What About Progressive Sanctification?

[BNR32FAN]

The water represents the Holy Spirit i.e. living water, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Water or Spirit? Which for you? I`ll take the one that will raise me from the dead.

The baptism of water was a baptism to repentance. Baptism of the Spirit is what makes a person born again. Paul had to baptize 12 disciples in Ephesus a second time who were already baptized by John The Baptist because they were baptized unto repentance but had not received the Holy Spirit because they were not baptized in the Holy Spirit. Water baptism doesn’t save anyone it’s baptism of the Holy Spirit that makes us born again. That’s why JTB said I baptize with water but He (Jesus) will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

The water represents the Holy Spirit i.e. living water, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Water or Spirit? Which for you? I`ll take the one that will raise me from the dead.

The problem is you are influenced by 2,000 years of an unbiblical philosophy known as DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) that distinguishes the physical from the spiritual based on Plato's fairytales regarding the existence of so-called "immaterial substance" (complete nonsense). In the biblical metaphysics, all substances including God are physical. See my thread for exegetical proof:
God Is a Physical Being

Since God is not a fan of ceremonies/rituals such as water baptism, He only institutes them where He plans to show up on the scene for real, palpable interaction with His Presence. And we can't just assume this is occurring with today's water baptism - just because He authorized it for the early apostles doesn't mean it's still authorized right now. Authorization is an epistemological issue so, instead of getting side-tracked on that clarification, I'll get right to the point. Which is this.

When the apostles dipped people in water - since it was an authorized ceremony - the Third Person showed up palpably, as physical Living Water, either by replacing some of the existing water, or by permeating it. As a result, water baptism served as a further cleansing, an incremental sanctification, in the early church, literally washing away the sins of men.

Howard Ervin's term for such physical modalities of the divine Word is "sacramentalism" (such as "sacramental baptism"). In Catholic theology, it is called the Real Presence. And there are many biblical references to it, for example at the last supper when Jesus said, "Take this bread, and eat it, this is my body." Or again, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

Notably, even James Dunn, in his famous dispute with Howard Ervin on sacramentalism, found himself forced to admit that Romans 6:3-4 - based on grammatical/contextual analysis - provides a solid exegetical basis for concluding that water baptism washes away sin. This was an amazing, startling concession since Dunn himself does not take this stance and was doing everything in his power to refute it.

 

[RickReads]

The problem is you are influenced by 2,000 years of an unbiblical philosophy known as DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) that distinguishes the physical from the spiritual based on Plato's fairytales regarding the existence of so-called "immaterial substance" (complete nonsense). In the biblical metaphysics, all substances including God are physical. See my thread for exegetical proof:
God Is a Physical Being

Since God is not a fan of ceremonies/rituals such as water baptism, He only institutes them where He plans to show up on the scene for real, palpable interaction with His Presence. And we can't just assume this is occurring with today's water baptism - just because He authorized it for the early apostles doesn't mean it's still authorized right now. Authorization is an epistemological issue so, instead of getting side-tracked on that clarification, I'll get right to the point. Which is this.

When the apostles dipped people in water - since it was an authorized ceremony - the Third Person showed up palpably, as physical Living Water, either by replacing some of the existing water, or by permeating it. As a result, water baptism served as a further cleansing, an incremental sanctification, in the early church, literally washing away the sins of men.

Howard Ervin's term for such physical modalities of the divine Word is "sacramentalism" (such as "sacramental baptism"). In Catholic theology, it is called the Real Presence. And there are many biblical references to it, for example at the last supper when Jesus said, "Take this bread, and eat it, this is my body." Or again, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

Notably, even James Dunn, in his famous dispute with Howard Ervin on sacramentalism, found himself forced to admit that Romans 6:3-4 - based on grammatical/contextual analysis - provides a solid exegetical basis for concluding that water baptism washes away sin. This was an amazing, startling concession since Dunn himself does not take this stance and was doing everything in his power to refute it.

Paul didn`t do very well in Athens.

 

[JAL]

Paul didn`t do very well in Athens.

Was that an argument? Didn't get your gist.

 

[RickReads]

Was that an argument? Didn't get your gist.

Looking over your posts made me think about it.

 

[JAL]

Looking over your posts made me think about it.

