What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

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.

Ok so you're definition of sanctification is that God sovereignly and monergistically cleanses/sanctifies us - "100% clean" (your words) but we are still sinning? That means His contribution didn't actually ACCOMPLISH anything! Nothing has changed for us!

You are fabricating distinctions out of a determined, unconvincing effort to deny progressive sanctification. I'm not even sure why you find that concept so objectionable. Earlier your objection to it is one that I agree with - sanctification is not by works. Agreed. It is monergistic. But since the cleansing of the regenerated heart is indeed monergistic, it WILL NOT sin (unless you think the monergistic agent, God Himself,is a sinner)

 

[JAL]

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

Fabricated distinctions - a distinction without a difference. Sanctifcation/cleansing is useless if it doesn't determine our works.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I disagree. Christians are quite capable of murder.



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.

We can undo with the false assumptions and name calling. You do not know fully what I believe.
Jesus said, “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:16).

 

[JAL]

@RickReads

Here's how Paul defines the new birth - it puts to DEATH the sinful nature. And you want us to entertain seriously that this is separate/distinct from an impact to our works? And that we will continue sinning without a sinful nature?

 

[RickReads]

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?

The Bible tells us that Christ died for the sins of the entire world. He paid the cost for everyone both saved and unsaved. A baby who is not able to receive the witness of the creation or have the chance to reject Christ can receive the atonement. Foolish to believe anything less of God IMO. (FYI, and yes I can back it up with scripture)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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

And I told you I am not interested in going back and forth with you on this topic.

 

[JAL]

We can undo with the false assumptions and name calling. You do not know fully what I believe.
Jesus said, “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:16).

Correct. Why would I forbid a child from coming to the Father, if he is so inclined. Agreed. And?

 

[JAL]

And I told you I am not interested in going back and forth with you on this topic.

I'm just answering your question. You just asked me what my theory of Adam/Original sin was!

 

[RickReads]

@RickReads

Here's how Paul defines the new birth - it puts to DEATH the sinful nature. And you want us to entertain seriously that this is separate/distinct from an impact to our works? And that we will continue sinning without a sinful nature?

Unless you post the scripture references I`m not interested in responding. I`m bored with your gobbledygook.

 

[JAL]

Unless you post the scripture references I`m not interested in responding. I`m bored with your gobbledygook.

I gave you 150 scripture references already, to start with.
60 times the term holy is applied to ALL the saints (no exceptions)
90 times the SAME term appears in the phrase The Holy Spirit.

Thus the term "holy" is NOT a designation of sinfulness in Scripture.
Now show me your 150 verses - otherwise I dismiss your position as gobbledygook.

 

[RickReads]

I gave you 150 scripture references already, to start with.
60 times the term holy is applied to ALL the saints (no exceptions)
90 times the SAME term appears in the phrase The Holy Spirit.

Thus the term "holy" is NOT a designation of sinfulness in Scripture.
Now show me your 150 verses - otherwise I dismiss your position as gobbledygook.

You haven`t given scripture references so far as I`ve seen, and holy as a designation of sinfulness?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I almost think you aren`t serious about your philosophies.

 

[JAL]

You haven`t given scripture references so far as I`ve seen, and holy as a designation of sinfulness?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I almost think you aren`t serious about your philosophies.

As usual, with you there is never anything clear, specific, pointed, or well-defended.

Bottom line - your position doesn't make sense. You have the monergistically cleansed/sanctified/regenerated heart continuing to sin. That's not even a guarantee of conversion!
And certainly not lasting conversion!

The unconverted state can be defined as rebellion against God. He is moving in the opposite direction, away from God. If regeneration doesn't reorient him TOWARD God, he isn't yet converted. And if it does so in a flimsy matter, such that he can easily reverse that orientation at any time, then a single day of rebellion would effectively deregenerate him back to the unconverted state (moving away from God) which spells for ZERO SECURITY in terms of salvation. Monergism is our greatest ally.

You're right. Enough of the gobbledygook - I have had enough of your position that doesn't even make sense, and your distinctions without a difference.

