches his son to mow the lawn; he starts at age 4 and puts the boy's hands on the mower as he (the father) does the mowing, and in the years that follow the lessons move steadily towards the son finally performing the work himself, but always as the son taught by his father how to do it right.

 

[honey badger]

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For he who has died is freed from sin.

Freed is (in Greek) δεδικαίωται and that word means be righteous.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Here "justified" is in Greek ἐδικαιώθητε and it means made just.

These verses are not about an imputed righteousness, at least not primarily and exclusively.

they are from where i am seeing from ....

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

they are from where i am seeing from ....

What can one say but, your perspective is not mine, nor that of the writers of the passages quoted.

 

[honey badger]

What can one say but, your perspective is not mine, nor that of the writers of the passages quoted.

not until the darkness becomes light to you will you see it ...

 

[Fireinfolding]

Do you still sin?

That question there bling,

If someone actually said, no they do not, would you actually believe them?

And we might think, this person is lying to either himself or to us or against the truth itself (or all three)

But on the otherhand, if they said, yes they do, are we hoping that the person's answer concerning the testimony they give
on their own behalf would make void the word of God because they answered yes?

You see it alot on forums, I think we have all asked it, but whenever a verse like that is quoted, ones knee jerk reaction becomes less about the verse itself but more about the messenger. Because if somehow that person does not live up to that verse, the verse will somehow go away. Know what I mean?

 

[FireDragon76]

But it doesn't mean "be made a moral person" which seems too passive for it. It means to be made just, or to be made righteous. And one uses sanctification as a synonym. There is, if one tries very hard, a distinction between justification and sanctification but it is distinction of perspective rather than sharp distinction of meaning. The former is to be made righteous by God's grace, the latter is to see that work of change as a work in which the human subject participates. It is one act of grace from God and it is part of the grace that the human being participates in it. Like a human father teaches his son to mow the lawn; he starts at age 4 and puts the boy's hands on the mower as he (the father) does the mowing, and in the years that follow the lessons move steadily towards the son finally performing the work himself, but always as the son taught by his father how to do it right.

Sanctification isn't about being a moral person, either. That's not what the term "holy" means.

What you'ld think of as morality or ethics is really a question of vocation, which is a consequence of sanctification but isn't synonymous with the whole of it.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For he who has died is freed from sin.

Freed is (in Greek) δεδικαίωται and that word means be righteous.

1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Here "justified" is in Greek ἐδικαιώθητε and it means made just.

These verses are not about an imputed righteousness, at least not primarily and exclusively.

good point.

Rom 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for the one who has died is freed from sin.

10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all time; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 So you too, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12 Therefore sin is not to reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the parts of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead, and your body’s parts as instruments of righteousness for God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? Far from it! 16 Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

 

[BobRyan]

Sanctification isn't about being a moral person, either. That's not what the term "holy" means.

To be Sanctified is to be set apart for holy use. It is to be pursued during the Christian walk of the born-again saved believer.

"PURSUE peace with all men AND the Sanctification without which no one will see the LORD" Heb 12:14

1 Thess 5: 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

But it doesn't mean "be made a moral person" which seems too passive for it. It means to be made just, or to be made righteous.

That is justification.

Sanctification is different from justification.

Rom 5:1-2 "having BEEN justified by faith you HAVE peace with God" -- Justification for the Christian is a passed event.

But as Heb 12:14 points out - sanctification is an ongoing event "pursue sanctification without which no one will see God"

There is, if one tries very hard, a distinction between justification and sanctification

Indeed there is.

Daily dying to self - daily surrender is like an appeal to daily justification - renewing of your mind in the Holy Spirit -- and as a process over time - is sanctification.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sanctification isn't about being a moral person, either. That's not what the term "holy" means.

Of course not, sanctification is to be set apart, first and foremost, and secondarily it is to be just and good.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What you'ld think of as morality or ethics is really a question of vocation, which is a consequence of sanctification but isn't synonymous with the whole of it.

This is perplexing, what you've written above, sanctification is indeed a part of sanctification rather than a separate thing that comes in consequence of sanctification.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Isaiah wrote "They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand." One can show time and time again and some will not see that justification is to be made righteous rather than to be merely and only 'declared to be righteous, when in fact one is not righteous'.

And Jesus said "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

Isaiah spoke of clear revelation from God, Jesus spoke in parables, yet no approach led to the unwilling actually seeing even though they look and look.

 

[bling]

That question there bling,

If someone actually said, no they do not, would you actually believe them?

And we might think, this person is lying to either himself or to us or against the truth itself (or all three)

But on the otherhand, if they said, yes they do, are we hoping that the person's answer concerning the testimony they give n
on their own behalf would make void the word of God because they answered yes?

You see it alot on forums, I think we have all asked it, but whenever a verse like that is quoted, ones knee jerk reaction becomes less about the verse itself but more about the messenger. Because if somehow that person does not live up to that verse, the verse will somehow go away. Know what I mean?

I have had people answer "no", but go on to talk about the "spiritual person not sinning" within them and the fleshly person being a sinner (much like some gnostic believes). The fleshly person seems to be winning, but I thought we were to win.
I would have to really know the person and know where they were at.

In another group at the university the leader was meeting nightly for pray. They got on the idea of confessing the sins they did that day and praying for strength not to repeat them, but the list kept increasing and taking up lots of time. One young man was going through his list, but stopped to pull out a little notebook then went on. The leader asked him, "What was in the notebook?" and he said he would write down his sins through the day, so he could go over them before they met. The leader grabbed the notebook and through it in the trash and said: "we are not going to go over our sins for the day, but tell what good stuff happened that day which we were a part of. It start slow, but picked up, so in a few months that same student with the notebook list of sins, came with a fantastic day everything seemed to go wonderfully. The Leader than asked him to tell us about the sins he did that day, and he really tried to remember, even the other young men tried to help him with sins they remembered him previously doing, but everyone had been avoided by him doing something blessed at that time. He apologized to the leader for not remembering any sins that day.

 

[Fervent]

If being justified means merely to be made a moral person, why use the term sanctification? Clearly, justification has a distinct meaning from sanctification in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Protestant scholars have generally understood the use of δεδικαίωται to be a law-court image, manumission from sin, to be judged no longer owned by sin.

In that verse it would seem that the washed, sanctified, justified is not meant to convey three different things but to intensify the message. Similar to how parallelism in OT poetry worked, where it is the similarity of meaning not a distinctness that makes the different phrase/term applicable.

 

[FireDragon76]

In that verse it would seem that the washed, sanctified, justified is not meant to convey three different things but to intensify the message. Similar to how parallelism in OT poetry worked, where it is the similarity of meaning not a distinctness that makes the different phrase/term applicable.

Even if that were true (which remains unproven), the poetry uses distinctions of related, but not identical, concepts.

 

[RileyG]

Justification is how we are seen righteous in the eyes of God. Sanctification is how we are made holy.

 

[Fervent]

Even if that were true (which remains unproven), the poetry uses distinctions of related, but not identical, concepts.

Exegetical issues rarely involve proof, that's basically just for mathematics. But here we have a similar phenomena, because all 3 of those things mentioned are things accomplished in the atonement. So it is the similarity between them, and not the distinctions, that is of interest. The terms aren't interchangeable, certainly, but the differences cannot be pressed too strongly.