BTW, my digression in Adam and Original Sin is actually related closely to the topic of this thread, although I didn't connect the dots earlier. I'll unveil the connection now.

Based on the philosophy known as DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity), evangelical theologians have always assumed that the human mind/soul/heart is an immaterial substance indivisible into parts. My definition of Adam leads to precisely the opposite notion - a physical soul divisible into parts.

And this, in turn, provides a solution to a long-standing contradiction in the evangelical theory of regeneration. How does the sinful nature persist? Simple.
(1) Initial regeneration is a minute sprinkling of the Third Person on one PART of the (physical) heart/soul/mind.
(2) Thus sanctification can be defined as continually waiting upon the Lord for (incremental) outpourings of the Third Person - also known as revivals - until the heart is filled full of the Third Person (although this goal won't be fully achieved in this life)

To corroborate this point, let's first prove that the regenerated part of the heart CANNOT have a sinful nature and thus cannot sin.
(1) Paul calls it a new creation - the old is GONE, the new is come. If the old condition of the heart ever returned, therefore, that would be a relapse into a non-regenerated state - it would effectively constitute a deregeneration and thus a loss of salvation. Christians might debate OSAS - but one thing is clear. A regenerated heart is NOT a sinful heart. As more proof, consider point #2.
(2) As evangelical theologians unanimously admit, the new birth is defined as holiness. When we say that God is holy, this means to EXCLUDE the possibility of Him having a sinful nature. What is holy is NOT sinful, it DOES NOT sin. Here too, unholiness (unholy behavior in a heart previously regenerated) would signify its deregeneration. As proof that regeneration is defined as holiness, consider this. 60 times the NT refers to the churches as "the saints" using a Greek phrase that literally means "the holy ones". That same Greek word for "holy" occurs 90 times in the phrase "The Holy Spirit". To suggest that the regenerated heart can sin - or have a sinful nature - is tantamount to saying that The Holy Spirit can sin, or have a sinful nature.

We DO have a sinful nature - but that can only exist in the parts of the heart NOT yet regenerated. Maturation can thus be defined in terms of (incremental) outpourings serving as cleansings/sanctifications of the remainder of the heart. Paul was furious with the Galatians for having lost sight of this fact. Instead of waiting upon the Lord in prayer to sanctify them, the Galatians had begun trying to sanctify themselves by reading written laws in the Bible and trying to obey them. The church at large has been making the same mistake for the last 2,000 years.

To further drive this point home, I can demonstrate that the Galatian epistle couches this argument in terms of multiple justifications construed as multiple sanctifications. In what sense? Saving faith, in the strictest sense, is a product of the Inward Witness and thus a product of regeneration. This means that in the STRICTEST possible sense, only the regenerated part of the human heart is justified by faith. This leads to sanctification defined as multiple (incremental) justifications.

I can demonstrate these themes in Galatians chapter 3, including multiple justification, if I walk through it verse by verse. Perhaps I'll do so later.

 

[JAL]

Jesus was clear that a regenerated heart CANNOT SIN.

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Therefore sin can only occur in those parts of the heart not yet regenerate.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

(1) You "seem" to speak with conviction here but yet conveniently ignored my question, "Do you really think that Christ, on His judgment seat, will commend Levi for having paid tithes?"

Scripture says that Levi paid tithes in Abraham. As to how that works at the judgment specifically, I honestly do not know how our Lord will judge such a thing exactly. We look through a glass darkly. But were not the descendants of Abraham blessed as being as numerous as the stars of the sky? They were blessed by being in the promised line of the Messiah by what Abraham did. Hence, the “seed” of Jesus Christ would come through the line of Abraham by whom there would be many like the stars of the sky. Was it fair that the descendants of Abraham were blessed and the rest of the people who were not related to Abraham were not blessed? What I know for sure is that Hebrews 7:9-10 helps to establish the truth that we were all condemned in Adam because we are genetically a part of him and we know that the curse of sin did not happen upon mankind yet until Adam ate of the wrong tree. Their eyes were opened to sin when ADAM ate of the wrong tree. If things are as you say, then their nakedness and their eyes being opened would have happened individually. Meaning, Eve's eyes would have been opened to her nakedness BEFORE she offered the fruit to Adam. But that did not happen. We know based on Romans 5:12 that sin entered the world by Adam and not Eve. For it is written: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12).