You'll clam the same of my position - the difference is that you do nothing to clearly and cogently DEMONSTRATE your disparagements of my position, which effectively reduces them to the status of ad hominem.

 

[RickReads]

As usual, with you there is never anything clear, specific, pointed, or well-defended.

Bottom line - your position doesn't make sense. You have the monergistically cleansed/sanctified/regenerated heart continuing to sin. That's not even a guarantee of conversion!
And certainly not lasting conversion!

The unconverted state can be defined as rebellion against God. He is moving in the opposite direction, away from God. If regeneration doesn't reorient him TOWARD God, he isn't yet converted. And if it does so in a flimsy matter, such that he can easily reverse that orientation at any time, then a single day of rebellion would effectively deregenerate him back to the unconverted state (moving away from God) which spells for ZERO SECURITY in terms of salvation. Monergism is our greatest ally.

You're right. Enough of the gobbledygook - I have had enough of your position that doesn't even make sense, and your distinctions without a difference.

You'll clam the same of my position - the difference is that you do nothing to clearly and cogently DEMONSTRATE your disparagements of my position, which effectively reduces them to the status of ad hominem.

My real problem is that your posts don`t motivate me to expend my energy on putting together a detailed rebuttal. About the time I`m seriously considering it you say something that makes me wonder why I`m talking to you.

This post for example, I don`t believe in monergism and I don`t believe in continuing in sin. So I am responding to two false accusations, bad logic, and an erroneous premise.

All coming from a guy who often says some really inappropriate things about God under the guise that you are rebutting the views of mainstream Christians.

BibleHighlighter doesn`t even want to engage you. LOL! I`ve never seen him try to get away from somebody before.

 

[Psalm 27]

So where are we on sanctification?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Bible tells us that Christ died for the sins of the entire world. He paid the cost for everyone both saved and unsaved. A baby who is not able to receive the witness of the creation or have the chance to reject Christ can receive the atonement. Foolish to believe anything less of God IMO. (FYI, and yes I can back it up with scripture)

I am of the belief that all babies who die are saved. JAL told me only some are saved. I disagree with that conclusion by him. But we must all study to show ourselves approved unto God according to 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Correct. Why would I forbid a child from coming to the Father, if he is so inclined. Agreed. And?

But you said some babies who die are not saved. How does a baby have the capacity to fully understand good and evil?

 

[JAL]

My real problem is that your posts don`t motivate me to expend my energy on putting together a detailed rebuttal. About the time I`m seriously considering it you say something that makes me wonder why I`m talking to you.

More ad hominem.(Yawn).

This post for example, I don`t believe in monergism and I don`t believe in continuing in sin. So I am responding to two false accusations, bad logic, and an erroneous premise.

As usual not making any sense. You stated that sanctification is not by works. If it is not synergism, the only other option is um...er....um...monergism.

All coming from a guy who often says some really inappropriate things about God under the guise that you are rebutting the views of mainstream Christians.

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

BibleHighlighter doesn`t even want to engage you. LOL! I`ve never seen him try to get away from somebody before.

Newsflash - no one's happy about someone like me who pokes holes in most traditional views.

 

[JAL]

But you said some babies who die are not saved. How does a baby have the capacity to fully understand good and evil?

Regeneration isn't primarily a function of theological content. It is meeting Christ via the Inward Witness's presentation of a picture of Him, it is a revelatory vision, much like when the infant sees his parents for the first time without yet comprehending fatherhood and motherhood.

 

[JAL]

But you said some babies who die are not saved. How does a baby have the capacity to fully understand good and evil?

Maybe I'm not understanding your objection here. What exactly are you getting at?

 

[RickReads]

So where are we on sanctification?

Heb 10:14 "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

In Bible verses where the term sanctify appears it is always an action God is taking. The human requirement is to avoid fornication and to believe the truth. Apart from those two things it`s all God.

Verses that have been used to try and rebut me do not use the word sanctify, rather I observed that those scriptures use other terms which my critics allege to mean sanctification.

It seems that many Christians consider sanctification to be good deeds, moral behavior, advancement in knowledge of God etc. For them performance improvement is progressive sanctification.

I don`t think it`s Biblical to believe that.