What About Progressive Sanctification?

[Bible Highlighter]

I was under the impression that the KJV was largely influenced by the Geneva Bible. I admit it’s hard to say because there are many different stories about its translation but I have seen clear cases where the KJV does not have accurate translations from the Greek texts.

The King James scholars used the Wycliffe translation, the Geneva Bible, the Latin Vulgate, as well as a few others, and came up with the original KJV.

But the Geneva Bible has errors in it. For one, the Geneva calls Jesus (the Word) an “it” in John 1:3.

There are many other problems, as well. You can check out the differences here:

The King James Version compared to the Geneva Bible - Jamesjpn.net

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you are far from an authority on the biblical text and manuscript evidence for the TR or the Majority.

I suggest you read an expert on the biblical text below

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

I already did the study many times. There is a clear attack on the KJB (the TR line of manuscripts) that is for the worse, and not for the better. You can check out the inferiority of Modern Translations by comparing it with the KJB by checking out my post here.

 

[QvQ]

John 17:17 Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.

To me it means, I read the Bible, praying the Holy Spirit to guide my understanding and I trust God to keep me within the boundaries of God's Word in my daily life. I do that, even though I am justified and sanctified through Grace.
That is an ongoing walk with God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have no interest in your works for salvation theology. You are one of the worst theologians I ever met.

I was also telling you what other believers hold to in regards to Progressive Sanctification. If this makes me a bad theologian for reporting what others believe, then so be it. But you can confirm this truth for yourself by talking and listening to others on Christian forums, or by checking out YouTube, or reading Christian articles.

#1. Eternal Security or Belief Alone-ism view or those who believe that they can never stop committing mortal sin in this life believe Progressive Sanctification is becoming more and more Christ like over a gradual course of their entire life, but they don't believe they can stop committing mortal sin this side of Heaven.

#2. Conditional Salvationists (like myself), and or those who believe that mortal sin separates a believer from the Lord unless they confess and forsake such sins believe that Progressive Sanctification starts off as putting away mortal sin out of their life, and then it leads to a perfecting of their faith by being more Christ like and loving. Conditional Salvationists do not believe they can abide in unconfessed mortal sin and still be saved. So the focus of Progressive Sanctification is two fold for them. One to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), and the second is to be sanctified by the washing of the water of the Word so that Christ might present to Himself a church that is holy, without spot, and blemish to Himself (See: Ephesians 5:25-27).

Side Note:

Oh, and there are holiness type believers who actually deny Progressive Sanctification, too. So just because you deny it, does not mean you would be in agreement with others who also hold to Conditional Salvation, and in living holy unto the Lord. Some holiness believers think Progressive Sanctification is false because it is a back door to sin, when that is not what it is teaching at all. Progressive Sanctification should lead a believer to put away mortal sin in the early part of the Christian life, and the second phase of their Sanctification would be focused on loving others more and conforming more to the image of Christ. It's unfortunate that they do not believe verses like 2 Corinthians 7:1 (Which makes it very clear that Sanctification is progressive). But we are living in the last days, and people just want to do their own thing outside of what God's Word plainly says.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The King James scholars used the Wycliffe translation, the Geneva Bible, the Latin Vulgate, as well as a few others, and came up with the original KJV.

But the Geneva Bible has errors in it. For one, the Geneva calls Jesus (the Word) an “it” in John 1:3.

There are many other problems, as well. You can check out the differences here:

The King James Version compared to the Geneva Bible - Jamesjpn.net

I was not aware of the errors you mentioned in the NASB and the Greek manuscripts that were used. I’m not familiar with this problem. Honestly I don’t know the difference between the different Greek manuscripts. I don’t read Greek fluently and don’t really have access to all the different manuscripts. I do know that some of them have additions to them that were not in some of the older versions like for example in The Lord’s Prayer there were earlier versions that did not have the part that says “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever amen.” That’s why the ASV version does not have that portion in it and also why the NASB has these [] around that portion. It really does disturb me that people have obviously edited the word of God. I can’t imagine why anyone truly seeking to serve God would alter His words in any way at all. Surely no one could word it better than our Almighty God. I guess in the end we just have to do the best with what we have and listen closely to the Holy Spirit whom I am confident will lead us to the truth if we are truly seeking Him. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened. Right?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was not aware of the errors you mentioned in the NASB and the Greek manuscripts that were used. I’m not familiar with this problem. Honestly I don’t know the difference between the different Greek manuscripts. I don’t read Greek fluently and don’t really have access to all the different manuscripts. I do know that some of them have additions to them that were not in some of the older versions like for example in The Lord’s Prayer there were earlier versions that did not have the part that says “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever amen.” That’s why the ASV version does not have that portion in it and also why the NASB has these [] around that portion. It really does disturb me that people have obviously edited the word of God. I can’t imagine why anyone truly seeking to serve God would alter His words in any way at all. Surely no one could word it better than our Almighty God. I guess in the end we just have to do the best with what we have and listen closely to the Holy Spirit whom I am confident will lead us to the truth if we are truly seeking Him. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened. Right?

