PDA

View Full Version : The doctrine of subsequence


mizpeh
09-16-2013, 08:34 PM
I was listening to Greg Boyd teach this doctrine last night and the only verses he used to support it was 1 Cor 12:3 and Eph 1:13.

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/calling-down-fire

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

This verse is speaking of people who are actually speaking by the Spirit as in prophecy or interpretation of tongues. Paul used these to point to those who are not speaking by the Spirit of God and those who are speaking by the Spirit of God. So if someone is giving prophecy by an evil spirit they cannot say by that evil spirit that "Jesus is Lord". And likewise is someone is giving a prophecy by the Spirit of God, they will not say that "Jesus is accursed". This verse has nothing to do with a confession of faith in Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now this verse doesn't specify how long "after" is.

Are there any other verses that people who teach the doctrine of subsequence use in support of their doctrine?

Esaias
09-17-2013, 08:32 AM
I was listening to Greg Boyd teach this doctrine last night and the only verses he used to support it was 1 Cor 12:3 and Eph 1:13.

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/calling-down-fire

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

This verse is speaking of people who are actually speaking by the Spirit as in prophecy or interpretation of tongues. Paul used these to point to those who are not speaking by the Spirit of God and those who are speaking by the Spirit of God. So if someone is giving prophecy by an evil spirit they cannot say by that evil spirit that "Jesus is Lord". And likewise is someone is giving a prophecy by the Spirit of God, they will not say that "Jesus is accursed". This verse has nothing to do with a confession of faith in Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now this verse doesn't specify how long "after" is.

Are there any other verses that people who teach the doctrine of subsequence use in support of their doctrine?

What is this 'doctrine of subsequence'?

Originalist
09-17-2013, 08:54 AM
What is this 'doctrine of subsequence'?

That the baptism in the Spirit is a work of grace subsequent to the new birth. The AoG and CoG teach this. I used to, but later rejected it.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 09:00 AM
I was listening to Greg Boyd teach this doctrine last night and the only verses he used to support it was 1 Cor 12:3 and Eph 1:13.

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/calling-down-fire

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

This verse is speaking of people who are actually speaking by the Spirit as in prophecy or interpretation of tongues. Paul used these to point to those who are not speaking by the Spirit of God and those who are speaking by the Spirit of God. So if someone is giving prophecy by an evil spirit they cannot say by that evil spirit that "Jesus is Lord". And likewise is someone is giving a prophecy by the Spirit of God, they will not say that "Jesus is accursed". This verse has nothing to do with a confession of faith in Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now this verse doesn't specify how long "after" is.

Are there any other verses that people who teach the doctrine of subsequence use in support of their doctrine?

I don't see where he sees the doctrine of subsequence in Eph 1:13. So is he saying then that those who have "accepted Christ" are "saved", but have not yet been "sealed"? That makes no sense. Perhaps he should consider how Eph 1:13 reads in other versions of the Bible. Take the New Living Bible for instance....

13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own[d] by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.

14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people.

How can one have been "saved" without God having "identified them as his own" or giving them "the guarantee of an inheritence, and that they've been purchased to be one of his people"?

houston
09-17-2013, 09:02 AM
People receive the Spirit by/at the point of faith. The HGB is a separate experience.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 09:04 AM
People receive the Spirit by/at the point of faith. The HGB is a separate experience.

Again, I used to teach that, but later rejected it.

Please explain your stance scripturally.

Ferd
09-17-2013, 09:09 AM
Who is Greg Boyd. I would like to know so I can figure out if this is someone I should be concerned with.

houston
09-17-2013, 09:14 AM
Who is Greg Boyd. I would like to know so I can figure out if this is someone I should be concerned with.

He's not in your denomination.

Aquila
09-17-2013, 09:26 AM
I don't buy the idea that Holy Ghost baptism is a subsequent experience in relation to some form of initial salvation. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is essentially being born of the Spirit. Now, as it relates to initial evidence, I believe that the typical evidence is tongues. I'll accept "stammering lips" in that a person experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost often holds back, afraid of what it will sound like, or doesn't honestly understand what is happening to them. I simply do not see Holy Ghost baptism being a subsequent experience.

Aquila
09-17-2013, 09:30 AM
The AoG and CoG embraced the doctrine of subsequence to accommodate the growing "Pentecostal experience" within their ranks. However, it began to create two separate classes of Christians, those simply born again and those with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Bible doesn't make this distinction and those who were viewed as being simply born again felt like second class citizens. If taught like this.... it becomes divisive to a body. So... instead of embracing that the Holy Ghost baptism was being born of the Spirit and encouraging all to experience this reality... they abandoned the teaching to keep unity within their denominational ranks.

Chateau d'If
09-17-2013, 03:23 PM
The doctrine of subsequence is laced throughout the first Pentecostal experiences.

In Acts 1, Jesus told believers to go and tarry for the promise. It would be a gross miscalculation to teach that those believers were headed to Hell before and unless they went to the Upper Room and spoke with tongues.

Please note that this command was given AFTER the resurrection.

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This passage is not about salvation, it's about subsequent power to witness.

Esaias
09-17-2013, 04:25 PM
The doctrine of subsequence is laced throughout the first Pentecostal experiences.

In Acts 1, Jesus told believers to go and tarry for the promise. It would be a gross miscalculation to teach that those believers were headed to Hell before and unless they went to the Upper Room and spoke with tongues.



And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

Sarah
09-17-2013, 05:26 PM
And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

Amen, Esaias! It's amazing, isn't it?

Pressing-On
09-17-2013, 05:32 PM
And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptized with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.
HEAR, HEAR!!!!

:rooting :rooting

navygoat1998
09-17-2013, 06:43 PM
And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

Honestly I will say that many here are much smarter and well versed on the scriptures and I respect your deep degree of study.

I don't understand how any professing Pentecostal can't see Salvation at repentance.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 06:52 PM
The doctrine of subsequence is laced throughout the first Pentecostal experiences.

In Acts 1, Jesus told believers to go and tarry for the promise. It would be a gross miscalculation to teach that those believers were headed to Hell before and unless they went to the Upper Room and spoke with tongues.

Please note that this command was given AFTER the resurrection.

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This passage is not about salvation, it's about subsequent power to witness.

Again, I once held to your view. I have not since 1992.

Jesus did not tell his disciples in verse 8, "I'm going to give you power to witness". Rather, he told them that they would "BE witnesses". This denotes a state of BEING. And what would their lives bear witness to after that the Spirit came upon them? His resurrection.

Previously, in John chapters 3 and 4, Jesus linked receiving new birth/eternal life to the receiving of the Spirit. In John 7 it was made clear that the Spirit would not be available until he entered into his glory. He never broke up the Spirit's entering a believer into two parts.

navygoat1998
09-17-2013, 06:55 PM
Again, I once held to your view. I have not since 1992.

Jesus did not tell his disciples in verse 8, "I'm going to give you power to witness". Rather, he told them that they would "BE witnesses". This denotes a state of BEING. And what would their lives bear witness to after that the Spirit came upon them? His resurrection.

Previously, in John chapters 3 and 4, Jesus linked receiving new birth/eternal life to the receiving of the Spirit. He never broke up the Spirit's entering a believer into two parts.

That poster once held your current view.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 07:01 PM
That poster once held your current view.

That's fine. I wish he would be so kind as to show us where Jesus split the receiving of the Spirit into two parts.

I never had the mental baggage of having been abused, or having witnessed abuse in the UPCI to have to sort through. Maybe he did.

navygoat1998
09-17-2013, 07:04 PM
That's fine. I wish he would be so kind as to show us where Jesus split the receiving of the Spirit into two parts.