Again, what purpose did it serve for Jesus to be born of a virgin?
Was it just because God wanted to do things in style or was it to show that He was holy and separate from sinners as Hebrews 7:26 says?

Now here you go awry again. Again, you cannot legitimately base things like punishment, retribution, consequences, or even rewards on biology/genetics, as I have shown. God won't commend Levi for his genetics but for his soul paying tithes by free will inside Abraham's body, if his physical soul was in fact part of Abraham's physical soul and did in fact do so.

As I already demonstrated before, a father who does drugs (like: alcohol addiction) can pass on this addiction to their children. Is it fair? Well, in a world without God and without understanding His Word this would seem unfair. But we know that mankind as a whole is connected as one big family and they are condemned by what Adam did. If this was not the case, then somewhere out there we should be able to find a person who did not sin besides Jesus Christ. Remember, in Adam all die, and in Christ, all shall be made alive. When are we in Adam? The day we were physically born. When do we become alive? When we receive Christ and become born again.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus was clear that a regenerated heart CANNOT SIN.

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Therefore sin can only occur in those parts of the heart not yet regenerate.

While believers are given a new heart with new desires when they accept Christ as their Savior, I believe the good tree is Jesus Christ. For Jesus says there is none good but God. Any good done in our life is us surrendering to the good work that God wants to do through us. If our heart is changed, it is as a result of our surrendering to the good work God is doing in us. So if we are fully abiding in Jesus Christ (Who is the good tree undefiled), then we will do good works (The works of Christ done through us).

 

[RickReads]

BTW, my digression in Adam and Original Sin is actually related closely to the topic of this thread, although I didn't connect the dots earlier. I'll unveil the connection now.

Based on the philosophy known as DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity), evangelical theologians have always assumed that the human mind/soul/heart is an immaterial substance indivisible into parts. My definition of Adam leads to precisely the opposite notion - a physical soul divisible into parts.

And this, in turn, provides a solution to a long-standing contradiction in the evangelical theory of regeneration. How does the sinful nature persist? Simple.
(1) Initial regeneration is a minute sprinkling of the Third Person on one PART of the (physical) heart/soul/mind.
(2) Thus sanctification can be defined as continually waiting upon the Lord for (incremental) outpourings of the Third Person - also known as revivals - until the heart is filled full of the Third Person (although this goal won't be fully achieved in this life)

To corroborate this point, let's first prove that the regenerated part of the heart CANNOT have a sinful nature and thus cannot sin.
(1) Paul calls it a new creation - the old is GONE, the new is come. If the old condition of the heart ever returned, therefore, that would be a relapse into a non-regenerated state - it would effectively constitute a deregeneration and thus a loss of salvation. Christians might debate OSAS - but one thing is clear. A regenerated heart is NOT a sinful heart. As more proof, consider point #2.
(2) As evangelical theologians unanimously admit, the new birth is defined as holiness. When we say that God is holy, this means to EXCLUDE the possibility of Him having a sinful nature. What is holy is NOT sinful, it DOES NOT sin. Here too, unholiness (unholy behavior in a heart previously regenerated) would signify its deregeneration. As proof that regeneration is defined as holiness, consider this. 60 times the NT refers to the churches as "the saints" using a Greek phrase that literally means "the holy ones". That same Greek word for "holy" occurs 90 times in the phrase "The Holy Spirit". To suggest that the regenerated heart can sin - or have a sinful nature - is tantamount to saying that The Holy Spirit can sin, or have a sinful nature.

We DO have a sinful nature - but that can only exist in the parts of the heart NOT yet regenerated. Maturation can thus be defined in terms of (incremental) outpourings serving as cleansings/sanctifications of the remainder of the heart. Paul was furious with the Galatians for having lost sight of this fact. Instead of waiting upon the Lord in prayer to sanctify them, the Galatians had begun trying to sanctify themselves by reading written laws in the Bible and trying to obey them. The church at large has been making the same mistake for the last 2,000 years.