I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English sometimes, but the KJB is my final word of authority.

A Brief Look at ​

the KJB vs the Modern Translations
in American History:​

Abraham Lincoln had used and quoted from a King James Bible.
Old school literary authors quoted from the King James Bible.
It's influence here in America can never be forgotten.

Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.

What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?

The King James Bible.

In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.

It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.

While these riots were one reason that resulted in the ultimate banning of Bible reading in public schools, another reason was the declining favor for the King James Bible over the slight rising increase of interest in Modern Translations.​

In New England: The first major departure from the King James Bible (Textus Receptus) took place in 1881 with Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament based on one Catholic manuscript and one Orthodox manuscript (i.e. The Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus).

This English Revised Translation of the Old Testament done in 1885 (ERV) (Also known as the Revised Version - RV). The ERV or RV (Revised Version) was copyrighted in the United States in 1885 for publication here in America.

Note: No Modern Translation existed here in America before 1885.

The ERV was based on supposedly more advanced scholarship, but it sold poorly here in the United States.

So an effort was created to bring in the American Standard Version (ASV). It was launched in 1901. This version also was faced with a lack of success.

Then the Revised Standard Version (RSV) came out in 1947, and then the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) followed in 1971.

However, the perception of the “New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)” at this time was that it leaned more towards liberalism and ecumenism.

The last in line of these Modern Translations (mentioned here) was an implicit eucumenical translation that was intended to look good to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians equally.

It was the NIV.

The NIV (The New International Version) released in 1973 was designed supposedly to return to the Protestant distinctiveness of the King James (Which was not true). The NIV was also designed with advances in supposedly trusted Biblical scholarship.

The NIV became the most popular Bibles ever with the American public, whereas all other versions up to this point attempted word for word translation, the NIV relied less on former translations that would be easier to understand for the average reader.

This is why the boom of Modern Bible movement went mainstream in the 1970's. It was because of the NIV. Then all the other popular candy coated Bible versions followed.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was not aware of the errors you mentioned in the NASB and the Greek manuscripts that were used. I’m not familiar with this problem. Honestly I don’t know the difference between the different Greek manuscripts. I don’t read Greek fluently and don’t really have access to all the different manuscripts. I do know that some of them have additions to them that were not in some of the older versions like for example in The Lord’s Prayer there were earlier versions that did not have the part that says “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever amen.” That’s why the ASV version does not have that portion in it and also why the NASB has these [] around that portion. It really does disturb me that people have obviously edited the word of God. I can’t imagine why anyone truly seeking to serve God would alter His words in any way at all. Surely no one could word it better than our Almighty God. I guess in the end we just have to do the best with what we have and listen closely to the Holy Spirit whom I am confident will lead us to the truth if we are truly seeking Him. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened. Right?

I believe Sanctification will be more effective for our lives if we use God's Holy and pure Word (the KJB). There are two lines of manuscripts or two vines. One good, and one bad. There is the TR or the Textus Receptus line (the KJB), and there is the Alexandrian (Egyptian) line. If we know anything about the Bibe, we know that Egypt was spoken in a negative light in the Bible. So a line of manuscripts that come from out of Egypt is not good. This is not just history, but one can see the differences between these two line of manuscripts. The Trinity, holy living, the blood atonement, the deity of Christ are all attacked in the TR line of manuscripts that leads up to the KJB.

Westcott and Hort are two men who were known occultists who created the first departure away from the KJB (the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts). Westcott and Hort (with the help of a large team) created a Greek text based on a Catholic possesed document and an Orthodox possessed document (Alexandrian in origin). Granted, Nestle and Aland revised their work and created yet again another Greek manuscript, but they used Westcott and Hort's work as the basis for their textual criticism. So Westcott and Hort are responsible for most of all the Modern Translations you see today. Their work was based upon manuscripts that were Egyptian in origin (i.e. Alexandrian).

I made some comparisons between the KJB vs. the NAS (NASB) in this post here.
You will see the changes are for the worse and not for the better.
In fact, in the thread link I provided, I created 30 reasons that support the truth that the KJB is the pure Word of God for our day.

Anyways, I would also check out Gipp's 7 mini movie episodes on YouTube in defense of the KJB.

Here are all seven episodes + a bonus video.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdD7_B3zweu0qi_gUHA9W_0JxSM_jT0zj

 

[Noxot]

Ok, back to the topic.

People keep trying to sell me Progressive Sanctification as a performance-based doctrine. Sanctified by works and if I object, then well, I just want to sin I am told.

