What About Progressive Sanctification?

[Bible Highlighter]

I saved this part for last because it's a very powerful argument, and I can't recall whether I've ever given enough thought to it or addressed it adequately. It's commendable that you raised the issue because it's pretty rare that I find someone postulating a daunting objection to my theology. Generally my theology is flexible enough to easily dispense with most objections. This one seems to be an exception.

On the other hand, it's a 2-edged sword, right? It cuts both ways. All of us, as exegetes, including you, must be logically inconsistent. You cannot legitimately embrace conflicting definitions of fairness and justice, even as you cannot embrace two disparate definitions of love:
(1) Kindness
(2) Cruelty.
That wouldn't make sense, right? If God can define virtues such as love, justice, fairness, honesty differently than we do, it undermines our eternal hope. That doesn't work, theologically.

So I ask again. If someone found a way to escalate your passions, would that count for YOU as a sinful nature? Is that justice, fairness (etc) as YOU define it? I think not - so you have to be consistent. Again, sinfulness isn't something that HAPPENS to me - it must be freely chosen on my part. Therefore God cannot really count it against a child - cannot count it as a reprehensible sinful nature - if his father induces in him a drug-addiction.

Why does God allow it, then? Actually I'm not 100% sure that He DOES allow it (I don't know if there's solid research backing this claim). But let's assume He does. What to make of it?

First of all, the child is already guilty in Adam. As such, he is born without "garments" (a shielding by the Third Person from excessive temptation). He is under judgment, and it is thus God's decision how much temptation is fair. Realize that ALL of us are born sin-addicted (and thus drug-addicted to some degree), due to Original Sin, but God decides the maximum degree of temptation facing each of us. Hence Jesus advised, "Pray that you might not fall into temptation." In sum, if God deems it fair that the child be born with strong drug-tempting desires, we have to assume such consonant with His righteous scales of fairness, and that He is a better judge of what levels of temptation are fair, than we are.

As a second possible solution, we could speculate that God only allows this infection-by-parent in cases where He has donated some of the parent's soul to the child (if He ever does that). In this case, the parent isn't really addicting someone other than his own soul, which is certainly fair. As I told you, my system is flexible enough to handle all kinds of objections.

Again, I do not want to argue back and forth with you on this topic. I believe a baby's physical body is condemned to death by Adam's sin. It is only by Jesus Christ and what He had done for us that a baby who dies at birth is saved. If Jesus never went to the cross, we would all be doomed on the account of Adam's sin. That is why what Jesus did was so important. He brokes the chains of spiritual death. This is what makes salvation primarily how we are saved by God's grace and not of anything that we did. Granted, we do need to later enter the Sanctification Process as a part of salvation, but this is only AFTER we are saved by God's grace. God's grace is the foundation by which we are saved. If it was all based on our performance alone (without God's grace and redemption), then we would all be doomed because we cannot pay the penalty and or forgive our own sin.

Side Note:

Unfortunately, many in the church today turn God's grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4). But God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).

 

[JAL]

Again, I do not want to argue back and forth with you on this topic. I believe a baby's physical body is condemned to death by Adam's sin. It is only by Jesus Christ and what He had done for us that a baby who dies at birth is saved. If Jesus never went to the cross, we would all be doomed on the account of Adam's sin. That is why what Jesus did was so important. This is what makes salvation primarily how we are saved by God's grace and not of anything that we did. Granted, we do need to later enter the Sanctification Process as a part of salvation, but this is only AFTER we are saved by God's grace. God's grace is the foundation by which we are saved. If it was all based on our performance alone (without God's grace and redemption), then we would all be doomed because we cannot pay the penalty and or forgive our own sin.

How is that a rebuttal? Where did I deny our need for Jesus to atone for our sin? As I said, you seem to spend a LOT of time "debating" facts not even in dispute.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How is that a rebuttal? Where did I deny our need for Jesus to atone for our sin? As I said, you seem to spend a LOT of time "debating" facts not even in dispute.

It was not meant to be a rebuttal or an attack on what you believe. I have no idea what you believe. I am only speaking about what I know God's Word to say. I did not read all your points because I am not looking to go back and forth with you on this topic. All I can do is encourage you to talk to the Lord about this topic, and consider the truth more that Original Sin could be true. I know that if you were to honestly hunt that this could possibly be true, I think the Lord will surprise you. But if you already made up your mind on what you prefer to see, then you will see only what you want to see, my friend.