I never had the mental baggage of having been abused, or having witnessed abuse in the UPCI to have to sort through. Maybe he did.

I know you saw it in the AG and it still weighs on you and made it easier for to support your new doctrine of faith.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 07:08 PM
I know you saw it in the AG and it still weighs on you and made it easier for to support your new doctrine of faith.

I've never thought of that. What I always felt drew me to the UPC originally was that I knew the AoG was becoming less and less Pentecostal.

navygoat1998
09-17-2013, 07:15 PM
I've never thought of that. What I always felt drew me to the UPC originally was that I knew the AoG was becoming less and less Pentecostal.

Bro I can see that. That is why I love our church, it is very Pentecostal, even this last Sunday the Holy Ghost moved and fell. I have been blessed that all the AG churches we have been a part of have been very Pentecostal.

God knows the desire of my heart. :heeheehee

Next month Pastor Tommy Bates will be preaching at our church.

Been praying for wisdom for you. God has a home for you and your family.

renee819
09-17-2013, 07:16 PM
I don't buy the idea that Holy Ghost baptism is a subsequent experience in relation to some form of initial salvation. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is essentially being born of the Spirit. Now, as it relates to initial evidence, I believe that the typical evidence is tongues. I'll accept "stammering lips" in that a person experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost often holds back, afraid of what it will sound like, or doesn't honestly understand what is happening to them. I simply do not see Holy Ghost baptism being a subsequent experience.

Right Aquila, It takes all three steps that Peter and the Book of Acts brings out, for a person to be born of the water an the Spirit.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 07:19 PM
Bro I can see that. That is why I love our church, it is very Pentecostal, even this last Sunday the Holy Ghost moved and fell. I have been blessed that all the AG churches we have been a part of have been very Pentecostal.

God knows the desire of my heart. :heeheehee

Next month Pastor Tommy Bates will be preaching at our church.

Been praying for wisdom for you. God has a home for you and your family.

Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if I fit in anywhere. But God knows where I truly belong.

houston
09-17-2013, 07:21 PM
Right Aquila, It takes all three steps that Peter and the Book of Acts brings out, for a person to be born of the water an the Spirit.

Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.

houston
09-17-2013, 07:22 PM
Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if I fit in anywhere. But God knows where I truly belong.

Some people (me) don't fit anywhere.

renee819
09-17-2013, 07:27 PM
And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

AMEN!!! We have got to hold onto that FOUNDATION.

Originalist
09-17-2013, 07:33 PM
Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.

I agree.

renee819
09-17-2013, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by renee819
Right Aquila, It takes all three steps that Peter and the Book of Acts brings out, for a person to be born of the water an the Spirit.

Houston wrote,
Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.

Then Houston, Please tell me, after Jesus poured out the Holy Ghost at Cornelius house, why did Peter then baptize them in water, if “Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.”????

renee819
09-17-2013, 07:40 PM
Originalist wrote,
Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if I fit in anywhere. But God knows where I truly belong.

And I'm in the same boat. I don't feel that I fit anywhere.

houston
09-17-2013, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by renee819
.

Houston wrote,
.

Then Houston, Please tell me, after Jesus poured out the Holy Ghost at Cornelius house, why did Peter then baptize them in water, if “Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.”????

I would tell you, but you like to boast about your studying for over 50 years. So, I conclude that it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

houston
09-17-2013, 07:44 PM
I agree.

My my my...

Pressing-On
09-17-2013, 09:02 PM
Then Houston, Please tell me, after Jesus poured out the Holy Ghost at Cornelius house, why did Peter then baptize them in water, if “Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.”????

I would tell you, but you like to boast about your studying for over 50 years. So, I conclude that it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

If you won't answer Renee, I am ALL eyes and ears, Brutha. Please do explain your position to me. I am just dying to read your explanation.

houston
09-17-2013, 09:05 PM
If you won't answer Renee, I am ALL eyes and ears, Brutha. Please do explain your position to me. I am just dying to read your explanation.

I don't like the perceived tone that I am picking up from your post.

Pressing-On
09-17-2013, 09:06 PM
I don't like the perceived tone that I am picking up from your post.

:toofunny

Answer the question, boy.

navygoat1998
09-17-2013, 09:06 PM
I don't like the perceived tone that I am picking up from your post.

Don't worry about her she cuts her hair and paints her face.......:heeheehee

Pressing-On
09-17-2013, 09:07 PM
Don't worry about her she cuts her hair and paints her face.......:heeheehee
:toofunny

Originalist
09-17-2013, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by renee819
.

Houston wrote,
.

Then Houston, Please tell me, after Jesus poured out the Holy Ghost at Cornelius house, why did Peter then baptize them in water, if “Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.”????

In the next chapter (John 4) Jesus clarifies what the water is, the Holy Ghost.

However, this does not negate other verses that clearly teach the necessity of baptism as a step towards the new birth.

Luke
09-18-2013, 10:12 AM
There are two subsequent works after salvation namely

1. Entire Sanctification.

2. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Esaias
09-18-2013, 10:52 AM
To those who believe receiving the Spirit occurs 'after' salvation, I ask:

Please explain, from the Bible, where or how a person receives the Spirit before receiving the Spirit? As I showed earlier, the apostles understood 'receiving the Spirit' to be synonymous with what we call 'the baptism with the Holy Ghost'. So how can one have (or 'get') the Spirit before receiving the Spirit?

Ferd
09-18-2013, 11:40 AM
I prefer the doctrine of sustainance.

I obeyed it today at Orental Wok.
Number 14 Spicy Fried Chicken! YUM....


ive been eating that about once a week for the last 13 years.

Originalist
09-18-2013, 11:47 AM
There are two subsequent works after salvation namely

1. Entire Sanctification.

2. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Church of God teaches this. The AoG does not hold to the entire sanctification view.

KWSS1976
09-18-2013, 12:12 PM
Orig..How does the AOG not hold to the entire sanctitication view?

Esaias
09-18-2013, 12:30 PM
Orig..How does the AOG not hold to the entire sanctitication view?

They drink coffee, don't they? Thus they deny entire sankafication.

Originalist
09-18-2013, 12:31 PM
Orig..How does the AOG not hold to the entire sanctitication view?

The AoG teaches that sanctification is a progressive work of grace. The CoG, and other Pentecostal groups influenced by Weslean holiness doctrine, teach that sanctification is a instananeous work of grace which occurs after salvation, but before Holy Ghost baptism.

KWSS1976
09-18-2013, 12:40 PM
You lost me with the Progressive/instananeous work of Grace...Explain a little more, as I understand it the AOG is influenced by the Weslean Holiness doctrine also.

KWSS1976
09-18-2013, 12:57 PM
"They drink coffee, don't they? Thus they deny entire sankafication"...LOL have not seen any Sanka coffee in forever...

Luke
09-18-2013, 01:02 PM
You lost me with the Progressive/instananeous work of Grace...Explain a little more

In a nutshell those who would identify with the wesleyan view of sanctification teach that when a person gets saved all of the actual sin (sins they actually commited) are forgiven and removed but they still retain thier carnal/fallen/sinful nature (otherwise known as original sin). After salvation wesleyan holiness holds that there is a second work of grace call entire sanctification. This work is completed in an instant and it accomplishes the removal of the carnal nature and makes a man holy.

The AoG on the other hand hold that sanctification is a progressive growth that is never complete until death or the rapture.

kclee4jc
09-18-2013, 01:07 PM
You lost me with the Progressive/instananeous work of Grace...Explain a little more, as I understand it the AOG is influenced by the Weslean Holiness doctrine also.