To further drive this point home, I can demonstrate that the Galatian epistle couches this argument in terms of multiple justifications construed as multiple sanctifications. In what sense? Saving faith, in the strictest sense, is a product of the Inward Witness and thus a product of regeneration. This means that in the STRICTEST possible sense, only the regenerated part of the human heart is justified by faith. This leads to sanctification defined as multiple (incremental) justifications.

I can demonstrate these themes in Galatians chapter 3, including multiple justification, if I walk through it verse by verse. Perhaps I'll do so later.

I think you are trying to make things too black and white. I have always found Christianity to be a steps forward, steps backward process. That doesn`t make the desire of the heart bad. Mistakes are associated with lust of the flesh not the heart. i.e. spirit willing, flesh weak, doublemindedness. Especially when we are young, hard to keep the flesh under full control. So I believe you can have a purity of heart, the right desires, and still sin because the flesh is weak. This leads to the chastisement that the Bible says all partake of.

 

[JAL]

Scripture says that Levi paid tithes in Abraham. As to how that works at the judgment specifically, I honestly do not know how our Lord will judge such a thing exactly.

Again, whether Levi actually paid tithes volitionally is a moot point. My system is flexible enough to allow for such.

were not the descendants of Abraham blessed as being as numerous as the stars of the sky? They were blessed by being in the promised line of the Messiah by what Abraham did.

This too is a moot point. Once we are legitimately guilty in Adam - as only MY definition of Adam allows - God is free to do with our souls pretty much whatever He wants. This is where factors like divine election and monergistic regeneration kick in. For example Israel is God's elect and thus all Israel will be saved (Rom 11). Is this genetic? If it were, it would still be a moot point in the debate because again, since we are guilty in Adam, God is free to determine our destiny. Incidentally it is NOT genetic, in my view, and the majority of modern Jews will NOT be saved (see Rom 9:6).

Rather the promises were made to ONE GENERATION of Israelites (the Moses era). All of THEM will be saved. But this is actually an everlasting generation because God keeps bringing back those who have not been saved - He will continue doing this at least until ALL of them are saved (Rom 11:26) as God's elect - no exceptions. This explains a number of passages difficult to otherwise address, for example:
(1) Christ claimed that His own generation of Jews would still be alive to see His second coming - Mat 24.
(2) He blamed His own generation of Jews for the slaying of OT prophets of previous generations (Mat 23).
(3) He made statements like this, "Some of you standing here will not taste death until the Son of man returns with His angels" and this, "You will not finish preaching in the streets of Israel when I return", and this, "When you see these signs in the sky, stand up and lift up your heads" - all these passages indicating an everlasting generation of Israelites/Jews.

This also means that any of our own souls could perhaps be a true Israelite - even if we don't remember living in the Moses era as an Israelite - just like we don't remember living in the garden as Adam.

Hence, the “seed” of Jesus Christ would come through the line of Abraham by whom there would be many like the stars of the sky. Was it fair that the descendants of Abraham were blessed and the rest of the people who were not related to Abraham were not blessed?

Incorrect exegesis in my view. Abraham's descendants are his spiritual descendants of all nations, all the elect of all nations, justified by faith (Gal 3) - not justified by genetics. This Abrahamic Covenant/Promise is THE covenant/promise between Father and Son (3:16) and is, ultimately, the ONLY covenant of Scripture. All other covenants/promises - including Israel's old covenant and her new covenant - are products (subcovenants) of THE Covenant.

Israel's New Covenant is an explicit reaffirmation that God has selected the nation Israel - the Mosaic generation - as one of His elect. It's not really geared to us but naturally we partake of its blessings/elements/principles (such as Christ the High Priest) insofar as we all partake of THE Covenant (with Abraham).

I know for sure is that Hebrews 7:9-10 helps to establish the truth that we were all condemned in Adam because we are genetically a part of him and we know that the curse of sin did not happen upon mankind yet until Adam ate of the wrong tree.

Get a sense of legitimate jurisprudence here. Only an evil God would curse men solely on the basis of genetics/biology.

 

[RickReads]

Jesus was clear that a regenerated heart CANNOT SIN.

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Therefore sin can only occur in those parts of the heart not yet regenerate.

You can`t reinvent the wheel.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, whether Levi actually paid tithes volitionally is a moot point. My system is flexible enough to allow for such.