Peace, and blessings be unto you in the Lord today.

 

[JAL]

Man`s holiness is imperfect, Always a work in progress, very few attain that level of perfection in their works.

Progress? You do realize that progress is a stem to the word "progressive" and thus progressive sanctification, right? From the outset most participants on this thread seem to be in agreement that there is no way to avoid the concept of progressive sanctification. You keep dancing around it but often your own words seem to clearly imply it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How is that a rebuttal? Where did I deny our need for Jesus to atone for our sin? As I said, you seem to spend a LOT of time "debating" facts not even in dispute.

The issue comes down to the fact that are babies who die saved on the account of them being purely innocent? Or are babies who die saved primarily based on what Jesus Christ has done for us?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Progress? You do realize that progress is a stem to the word "progressive" and thus progressive sanctification, right? From the outset most participants on this thread seem to be in agreement that there is no way to avoid the concept of progressive sanctification. You keep dancing around it but often your own words seem to clearly imply it.

I agree that is highly illogical to deny Progressive Sanctification. Every Christian who walks in holiness with the Lord should know that they were not at the same maturity level as when they first got saved. We have to study to show ourselves approved unto God according to 2 Timothy 2:15. In other words, we have to first learn God's commands before we can apply them to our lives. I would say it naturally takes time to do that. So Christians are at different levels of perfecting themselves in the fear of God. It's a logical conclusion. To deny this is to simply deny what the Bible plainly says.

 

[JAL]

It was not meant to be a rebuttal or an attack on what you believe. I have no idea what you believe. I am only speaking about what I know God's Word to say. I did not read all your points because I am not looking to go back and forth with you on this topic. All I can do is encourage you to talk to the Lord about this topic, and consider the truth more that Original Sin could be true. I know that if you were to honestly hunt that this could possibly be true, I think the Lord will surprise you. But if you already made up your mind on what you prefer to see, then you will see only what you want to see, my friend.

Peace, and blessings be unto you in the Lord today.

LOL. Here we go again - you are arguing facts not in dispute. For the b-zillionth time, I ACCEPT the doctrine of Original Sin - we are all guilty in Adam and born with a sinful nature accordingly. All I've done is simply shaved the rough edges off the traditional formulation as to liberate it from contradictions.

 

[JAL]

The issue comes down to the fact that are babies saved on the account of them being purely innocent, or are they saved primarily based on what Jesus Christ has done for us?

Oh you are emphasizing the babies issue. I personally don't believe that babies are automatically saved, as they are guilty in Adam. If they were automatically saved, it would be best for their parents to kill them in infancy, to spare them any chance of going to hell.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LOL. Here we go again - you are arguing facts not in dispute. For the b-zillionth time, I ACCEPT the doctrine of Original Sin - we are all guilty in Adam and born with a sinful nature accordingly. All I've done is simply shaved the rough edges off the traditional formulation as to liberate it from contradictions.

You could have fooled me. You seemed to be arguing against Original Sin because I was making my case for it, and you disagreed with it. Only now you are saying you believe in Original Sin. You did not say that before.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh you are emphasizing the babies issue. I personally don't believe that babies are automatically saved, as they are guilty in Adam. If they were automatically saved, it would be best for their parents to kill them in infancy, to spare them any chance of going to hell.

Uh, what?
So you believe that babies who die go to Hell?

 

[JAL]

You could have fooled me. You seemed to be arguing against Original Sin because I was making my case for it, and you disagreed with it. Only now you are saying you believe in Original Sin. You did not say that before.

Yes I did say it before.

 

[JAL]

Uh, what?
So you believe that babies who die go to Hell?

Election is in God's hands. If He chooses to regenerate them just before they die, they goto heaven. But we shouldn't assume He will do so. Again, if we made that assumption, the best thing we could do for all babies is to kill them in their infancy, to guarantee their salvation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes I did say it before.

Did you say it in your first rebuttal? For I usually tend to tune people out and just skim read a person's post (after the first post) if I feel like the Lord does not want me to argue a particular issue with someone.