AoG as well as most Oneness groups bought into William Durham's finished work theology. Granted, majority of the oneness apply finished work theology differently than AoG.

To Pentecostal Wesleyan(CoG, Pentecostal Holiness) groups there is
-Salvation
-Sanctification
-Baptism of the Holy Ghost

Subsequence Non Wesleyan Pentecostals such as the AoG see
-Salvation
-Baptism of the Holy Ghost

KWSS1976
09-18-2013, 01:25 PM
But the AOG is Wesleyan? Per Wiki..below

General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America or Assemblies of God USA (AG) is a Pentecostal Christian denomination in the United States founded in 1914 during a meeting of Pentecostal ministers at Hot Springs, Arkansas. The Assemblies of God USA is the U.S. branch of the World Assemblies of God Fellowship, the world's largest Pentecostal body. The Assemblies of God was the ninth largest denomination in the United States in 2011 and "has grown steadily during the 20th century" to a constituency of 3 million.[3][5][6]

The Assemblies of God holds to a conservative, evangelical and Arminian theology as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Truths and position papers, which emphasize such core Pentecostal doctrines as the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, divine healing and the Second Coming of Christ.[7][8] It defines for itself a fourfold mission to evangelize, worship God, disciple believers, and show compassion.[9]

The fellowship's polity is a hybrid of presbyterian and congregational models.[1][2] This tension between local independence and national authority is seen in the AG's historical reluctance to refer to itself as a denomination, preferring the terms fellowship and movement.[10] The national headquarters are in Springfield, Missouri, where the administrative and executive offices and Gospel Publishing House are located. It maintains relationships with other Pentecostal groups at both regional and national levels through the Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America and the Pentecostal World Fellowship. It is also a member of the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium and the National Association of Evangelicals.[11][12]

kclee4jc
09-18-2013, 01:28 PM
It does not believe the Wesleyan view of "entire sancitification"
All of the modern Pentecostal movement has some Wesleyan influence.

kclee4jc
09-18-2013, 01:29 PM
In a nutshell those who would identify with the wesleyan view of sanctification teach that when a person gets saved all of the actual sin (sins they actually commited) are forgiven and removed but they still retain thier carnal/fallen/sinful nature (otherwise known as original sin). After salvation wesleyan holiness holds that there is a second work of grace call entire sanctification. This work is completed in an instant and it accomplishes the removal of the carnal nature and makes a man holy.

The AoG on the other hand hold that sanctification is a progressive growth that is never complete until death or the rapture.

Luke- do you believe that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is the New Birth experience or a distinct experience from salvation?

Luke
09-18-2013, 01:36 PM
I believe that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost like sanctification is a distinct work.

kclee4jc
09-18-2013, 01:40 PM
I believe that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost like sanctification is a distinct work.

oooooh..... ok got ya
And where does Jesus Name baptism fit into this?

I don't think I have ever met anyone who was Oneness that believe sanctification and Baptism of the Holy Ghost as distinct works. I'm kinda curious bout this..lol

Luke
09-18-2013, 01:44 PM
Baptism in water is neither the baptism in the Holy Ghost nor is it entire sanctification. Baptism in water is obedience to God while the other two are both works wrought by God.

kclee4jc
09-18-2013, 01:49 PM
Baptism in water is neither the baptism in the Holy Ghost nor is it entire sanctification. Baptism in water is obedience to God while the other two are both works wrought by God.

I just did a quick search on your posts and realized that you're trinitarian. Don't know how that slipped by me..lol
Sorry for the confusion.

I will say that I don't necessarily agree with every point of the Wesleyan sanctification doctrine, but Pentecost lost something when the majority accepted Durham's finished work theology. I commend you on your teaching of holiness. Love to converse sometime on this but its time to leave work now! lol :happydance

Esaias
09-18-2013, 02:53 PM
I will say that I don't necessarily agree with every point of the Wesleyan sanctification doctrine, but Pentecost lost something when the majority accepted Durham's finished work theology. I commend you on your teaching of holiness. Love to converse sometime on this but its time to leave work now! lol :happydance

Actually, that's not true. What happened was those who followed after Durham lost what HE HIMSELF taught about sanctification. His 'finished work' doctrine was a doctrine of instantaneous, entire sanctification available to any believer the moment they had faith to receive, since it was made possible at the cross. Thus, he rejected the NECESSITY of a SECOND, post-conversion work of sanctification, but taught you could have it all the hour you first believed...

He maintained his testimony of entire sanctification, taught it vigorously, and after his untimely death those who claimed to follow his view twisted it into something he would never have recognized as biblical.

Luke
09-18-2013, 10:06 PM
Actually, that's not true. What happened was those who followed after Durham lost what HE HIMSELF taught about sanctification. His 'finished work' doctrine was a doctrine of instantaneous, entire sanctification available to any believer the moment they had faith to receive, since it was made possible at the cross. Thus, he rejected the NECESSITY of a SECOND, post-conversion work of sanctification, but taught you could have it all the hour you first believed...

He maintained his testimony of entire sanctification, taught it vigorously, and after his untimely death those who claimed to follow his view twisted it into something he would never have recognized as biblical.

That makes no sense for a couple of reasons:

First inorder to say that it is a complete and instantaneous work it has to be a second work or at the very least a subsequent work to salvation. The Bible calls Christians to holiness not sinners. Also how can a person be sanctified without first being saved? Unless one believed in holy sinners. At the point of salvation we come as separated sinners whereas at the point of sanctification we come as ingrafted family members.

Jermyn Davidson
09-18-2013, 10:42 PM
I believe that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost like sanctification is a distinct work.

Luke, something I have been wanting to ask you for a while is:

1) Where are you from?
2) Who is the lovely lady in your pic?

She looks very familiar to me.

Luke
09-19-2013, 07:12 AM
Luke, something I have been wanting to ask you for a while is:

1) Where are you from?
2) Who is the lovely lady in your pic?

She looks very familiar to me.

1. Im from east Texas kinda between Tyler and Dallas.
2. She is my wife but she lived in the Dayton Ohio area until we were married last december 1st and yes she is very lovely. :)

Jermyn Davidson
09-19-2013, 08:59 AM
1. Im from east Texas kinda between Tyler and Dallas.
2. She is my wife but she lived in the Dayton Ohio area until we were married last december 1st and yes she is very lovely. :)

She is very beautiful and you are very blessed. I've never lived in Ohio, but have visited WVa extensively and lived in NC. I was thinking that maybe I may have met her once, years ago, in NC.

Esaias
09-19-2013, 09:11 AM
That makes no sense for a couple of reasons:

That's what his Wesleyan brethren said as well. lol

First inorder to say that it is a complete and instantaneous work it has to be a second work or at the very least a subsequent work to salvation.

No it does not. If entire sanctification is a definite, instantaneous work, then it does not follow that it must be subsequent to anything. Subsequence may be true, but not because sanctification is an instantaneous work.

The Bible calls Christians to holiness not sinners.

So God does not expect sinners to be saved from their uncleanness and filthiness and made clean, pure, and holy unto God?

I think you are splitting the work of God in salvation into component parts and separating them. I do not see the Bible doing this. There is no place where the apostles taught 'sanctification is a SECOND definite work of grace'. Why didn't they? Why did they not speak of sanctification the same way the 'second work' believers speak of it?

Durham's teaching did not say sinners can be sanctified before being saved. His teaching was that justification, sanctification, regeneration, the baptism with the Holy Ghost, healing, all of it, was provided for at the Cross. (Who can disagree with that?) And therefore, each of those benefits from God are made available to the believer - the BELIEVER, ie one who has faith in Christ. And they depend on the person's faith. Thus, a person who has faith to believe in God for the forgiveness of their sins can have it, but if they also have faith in God for their entire sanctification, they can have that too. Thus he taught there is no NEED for a 'two step process'. While he admitted that most who experienced sanctification experienced it some time AFTER first coming to Christ, he taught this was only due to their lack of faith and/or lack of teaching and understanding.