This too is a moot point. Once we are legitimately guilty in Adam - as only MY definition of Adam allows - God is free to do with our souls pretty much whatever He wants. This is where factors like divine election and monergistic regeneration kick in. For example Israel is God's elect and thus all Israel will be saved (Rom 11). Is this genetic? If it were, it would still be a moot point in the debate because again, since we are guilty in Adam, God is free to determine our destiny. Incidentally it is NOT genetic, in my view, and the majority of modern Jews will NOT be saved (see Rom 9:6).

Rather the promises were made to ONE GENERATION of Israelites (the Moses era). All of THEM will be saved. But this is actually an everlasting generation because God keeps bringing back those who have not been saved - He will continue doing this at least until ALL of them are saved (Rom 11:26) as God's elect - no exceptions. This explains a number of passages difficult to otherwise address, for example:
(1) Christ claimed that His own generation of Jews would still be alive to see His second coming - Mat 24.
(2) He blamed His own generation of Jews for the slaying of OT prophets of previous generations (Mat 23).
(3) He made statements like this, "Some of you standing here will not taste death until the Son of man returns with His angels" and this, "You will not finish preaching in the streets of Israel when I return", and this, "When you see these signs in the sky, stand up and lift up your heads" - all these passages indicating an everlasting generation of Israelites/Jews.

This also means that any of our own souls could perhaps be a true Israelite - even if we don't remember living in the Moses era as an Israelite - just like we don't remember living in the garden as Adam.

Incorrect exegesis in my view. Abraham's descendants are his spiritual descendants of all nations, all the elect of all nations, justified by faith (Gal 3) - not justified by genetics. This Abrahamic Covenant/Promise is THE covenant/promise between Father and Son (3:16) and is, ultimately, the ONLY covenant of Scripture. All other covenants/promises - including Israel's old covenant and her new covenant - are products (subcovenants) of THE Covenant.

Israel's New Covenant is an explicit reaffirmation that God has selected the nation Israel - the Mosaic generation - as one of His elect. It's not really geared to us but naturally we partake of its blessings/elements/principles (such as Christ the High Priest) insofar as we all partake of THE Covenant (with Abraham).

Get a sense of legitimate jurisprudence here. Only an evil God would curse men solely on the basis of genetics/biology.

I already made my case with God's Holy Word. I am not going to keep going back and forth with you on a basic foundational truth that is tied to understanding the gospel itself. If you do not trust what I have stated with Scripture, then ask God for wisdom and understanding again on this very important topic. For it is a spiritual matter, and thus it requires spiritual understanding.

May God's love shine upon you today.

 

[RickReads]

Again, whether Levi actually paid tithes volitionally is a moot point. My system is flexible enough to allow for such.

This too is a moot point. Once we are legitimately guilty in Adam - as only MY definition of Adam allows - God is free to do with our souls pretty much whatever He wants. This is where factors like divine election and monergistic regeneration kick in. For example Israel is God's elect and thus all Israel will be saved (Rom 11). Is this genetic? If it were, it would still be a moot point in the debate because again, since we are guilty in Adam, God is free to determine our destiny. Incidentally it is NOT genetic, in my view, and the majority of modern Jews will NOT be saved (see Rom 9:6).

Rather the promises were made to ONE GENERATION of Israelites (the Moses era). All of THEM will be saved. But this is actually an everlasting generation because God keeps bringing back those who have not been saved - He will continue doing this at least until ALL of them are saved (Rom 11:26) as God's elect - no exceptions. This explains a number of passages difficult to otherwise address, for example:
(1) Christ claimed that His own generation of Jews would still be alive to see His second coming - Mat 24.
(2) He blamed His own generation of Jews for the slaying of OT prophets of previous generations (Mat 23).
(3) He made statements like this, "Some of you standing here will not taste death until the Son of man returns with His angels" and this, "You will not finish preaching in the streets of Israel when I return", and this, "When you see these signs in the sky, stand up and lift up your heads" - all these passages indicating an everlasting generation of Israelites/Jews.

This also means that any of our own souls could perhaps be a true Israelite - even if we don't remember living in the Moses era as an Israelite - just like we don't remember living in the garden as Adam.