Someone said Progressively Sanctified by getting better at being a Christian.

Another said perfect holiness, then lists a bunch of works verses to justify that

It`s back door works for salvation and I flatly reject it.

Perfect Holiness comes from within. Holiness is based on the condition of your heart.

Progressive Sanctification isn`t a doctrine of the Bible but if it was, it would look like this:

1 Corinthians 2:16

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."

The purpose of our salvation is to conform us into the image of Christ. It`s largely a matter of the heart.The condition of our heart determines our holiness.

That holiness based on works thing, what works do you believe will make you holy? It`s ridiculous.

In Christianity, it`s all about the condition of our heart towards God, anything else is just religeon.

Our heart and will are not things that can be separated, as far as I can tell. Evil in the heart leads to evil and good in the heart leads to good. But there are going to be Works regardless if we are good or if we are evil.

 

[JAL]

There are no scriptures that say partial sanctification. That`s why you didn`t post any.

Fair enough. As soon as you find me the verse that uses the word Trinity.

Silly response on your part. The whole Bible from Gen to Revelation is about cleansing progressively from sin. There's easily a thousand more verses on THAT topic than the Trinity.

 

[JAL]

There are no scriptures that say partial sanctification. That`s why you didn`t post any.

Would it help if I prove to you that justification occurs more than once? And having done that, add a corollary to show that when the NT spoke of this multiple justification, it actually had in mind multiple (i.e. progressive) sanctification?

Would that be enough? Or are you going to retort with that silly response again, "Well the text never actually calls it 'partial sanctification' - it doesn't use those exact words."

 

[JAL]

@RickReads:

Silly me - what was I thinking? I'm expecting you to be rational! How dumb of me! For a moment I forgot I was talking to a Calvinist! Someone who accepts the following two propositions:

(1) God is a perfectly kind and loving Father - much kinder than any human father.
(2) He foreordained tens of billions to the fires of hell. They never stood a fighting chance.

You're not committed to being rational - so not much hope in my debating sanctification with you.

 

[RickReads]

@RickReads:

Silly me - what was I thinking? I'm expecting you to be rational! How dumb of me! For a moment I forgot I was talking to a Calvinist! Someone who accepts the following two propositions:

(1) God is a perfectly kind and loving Father - much kinder than any human father.
(2) He foreordained tens of billions to the fires of hell. They never stood a fighting chance.

You're not committed to being rational - so not much hope in my debating sanctification with you.

Calling me a Calvinist is a cop-out. It keeps you from having to deal with the scriptures Calvin plagiarized.

 

[RickReads]

Fair enough. As soon as you find me the verse that uses the word Trinity.

Silly response on your part. The whole Bible from Gen to Revelation is about cleansing progressively from sin. There's easily a thousand more verses on THAT topic than the Trinity.

I can get a lot closer to it than you can with your partial salvation doctrine.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[RickReads]

Our heart and will are not things that can be separated, as far as I can tell. Evil in the heart leads to evil and good in the heart leads to good. But there are going to be Works regardless if we are good or if we are evil.

Anytime someone says works don`t save accusations of no works fly. It`s human nature to want to establish your own righteousness.

 

[JAL]

Calling me a Calvinist is a cop-out. It keeps you from having to deal with the scriptures Calvin plagiarized.

As expected, no resolution for the irrationality of Calvinism - just the (unwarranted) assumption that I can't address those passages effectively.

 

[JAL]

I can get a lot closer to it than you can with your partial salvation doctrine.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Baloney. Where in that verse does it say that all three of those elements are God? And even if it DID say that much, how is that any "closer" to your conclusion than all the sanctification passages are to my conclusion - what kind of biased measuring stick is in use here?

 

[JAL]

I can refute Calvinism all day long brother. It’s not biblical.

Amen to that.

 

[RickReads]

As expected, no resolution for the irrationality of Calvinism - just the (unwarranted) assumption that I can't address those passages effectively.

The mere fact that you want to insist on a Calvin debate tells me that you cannot. Without the Calvin strawman, you got nothing going for you.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

By implication, things aren`t for the good of those who aren`t called. One verse settles the whole debate before it even starts.

 

[RickReads]

Baloney. Where in that verse does it say that all three of those elements are God? And even if it DID say that much, how is that any "closer" to your conclusion than all the sanctification passages are to my conclusion - what kind of biased measuring stick is in use here?

It`s called the Bible. Did you want to bicker about God`s Omniscience or the Godhead? I thought you were going for the old Omniscience debate.

FYI, the verse I gave you parrots the definition of trinity nicely.

Definition of Trinity
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2: a group of three closely related persons or things

 

[RickReads]

Amen to that.

Only problem is that he found out that he couldn`t.