Read this to find out the truth about Durham and the finished Work controversy - http://www.finestofthewheat.org/Jim_Kerwin/The_Rejected_Blessing.php

Luke
09-19-2013, 11:57 AM
That's what his Wesleyan brethren said as well. lol

:)




No it does not. If entire sanctification is a definite, instantaneous work, then it does not follow that it must be subsequent to anything. Subsequence may be true, but not because sanctification is an instantaneous work.

One must be saved before they are made holy. To say otherwise makes no sense. Can one be a holy sinner?




So God does not expect sinners to be saved from their uncleanness and filthiness and made clean, pure, and holy unto God?

Yes God expects sinners to be saved then He expects christians to be holy.
How could expect a sinner to be what he cannot be? In other words how a sinful individual be a holy individual. Before he can be holy he must do something with all of his sin.




I think you are splitting the work of God in salvation into component parts and separating them. I do not see the Bible doing this. There is no place where the apostles taught 'sanctification is a SECOND definite work of grace'. Why didn't they? Why did they not speak of sanctification the same way the 'second work' believers speak of it?

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.


Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.


2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.



Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.




Durham's teaching did not say sinners can be sanctified before being saved. His teaching was that justification, sanctification, regeneration, the baptism with the Holy Ghost, healing, all of it, was provided for at the Cross. (Who can disagree with that?) And therefore, each of those benefits from God are made available to the believer - the BELIEVER, ie one who has faith in Christ. And they depend on the person's faith.(1) Thus, a person who has faith to believe in God for the forgiveness of their sins can have it, but (2) if they also have faith in God for their entire sanctification, they can have that too. Thus he taught there is no NEED for a 'two step process'. While he admitted that most who experienced sanctification experienced it some time AFTER first coming to Christ, he taught this was only due to their lack of faith and/or lack of teaching and understanding.

Even here there is the doctrine of a subsequence second work. The only way to say that it is not second work is to say they are the same work.

Aquila
09-20-2013, 07:57 AM
Now that ya' settled it in yer little pea pickin' heart to love God and have discovered that you've fallen in love with others, it's time to move to the next step. If ya want to know how to be sanctified just settle yer self down and take a gander at the followin'...

1. There is a God, you ain’t Him; don’t forget it.

2. Don’t let nothing come between you and God; not your Bass Boat, not your Pick-Up Truck, not your golf clubs: not even your wife & kids.

3. Don’t say nothing bad about God; don’t use His name in a bad way.

4 One day out of yer week is the Lord’s Day, not your day. Every other day is your day.

5 Always be good to yo’ mama, and yo’ daddy.

6. Don’t kill nobody, even if they need killin'. Leave that up to God.

7. Keep yo’ pants zipped up when they ought to be zipped up. That means no "girlfriends" behind ma's back.

8. Don’t take nothing that ain’t yours.

9. Don’t lie, and don’t be talking bad about people. Remember what your Grandmama use to say, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

10. Don’t be eyeballing anything that belongs to your neighbor, or anybody else. Just be happy with what ya' got and thank heaven's you don't have less.

If ya can do these things, yer perfect and fully sanctified. Have y'all a blessed day.

Luke
09-20-2013, 08:14 AM
Now that ya' settled it in yer little pea pickin' heart to love God and have discovered that you've fallen in love with others, it's time to move to the next step. If ya want to know how to be sanctified just settle yer self down and take a gander at the followin'...

1. There is a God, you ain’t Him; don’t forget it.

2. Don’t let nothing come between you and God; not your Bass Boat, not your Pick-Up Truck, not your golf clubs: not even your wife & kids.

3. Don’t say nothing bad about God; don’t use His name in a bad way.

4 One day out of yer week is the Lord’s Day, not your day. Every other day is your day.

5 Always be good to yo’ mama, and yo’ daddy.

6. Don’t kill nobody, even if they need killin'. Leave that up to God.

7. Keep yo’ pants zipped up when they ought to be zipped up. That means no "girlfriends" behind ma's back.

8. Don’t take nothing that ain’t yours.

9. Don’t lie, and don’t be talking bad about people. Remember what your Grandmama use to say, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

10. Don’t be eyeballing anything that belongs to your neighbor, or anybody else. Just be happy with what ya' got and thank heaven's you don't have less.

If ya can do these things, yer perfect and fully sanctified. Have y'all a blessed day.

A rather new spin on the ten commandments lol.

Those would invovle righteousness not holiness.

Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Esaias
09-20-2013, 08:28 AM
:)






Even here there is the doctrine of a subsequence second work. The only way to say that it is not second work is to say they are the same work.

Then it's purely a quibbling over terms.

Did you read the article at the link I posted? It's a really good article.

Luke
09-20-2013, 09:24 AM
Then it's purely a quibbling over terms.

Did you read the article at the link I posted? It's a really good article.

I did read a lot of it. It was interestring. I had just read pretty much the same article on the day before on the wesite enterhisrest.org .

No it is not a quibbling over terms the two works do two different things and the one must of necessity proceed the other. Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

As a side note a really good place to find alot of old wesleyan books for free download as a pdf or you can get a power point dvd with all of the books for free (they will accept a freewill offering for the dvd if you want to donate but it is not required) is wesley.nnu.edu then go to the holiness classic library link. After that you can scroll by author. Some of my favorites are by Carradine and Knapp but there are also some called how they entered in to rest that are just testimonies to entire sanctification.

Esaias
09-20-2013, 09:57 AM
I did read a lot of it. It was interestring. I had just read pretty much the same article on the day before on the wesite enterhisrest.org .

That's a really good website too. One of my favorites.

No it is not a quibbling over terms the two works do two different things and the one must of necessity proceed the other. Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

I meant it's a quibbling over terms as far as the issue of Durham vs Wesleyan traditions.

As a side note a really good place to find alot of old wesleyan books for free download as a pdf or you can get a power point dvd with all of the books for free (they will accept a freewill offering for the dvd if you want to donate but it is not required) is wesley.nnu.edu then go to the holiness classic library link. After that you can scroll by author. Some of my favorites are by Carradine and Knapp but there are also some called how they entered in to rest that are just testimonies to entire sanctification.

Yes, I have been there too, a really good website. Carradine is really good.

Now, about this - Did you check out the scriptures that i pointed out that show two distinct works?

Give me a minute and I will get back to you on that.

Esaias
09-20-2013, 10:24 AM
:)


Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

This was Paul's evangelistic mission, to preach the gospel to the nations. I see no doctrine of subsequence here, they were to (by believing the gospel) receive remission of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. The word 'and' does not imply subsequence. This verse is speaking of people who have no inheritance in the Israel of God (that is, people who are unregenerate pagans) receiving the forgiveness of their sins and being made a part of the commonwealth of Israel (the church, those who have been 'set apart' and 'consecrated' unto God, by faith in Christ).

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

This cannot be subsequence. Otherwise, those who have had their sins remitted, who are 'in Christ', can be said to also be 'unrenewed in the spirit of their mind' and to have NOT 'put on the new man'.

I remember reading an article called something like 'What they call sanctification is only justification', and the author was saying that many who 'teach sanctification' as ending the former conversation and 'putting on the new man' are only describing initial salvation, not entire sanctification. The author was a Wesleyan holiness preacher, and was pointing out that a person who had not 'stopped sinning' had not even been justified yet, let alone sanctified.