Incorrect exegesis in my view. Abraham's descendants are his spiritual descendants of all nations, all the elect of all nations, justified by faith (Gal 3) - not justified by genetics. This Abrahamic Covenant/Promise is THE covenant/promise between Father and Son (3:16) and is, ultimately, the ONLY covenant of Scripture. All other covenants/promises - including Israel's old covenant and her new covenant - are products (subcovenants) of THE Covenant.

Israel's New Covenant is an explicit reaffirmation that God has selected the nation Israel - the Mosaic generation - as one of His elect. It's not really geared to us but naturally we partake of its blessings/elements/principles (such as Christ the High Priest) insofar as we all partake of THE Covenant (with Abraham).

Get a sense of legitimate jurisprudence here. Only an evil God would curse men solely on the basis of genetics/biology.

You can`t pick and choose which scriptures to believe in and have a legitimate theology.

 

[JAL]

I think you are trying to make things too black and white. I have always found Christianity to be a steps forward, steps backward process. That doesn`t make the desire of the heart bad. Mistakes are associated with lust of the flesh not the heart. i.e. spirit willing, flesh weak, doublemindedness. Especially when we are young, hard to keep the flesh under full control. So I believe you can have a purity of heart, the right desires, and still sin because the flesh is weak. This leads to the chastisement that the Bible says all partake of.

Holiness is not black and white to you? When we say that God is holy, this means he also might have a sinful nature? Calling someone holy-sinful is the same as calling them holy?

 

[JAL]

You can`t pick and choose which scriptures to believe in and have a legitimate theology.

No specifics. Ignored.

 

[RickReads]

Holiness is not black and white to you? When we say that God is holy, this means he also might have a sinful nature? Calling someone holy-sinful is the same as calling them holy?

Only one here who has suggested God could be sinful is you and man`s holiness is imperfect, Always a work in progress, very few attain that level of perfection in their works.

 

[JAL]

As I already demonstrated before, a father who does drugs (like: alcohol addiction) can pass on this addiction to their children. Is it fair? Well, in a world without God and without understanding His Word this would seem unfair.

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 mother 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.

 

[RickReads]

Holiness is not black and white to you? When we say that God is holy, this means he also might have a sinful nature? Calling someone holy-sinful is the same as calling them holy?

I thought this statement by another member, from another thread, is good.

"In Lutheranism we already have language that helps us address this situation. Namely, that there are two kinds of righteousness.

There is righteousness Coram Deo, or righteousness before God; i.e the righteousness by which one is reckoned just before God which we say is a "passive righteousness". In other words, it is a righteousness that we receive, not a righteousness which we do. It is Christ's own righteousness imputed to us as pure gift, received through faith. This is what Sola Fide means, that we are justified by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone. This is what St. Paul talks about when he speaks of our being justified through faith, and not by works. It is not a righteousness by the Law, that is a righteousness of works, but an imputed righteousness through faith--it is Christ's own righteousness. Christ's righteousness is ours as a gift, imputed to us, which we cleave to by faith, and thus we are counted as righteous before God.

There is also righteousness Coram Mundus, or righteousness before the world, or Coram Hominibus, before human beings. This is the righteousness of obedience to God's commandments, and thus it is an "active righteousness". This is the righteousness of our good works before the world, for the sake of our fellow man. This is what St. Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:10, that we have been created for good works in Christ Jesus, and it's what St. James is talking about in his epistle. The point James makes is that "just believing" isn't enough, after all even the devils believe and tremble; rather we demonstrate our faith through works, works for our neighbor, which is why James is concerned with living the Great Commandment, the Royal Law--"Love your neighbor as yourself", and condemns showing partiality based on wealth and class, and rebukes the hypocrisy of the human tongue. This is not righteousness before God which saves us, this is righteousness before our fellow man.

Before God the only righteousness that matters is the passive righteousness which we have received as pure gift, imputed to us by grace through faith, it is Christ's own righteousness.

Before the world the only righteousness that matters is the active righteousness that we are supposed to exhibit through good works done in love, motivated by our faith in Christ out of obedience to God's command.

Two kinds of righteousness."

Written By CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

Only one here who has suggested God could be sinful is you and man`s holiness is imperfect, Always a work in progress, very few attain that level of perfection in their works.

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".