 

[JAL]

Did you say it in your first rebuttal? For I usually tend to tune people out and just skim read a person's post (after the first post) if I feel like the Lord does not want me to argue a particular issue with someone.

I'm beginning to think that you were responding to my posts about Adam without actually comprehending them. From the getgo I've been arguing that we are guilty in Adam but expressing a non-traditional explanation as to WHY and HOW we are guilty in him.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Election is in God's hands. If He chooses to regenerate them just before they die, they goto heaven. But we shouldn't assume He will do so. Again, if we made that assumption, the best thing we could do for all babies is to kill them in their infancy, to guarantee their salvation.

But murder is a sin, and so we could not do that. I don't believe a Christ abiding Christian would ever do that. I believe God's Spirit would compell them otherwise. I think a Christian will realize that they have to live out their faith and if they are truly chosen, they could even accept Christ on their death bed (if that is God's will).

As for some babies going to hell:
That is still pretty whack, brother. Babies do not have a concept of right and wrong yet. I believe babies who die go to Heaven because God has arranged that particular soul to be the one in whom He knew would accept Him in this life if they were given a chance to live.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm beginning to think that you were responding to my posts about Adam without actually comprehending them. From the getgo I've been arguing that we are guilty in Adam but expressing a non-traditional explanation as to WHY and HOW we are guilty in him.

And what would that be?

 

[JAL]

But murder is a sin, and so we could not do that. I don't believe a Christ abiding Christian would ever do that. I believe God's Spirit would compell them otherwise. I think a Christian will realize that they have to live out their faith and if they are truly chosen, they could even accept Christ on their death bed (if that is God's will).

I disagree. Christians are quite capable of murder.

As for some babies going to hell:
That is still pretty whack, brother. Babies do not have a concept of right and wrong yet.
I believe babies who die go to Heaven because God has arranged that particular soul to be the one in whom He knew would accept Him in this life if they were given a chance to live.

No. YOUR position is wacked. You hold to the TRADITIONAL version of Original Sin where babes haven't really done anything wrong, and thus God is the evil monster who allows innocent babes to suffer starvation, diseases, abuse, and drug-addiction in the womb.

I do not worship a monster. I worship Yahweh.

 

[JAL]

And what would that be?

My presentation began at post 453 but had a few followup posts after that.

 

[RickReads]

Progress? You do realize that progress is a stem to the word "progressive" and thus progressive sanctification, right? From the outset most participants on this thread seem to be in agreement that there is no way to avoid the concept of progressive sanctification. You keep dancing around it but often your own words seem to clearly imply it.

Not really. I was talking about works, not sanctification. Man`s doctrine of progressive sanctification borrows from the scriptures so similarities will arise (i.e. you accused me of being a Calvinist because I talk about scriptures that Calvin used.)

People get better at being Christians as time goes by. Why would I deny that? I don`t and never did but that isn`t Biblical sanctification.

 

[RickReads]

Not a biblical view of holiness. That term refers to the sum total of God's perfections. Therefore God alone is holy (Rev 15:4). This means we can only be holy in a derived sense (God has rested upon us and assumed control). It cannot be less than perfect holiness. Derived holiness has NOTHING to do with human volition.

Derived holiness is similar to derived strength. There are two possible theories of Samson's strength:
(1)Actual strength (muscles). Every time he need strength, God increased his muscle mass.
(2) Derived strength. The Third Person fell on his body each time (as is recorded) - just like an Iron Man suit - and from that vantage point, did all the heavy lifting. This is divine strength and thus PERFECT strength.

Want proof that holiness is derived and thus has NOTHING to do with volition - that it is simply an outpouring of the divine Presence who makes us holy? Example. The tent was made holy when the Pillar of Cloud/Fire - the Glory of God - descended upon it. Was the tent volitionally involved? Did it freely choose to become holy? Volition had NOTHING to do with its holiness - and I can provide more examples.

Also now you are backpedaling. Earlier you claimed that sanctification is NOT by works - it is a sovereign work of God - and NOW you are insinuating that it is something we must "attain" to "in degrees" and which "no one fully attains to".

Again, I was talking about works not sanctification. They are not the same thing.