Anyway, verse 21 is the connection, Paul is repeating the fundamental teaching of Christ.

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Thus, Paul is reminding them of the basic gospel teaching - put off the old way, be renewed, walk in the new way. This is not a doctrine of subsequent, post conversion, post-salvation sanctification experience.


Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.

The perfection spoken of here has to do with knowledge and doctrine, not experiences of a "second definite work of grace." The apostle wanted them to move on past the basic doctrines (which include the doctrines of 'baptisms' by the way...)

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

This is not subsequence! This is saying we have boldness to enter into the true holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus in contrast to what was portrayed under the old covenant Day of Atonement rituals, where the high priest alone went in once a year.

Verse 4 of that chapter reads - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The context is remission of sins, not a second work after remission of sins.

hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

This is about leaving the old covenant and going 'outside the camp' of Judaism unto Christ, in the new way.

Notice though that the sanctification is provided by the same events and the same work as that which provides forgiveness - the Cross.


2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

If this describes a subsequent work of sanctification, then those who are 'born again' but not yet 'sanctified' are those who have not partaken of the divine nature and have not escaped the corruption of the world. But that means they are no different than the heathen.

Also, it does not actually say or teach a SUBSEQUENT work. Where is the actual words of the apostles saying anything to the effect that 'you have been born again, justified, but you are not sanctified, and need another shot of the Cross?'


[quote]Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

No subsequence here, rather a declaration that at the judgement, you will forever be what you are - either lost, or saved, filthy, or clean, unholy, or holy.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in entire sanctification.

I just do not believe it MUST be a 'second definite work coming after salvation, regeneration, justification, etc.'

Justification, regeneration, sanctification, cleansing, adoption, conversion, etc are all different terms describing different aspects of SALVATION, accomplished by Christ on the cross and available to us by faith.

Look here:

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This was in reference to this:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The Gentiles heard the gospel. They believed, were 'granted repentance unto life', received the Holy Ghost, had their hearts purified by faith, got the Baptism with the Holy Ghost... ALL IN ONE SHOT. BECAUSE of that, they were baptised. How did Peter know all these things happened? Because, in chapter 10 verse 47 it says they 'heard them speak with tongues and magnify God'.

They received it all in that Pentecostal baptism with the Holy Ghost. The only 'subsequent' thing that happened was they were baptized in water, in Jesus' name.

Thus, no subsequence necessary for sanctification.

Originalist
09-20-2013, 10:38 AM
This was Paul's evangelistic mission, to preach the gospel to the nations. I see no doctrine of subsequence here, they were to (by believing the gospel) receive remission of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. The word 'and' does not imply subsequence. This verse is speaking of people who have no inheritance in the Israel of God (that is, people who are unregenerate pagans) receiving the forgiveness of their sins and being made a part of the commonwealth of Israel (the church, those who have been 'set apart' and 'consecrated' unto God, by faith in Christ).



This cannot be subsequence. Otherwise, those who have had their sins remitted, who are 'in Christ', can be said to also be 'unrenewed in the spirit of their mind' and to have NOT 'put on the new man'.

I remember reading an article called something like 'What they call sanctification is only justification', and the author was saying that many who 'teach sanctification' as ending the former conversation and 'putting on the new man' are only describing initial salvation, not entire sanctification. The author was a Wesleyan holiness preacher, and was pointing out that a person who had not 'stopped sinning' had not even been justified yet, let alone sanctified.

Anyway, verse 21 is the connection, Paul is repeating the fundamental teaching of Christ.

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Thus, Paul is reminding them of the basic gospel teaching - put off the old way, be renewed, walk in the new way. This is not a doctrine of subsequent, post conversion, post-salvation sanctification experience.




The perfection spoken of here has to do with knowledge and doctrine, not experiences of a "second definite work of grace." The apostle wanted them to move on past the basic doctrines (which include the doctrines of 'baptisms' by the way...)



This is not subsequence! This is saying we have boldness to enter into the true holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus in contrast to what was portrayed under the old covenant Day of Atonement rituals, where the high priest alone went in once a year.

Verse 4 of that chapter reads - For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The context is remission of sins, not a second work after remission of sins.



This is about leaving the old covenant and going 'outside the camp' of Judaism unto Christ, in the new way.

Notice though that the sanctification is provided by the same events and the same work as that which provides forgiveness - the Cross.




If this describes a subsequent work of sanctification, then those who are 'born again' but not yet 'sanctified' are those who have not partaken of the divine nature and have not escaped the corruption of the world. But that means they are no different than the heathen.

Also, it does not actually say or teach a SUBSEQUENT work. Where is the actual words of the apostles saying anything to the effect that 'you have been born again, justified, but you are not sanctified, and need another shot of the Cross?'


[quote]Revelation 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

No subsequence here, rather a declaration that at the judgement, you will forever be what you are - either lost, or saved, filthy, or clean, unholy, or holy.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in entire sanctification.

I just do not believe it MUST be a 'second definite work coming after salvation, regeneration, justification, etc.'

Justification, regeneration, sanctification, cleansing, adoption, conversion, etc are all different terms describing different aspects of SALVATION, accomplished by Christ on the cross and available to us by faith.

Look here:

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This was in reference to this:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The Gentiles heard the gospel. They believed, were 'granted repentance unto life', received the Holy Ghost, had their hearts purified by faith, got the Baptism with the Holy Ghost... ALL IN ONE SHOT. BECAUSE of that, they were baptised. How did Peter know all these things happened? Because, in chapter 10 verse 47 it says they 'heard them speak with tongues and magnify God'.

They received it all in that Pentecostal baptism with the Holy Ghost. The only 'subsequent' thing that happened was they were baptized in water, in Jesus' name.

Thus, no subsequence necessary for sanctification.

I'm glad to see that someone finally understands that it is at Spirit baptism that our hearts are literally made pure by faith. God's precense is a purifying precense. Our God is a consuming fire. It is at that point also that new heart is created within us by this purifying precense of God. Again, their hearts were purified BY FAITH. Faith in what? Jesus and his shed blood. The blood is "applied" by the agency of the Spirit. There is no literal "cleansing blood" touching anyone.

Aquila
09-20-2013, 10:51 AM
A rather new spin on the ten commandments lol.

Those would invovle righteousness not holiness.

Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Hebrews 7:11
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Exactly. So... how do we sanctify ourselves? What rules must we follow?

Esaias
09-20-2013, 11:00 AM
I'm glad to see that someone finally understands that it is at Spirit baptism that our hearts are literally made pure by faith. God's precense is a purifying precense. Our God is a consuming fire. It is at that point also that new heart is created within us by this purifying precense of God. Again, their hearts were purified BY FAITH. Faith in what? Jesus and his shed blood. The blood is "applied" by the agency of the Spirit. There is no literal "cleansing blood" touching anyone.

It's weird. When I got the Holy Ghost, at the time I didn't know that was what it was called (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost). But I spoke in tongues, praised God, and got funny looks from the Baptist preacher lol.

Looking back, I believe I was 'entirely sanctified' in that experience. I had all the 'symptoms' if you will of what those holiness preachers called 'sanctification'. Of course, at the time, I had ZERO idea what that was all about. But I cannot help but believe that 'whatever you need from God it's in the holy Ghost'.

Interestingly enough, Durham said when he got the holy Ghost, from that moment on he could never preach sanctification as a 'SECOND' work, but had to believe everything is available by faith as soon as you are able to believe.

It's been a long journey since then, and unfortunately I cannot claim to have 'held onto' everything I got the entire time since then. But I know He who began a good work in me will complete it unto the end.

Praise the name of the Lord.

Luke
09-20-2013, 05:18 PM
Exactly. So... how do we sanctify ourselves? What rules must we follow?

Not rules rather it is by faith in Jesus and in His blood.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

mizpeh
09-22-2013, 06:32 AM
I don't see where he sees the doctrine of subsequence in Eph 1:13. So is he saying then that those who have "accepted Christ" are "saved", but have not yet been "sealed"? That makes no sense. Perhaps he should consider how Eph 1:13 reads in other versions of the Bible. Take the New Living Bible for instance....



How can one have been "saved" without God having "identified them as his own" or giving them "the guarantee of an inheritence, and that they've been purchased to be one of his people"?

Boyd understands this verse to be saying that when someone believes that they are instantly sealed with the Spirit. I understand this verse as saying that those who believed were sealed sometime after their initial belief in Christ. If we go to Acts we can see how this worked out in Acts 8, 9, 10, and 19. It was only in Acts 10 that new believers were instantly sealed.

mizpeh
09-22-2013, 06:35 AM
And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

Do those who teach the doctrine of subsequence say that receiving the Spirit is different than baptism of the Spirit? If not, then you have built an excellent strawman. :)

Luke
09-22-2013, 03:54 PM
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This verse is one that screams a second work. Notice that the scripture is to those who have escaped the corruption that is in the world and to them have been given exceeding great and precious promises that these they MIGHT (or are enabled) be partakers of the divine nature. The passage clearly shows that though they are saved they still retain their carnal nature but because they are saved they have been given promises that are not given to the lost and by these promises they can partake of the divine nature. This shows that before one can partake of the divine nature they must first be saved but it also shows they don't partake of the divine nature at the point of salvation.

mizpeh
09-22-2013, 05:26 PM
oooooh..... ok got ya
And where does Jesus Name baptism fit into this?

I don't think I have ever met anyone who was Oneness that believe sanctification and Baptism of the Holy Ghost as distinct works. I'm kinda curious bout this..lol
Luke holds to a PCI view of salvation. The PCI and PAJC merged in 1945. They agreed to 'fellowship the differences' in their doctrines of salvation and the new birth.

Esaias
09-23-2013, 09:32 AM
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This verse is one that screams a second work. Notice that the scripture is to those who have escaped the corruption that is in the world and to them have been given exceeding great and precious promises that these they MIGHT (or are enabled) be partakers of the divine nature. The passage clearly shows that though they are saved they still retain their carnal nature but because they are saved they have been given promises that are not given to the lost and by these promises they can partake of the divine nature. This shows that before one can partake of the divine nature they must first be saved but it also shows they don't partake of the divine nature at the point of salvation.

I believe you are interpreting this and the other passages in view of or in light of or in accordance with the doctrine of sanctification being a 'second work'. But I still have to ask - where did the apostles actually teach 'there are two works - the first is salvation, the second is sanctification'? Where is this doctrine STATED in scripture?

This passage can be interpreted another way.

1. Vs 3 says 'According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" Thus, we have already been given 'all things that pertain unto life and godliness'. If this is not a clear declaration of the 'finished work' of Christ then I don't what could be.

2. The passage in question can be understood to mean that we partake of the divine nature through the knowledge of Christ, because we have escaped the corruption in the world that is through lust.

By the 'knowledge of him that hath called us' we are given great and precious promises. By those promises we partake of the divine nature. To suggest that the recipients of Peter's epistle had not partaken of the divine nature seems unwarranted.

If one is born again, one must by definition have 'partaken of the divine nature'. That which is born of the spirit is spirit, etc.

Furthermore, Paul says that we are not in the flesh but in the spirit if we have the Spirit. Therefore those who have the Spirit of Christ are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. (Romans 8) How is that not partaking of the divine nature?

Again, Peter is saying that through the promises we are enabled to partake of the divine nature. This is not a 'subsequence', but a reason or 'cause' or 'condition' upon partaking of the divine nature. That is to say, participation in the divine nature comes via the promises which are found in the knowledge of Christ.

In any event, there is not found in this verse the stated doctrine of 'sanctification as a second, definite work'. It may be interpreted that way, but it may also with propriety be interpreted another way.

Esaias
09-23-2013, 09:40 AM
Do those who teach the doctrine of subsequence say that receiving the Spirit is different than baptism of the Spirit? If not, then you have built an excellent strawman. :)

I do not see it being a strawman even if they claim 'receiving the spirit is the same as the baptism with the spirit'. I believe I pointed out that those who teach subsequence believe a person has the spirit 'in regeneration' prior to a baptism with the Holy Spirit. Thus, they initially received the Spirit. If they call the baptism the 'receiving the Spirit' then they are saying one can receive the spirit before they receive the spirit!

In any event, the apostles did not speak of receiving the spirit as distinct from the baptism with the spirit. In other words, the Bible speaks of receiving the spirit in the baptism with the spirit, and if our doctrine is the same as theirs, we will speak the same way they did about it.

Luke
09-23-2013, 10:04 AM
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises. Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had. Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

Originalist
09-23-2013, 10:14 AM
Paul is talking to PEOPLE2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises. Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had. Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

Paul is writing to PEOPLE who were once sinners, but had received these promises.

Pressing-On
09-23-2013, 10:42 AM
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises. Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had. Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

I take note that Peter is leading up to gaining eternal life in verse 11, so I can only think he refers to our divine nature (might be) in the same way as is mentioned in I John 3:2 - We are sons of God NOW, but when He appears we will be like Him - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."

Esaias
09-23-2013, 11:17 AM
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

And - since they had in fact escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust does this not mean they were in fact 'cleansed' and 'sanctified'? Can a person escape the corruption that is in the world and not be consecrated and set apart to God?

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

Nothing is offered to Christians that is not offered to sinners upon the condition of their becoming Christians. Nobody is arguing for, or ever could argue for, the cleansing and purification and sanctification of anyone without them being in Christ. However, the same is true of justification, pardon, remission of sins, etc - everything is conditional upon being in Christ. In Christ we have forgiveness, cleansing, justification, sanctification, empowerment, and eventually we will have bodily resurrection.

but let me prove that the OFFER of being made holy is made to those commonly known as 'sinners':

1Jo 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Here justification and 'cleansing' or entire sanctification are joined together. In coming to Christ we are promised two things - pardon, and cleansing. It is promised to those who need to 'confess their sins'. The cleansing is due to Him being 'faithful and just', that is, He is faithful to His promise and righteous (He will not arbitraily deny the fulfillment of His promises), just as He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.




If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises

The exceeding great and precious promises are the REASONS people come to Christ to begin with. What exactly are the promises? Forgiveness, cleansing, new life, resurrection, eternal life, knowing God in truth, walking with God, etc. By these promises we partake of the divine nature.

Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had.

I already explained that, though perhaps not so well. Let me try again. You see the words 'that ... ye might partake' as meaning they were not at that time partaking. But that is not the only way those words can be taken. They can be taken to mean that it is by the promises of God that people partake of the Divine nature.

Suppose we are friends. We have friendship. Suppose I say to you 'I have made promises and commitments to you, that through those promises you might share in my friendship.' Would you then conclude 'Oh, that means I am not sharing in that friendship yet. Silly me, I was mistaken all this time...'??? Of course not, you would simply understand my statement to mean that the promises and commitments I made to you are the means by which you participate in friendship with me. My words would NOT require 'subsequence' in time.

Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

He did not make it a condition, he simply stated that is what had happened with them. He did not say 'escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust is a condition to receiving the exceeding great and precious promises'. Although, even if he did, it simply means that escaping from the corruption that is in the world through lust is a condition to partaking of the divine nature, just as coming to Christ is a condition to partaking in forgiveness. It does not mean you come to Christ first, then at a later time you experience a 'second work of forgiveness'. Rather, it means you receive forgiveness in the experience of coming to Christ, because one results from the other.

I think you are mistaking consequence for subsequence.

Esaias
09-23-2013, 11:28 AM
More evidence cleansing (or 'sanctification') is a promise offered to sinners (in the context of my previous post, of course):

Jam 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

This is parallelism - people need to draw nigh to God. Who? Sinners, the double minded. They need to 'cleanse their hands, and purify their hearts'.

Mat 23:26
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Jesus specifically told a sinner to get inward sanctification first, so that the outward life may be cleansed. This is exactly 180 degrees opposite to Wesleyan Holiness 'second blessing' theology.

2Cr 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

2Cr 6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

7:1

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Here, the promises are that God would receive people, be their God, they would be His people, He would dwell in them, upon condition of their separation from sin and separation unto God (this is the textbook definition of 'sanctification, by the way). THEREFORE, having those promises, holiness is to be perfected in the fear of God. To whom were the promises made? The promises include 'I will be a father to you'. Does this mean a born again child of God who has not yet been sanctified in a second work does not have God for their Father?

This is, in effect, the gospel call - separate from the world, be consecrated to God, and He will dwell in us and be our Father. And the proper response to that call is to be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

mizpeh
09-23-2013, 04:10 PM
Concerning the discussion on sanctification...one question; what does it mean to be "led of the Spirit"?

Luke
09-23-2013, 10:35 PM
Concerning the discussion on sanctification...one question; what does it mean to be "led of the Spirit"?

To walk in the Spirit is to live a sanctified life and therefore to walk free from the carnal nature. Which will result in living free of sin.

mizpeh
09-24-2013, 02:23 AM
To walk in the Spirit is to live a sanctified life and therefore to walk free from the carnal nature. Which will result in living free of sin.What does that look like? How do we walk in the Spirit?

To tell someone to "walk in the Spirit and you won't gratify the desires of the flesh" or "live a sanctified life and you will walk free from the carnal nature"...what does that mean? What does that look like?

Luke
09-24-2013, 08:58 AM
It looks like a life a submission to God. Have you ever read the book in His steps? That is a good picture. It is basically living your life with the one goal of glorifying God in all things.

Esaias
09-24-2013, 09:01 AM
It looks like a life a submission to God. Have you ever read the book in His steps? That is a good picture. It is basically living your life with the one goal of glorifying God in all things.

Can a person do this from the moment of initial faith in Christ?

Luke
09-24-2013, 09:04 AM
Can a person do this from the moment of initial faith in Christ?

From initial salvation they can and should desire to but they cannot because of the flesh still wars within them.

Esaias
09-24-2013, 03:05 PM
From initial salvation they can and should desire to but they cannot because of the flesh still wars within them.

So then a person who is 'saved' is not being led of the spirit?

A person who is 'justified' and 'right with God' is not being led of the spirit?

A person who is right with God, has repented of their sins, is justified... is not 'submitted to God'? So they are still in rebellion against God?

Wouldn't that mean they are still... sinners? IE living in rebellion against God, have not obeyed God, do not obey God...

In fact CANNOT obey God, CANNOT submit to God until God does something in them?

Luke
09-24-2013, 04:16 PM
So then a person who is 'saved' is not being led of the spirit?

A person who is 'justified' and 'right with God' is not being led of the spirit?

A person who is right with God, has repented of their sins, is justified... is not 'submitted to God'? So they are still in rebellion against God?

Wouldn't that mean they are still... sinners? IE living in rebellion against God, have not obeyed God, do not obey God...

In fact CANNOT obey God, CANNOT submit to God until God does something in them?

I never said that were not being led by the Spirit rather I said they were not WALKING (continually) in the Spirit. I also never said that they were in rebellion but I did say that their nature was still carnal and not subject to the law of God (Paul also said this) and therefore at wars against the Spirit. Total submission comes when the flesh is destroyed at the point of sanctification then we can experience continual walking in the Spirit.

LUKE2447
09-25-2013, 08:23 PM
Luke what is interesting is you consider water baptism not a work of God and simply obedience. Please explain Col 2:12.

houston
09-25-2013, 09:05 PM
Luke what is interesting is you consider water baptism not a work of God and simply obedience. Please explain Col 2:12.Buried and RAISED in baptism, but thats a whole 'nother topic.

Luke
09-25-2013, 09:43 PM
Luke what is interesting is you consider water baptism not a work of God and simply obedience. Please explain Col 2:12.

Off topic.

LUKE2447
09-26-2013, 04:14 AM
Off topic.

no its not it has everything to do with the topic.

Luke
09-26-2013, 05:58 AM
no its not it has everything to do with the topic.

Are you saying that our carnal nature is dealt with at the point of baptism and at that point we are entirely sanctified?

Esaias
09-26-2013, 09:30 AM
I never said that were not being led by the Spirit rather I said they were not WALKING (continually) in the Spirit. I also never said that they were in rebellion but I did say that their nature was still carnal and not subject to the law of God (Paul also said this) and therefore at wars against the Spirit. Total submission comes when the flesh is destroyed at the point of sanctification then we can experience continual walking in the Spirit.

If total submission does not come at repentance, then those who have repented are still in sin, for Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength.

If one is not totally submitted to God, then one does not obey the Great Commandment, and thus one has not in fact truly repented.

Right?

Luke
09-26-2013, 07:42 PM
If total submission does not come at repentance, then those who have repented are still in sin, for Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength.

If one is not totally submitted to God, then one does not obey the Great Commandment, and thus one has not in fact truly repented.

Right?

Not what I meant at all. What I was referring to was the same thing that Paul talks of when he speaks of the inner war that rages within believers between the flesh and the Spirit

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

At the point of sanctification the flesh (carnal nature) is done away with/removed. Then there is total submission. Before this happens total submission is not possible

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Abiding Now
09-26-2013, 07:54 PM
To walk in the Spirit is to live a sanctified life and therefore to walk free from the carnal nature. Which will result in living free of sin.

Help me please.

Are you saying that you're "sanctified" and "walking in the Spirit" to the point of being "free from sin".


J/W

Luke
09-26-2013, 09:54 PM
Help me please.

Are you saying that you're "sanctified" and "walking in the Spirit" to the point of being "free from sin".


J/W

Yes but not just sanctified Upton a point but as it says in 1 Thessalonians 523,24 wholly sanctified.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Esaias
09-27-2013, 09:51 AM
Not what I meant at all. What I was referring to was the same thing that Paul talks of when he speaks of the inner war that rages within believers between the flesh and the Spirit

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

It seems the context of this verse indicates Paul is talking about the church, meaning, there were certain elements in the church causing trouble (the Judaizers, who were 'of the flesh') and because of this conflict between 'flesh and spirit' the church could not 'do the things' that they wanted to. Ie the church could not function properly because of the conflict.

At the point of sanctification the flesh (carnal nature) is done away with/removed. Then there is total submission. Before this happens total submission is not possible

If total submission is not possible prior to a second work of sanctification, then those who have been regenerated and baptised have not in fact repented. There can be no 'partial obedience' or 'partial submission'. The great commandment is to love God with all you have. If one does this, one is fully in the will of God, entirely consecrated to God, set apart entirely to God. 'With all thine heart, mind, soul, and strength' leaves no part out, thus 'entirely'. If the ENTIRE heart, soul, mind, and strength is loving God, then the person loves God FULLY, they are submitted FULLY.

Failure to submit FULLY, to love God FULLY, is a clear breaking of the Greatest Commandment, and is SIN. A person who is a 'believer' but is not thus FULLY submitted to God, is not repentant, for they have not repented of their sin of breaking the First and Greatest Commandment.

If what you say is correct, then one does not repent fully until one has got the 'second blessing'. But if one has not repented fully, one is not SAVED, one is not truly a Christian, one is only deluded with a false hope. Thus, if what you say is correct, one is not a Christian until they get this second experience.

I do not see how it can be otherwise. Either one may be saved and regenerated and justified while STILL in rebellion to God, without repentance, or one is fully submitted to God in repentance, loving God with all they have, which according to your definition is 'entire sanctification'.

Using your definition of entire sanctification, brother, it seems that the bible indicates such 'entire sanctification' (as you defined it) happens in initial conversion (or at least ought to happen then), and is not a necessarily 'second' work.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Sinners are 'in the flesh', and have the 'carnal mind'. Those who have the spirit are not in the flesh, and have the spiritual mind, and are 'spiritual men', according to the same chapter.

A person who is 'not subject to the law of God' is a sinner, in need of repentance. It is strange to call a genuinely regenerated child of God 'not subject to the law of God' and at 'enmity against God', don't you think?

The more I look at the Scripture, the more it seems that sanctification goes hand in hand with regeneration, justification, 'conversion', 'salvation', or whatever term one wishes to apply. It is all by faith, it is all by grace, and it is all made possible by the cross.

Therefore, there is no need for a 'second' work. It's all available NOW to 'whosoever will'.

Esaias
09-27-2013, 10:07 AM
Also, a major issue lying at the root of the difference of opinion here is the issue of original sin.

If the bible does not teach the classical doctrine of 'original sin';, 'inherited sin', 'natural depravity', or whatever it is commonly called, then the 'second work' theory falls apart completely.

I do not see where the bible teaches this 'original sin' theory, of sin being a substance in the very nature of humanity, inherited from Adam, which CAUSES people to sin, which itself as a part of human nature is condemned by God as 'sinful', and possession of which exposes people to the condemnation of hell.

That theory changes sin from 'transgression of the law' (the bible definition) to some sort of disease, or sickness - LITERALLY speaking. Sinners can't help being sinners under this theory.

Because of the doctrine that a person is justified, regenerated, etc simply by giving mental assent to the facts of the gospel (aka 'easy believism'), many such professing persons are in fact unrepentant, unregenerated, unjustified, and certainly unsanctified. To explain this phenomenon, rather than re-examine the doctrine of regeneration and salvation, some have cooked up a need for a 'higher life' for a 'second tier of believers', thus the doctrine of 'subsequence'.

Also, many people have mistakenly believed that mere temptation is itself 'sin', 'sinful', proof of a 'corrupt nature'. And they desire to be free from all temptation, so they look for a second experience where God will 'take it all away'.

But Jesus was 'tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin'. Therefore, mere temptation itself is not and cannot be sinful. And if it is a proof of a 'corrupt nature' then Jesus, the most sanctified being ever to grace Creation, had that same 'corrupt nature'.

The servant is not above his Master. It is our destiny to be like Jesus. He was entirely sanctified (who could deny it?) yet he also experienced temptation.

The difference? He always did the will of God. He kept the First and Greatest Commandment without fail. Not because he's 'superman', but because he is our Example. He did not sin. We are to be like him.

MarieA27
09-27-2013, 11:02 AM
Also, a major issue lying at the root of the difference of opinion here is the issue of original sin.

If the bible does not teach the classical doctrine of 'original sin';, 'inherited sin', 'natural depravity', or whatever it is commonly called, then the 'second work' theory falls apart completely.

I do not see where the bible teaches this 'original sin' theory, of sin being a substance in the very nature of humanity, inherited from Adam, which CAUSES people to sin, which itself as a part of human nature is condemned by God as 'sinful', and possession of which exposes people to the condemnation of hell.

That theory changes sin from 'transgression of the law' (the bible definition) to some sort of disease, or sickness - LITERALLY speaking. Sinners can't help being sinners under this theory.

Because of the doctrine that a person is justified, regenerated, etc simply by giving mental assent to the facts of the gospel (aka 'easy believism'), many such professing persons are in fact unrepentant, unregenerated, unjustified, and certainly unsanctified. To explain this phenomenon, rather than re-examine the doctrine of regeneration and salvation, some have cooked up a need for a 'higher life' for a 'second tier of believers', thus the doctrine of 'subsequence'.

Also, many people have mistakenly believed that mere temptation is itself 'sin', 'sinful', proof of a 'corrupt nature'. And they desire to be free from all temptation, so they look for a second experience where God will 'take it all away'.

But Jesus was 'tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin'. Therefore, mere temptation itself is not and cannot be sinful. And if it is a proof of a 'corrupt nature' then Jesus, the most sanctified being ever to grace Creation, had that same 'corrupt nature'.

The servant is not above his Master. It is our destiny to be like Jesus. He was entirely sanctified (who could deny it?) yet he also experienced temptation.

The difference? He always did the will of God. He kept the First and Greatest Commandment without fail. Not because he's 'superman', but because he is our Example. He did not sin. We are to be like him.

Great, great post Esaias!

Luke
09-27-2013, 04:54 PM
It seems the context of this verse indicates Paul is talking about the church, meaning, there were certain elements in the church causing trouble (the Judaizers, who were 'of the flesh') and because of this conflict between 'flesh and spirit' the church could not 'do the things' that they wanted to. Ie the church could not function properly because of the conflict.

Please provide the IMMEDIATE context of which you speak.


If total submission is not possible prior to a second work of sanctification, then those who have been regenerated and baptised have not in fact repented. There can be no 'partial obedience' or 'partial submission'. The great commandment is to love God with all you have. If one does this, one is fully in the will of God, entirely consecrated to God, set apart entirely to God. 'With all thine heart, mind, soul, and strength' leaves no part out, thus 'entirely'. If the ENTIRE heart, soul, mind, and strength is loving God, then the person loves God FULLY, they are submitted FULLY.

Failure to submit FULLY, to love God FULLY, is a clear breaking of the Greatest Commandment, and is SIN. A person who is a 'believer' but is not thus FULLY submitted to God, is not repentant, for they have not repented of their sin of breaking the First and Greatest Commandment.

If what you say is correct, then one does not repent fully until one has got the 'second blessing'. But if one has not repented fully, one is not SAVED, one is not truly a Christian, one is only deluded with a false hope. Thus, if what you say is correct, one is not a Christian until they get this second experience.

I do not see how it can be otherwise. Either one may be saved and regenerated and justified while STILL in rebellion to God, without repentance, or one is fully submitted to God in repentance, loving God with all they have, which according to your definition is 'entire sanctification'.

Using your definition of entire sanctification, brother, it seems that the bible indicates such 'entire sanctification' (as you defined it) happens in initial conversion (or at least ought to happen then), and is not a necessarily 'second' work.


If as you say a person is fully submitted at the point of conversion and there is no further need of submission then please explain why Paul wrote-


Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Why did James write-

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


If they had already done this why does he encourage them to do it again?

Also you are confusing repentance and submission. Repentance is required in order to be saved and is a prerequisite to be saved and this is obvious from scripture but where is total submission required at the point of salvation? Not saying that it is not in the Bible I don't think have ever read that part.



Sinners are 'in the flesh', and have the 'carnal mind'. Those who have the spirit are not in the flesh, and have the spiritual mind, and are 'spiritual men', according to the same chapter.

A person who is 'not subject to the law of God' is a sinner, in need of repentance. It is strange to call a genuinely regenerated child of God 'not subject to the law of God' and at 'enmity against God', don't you think?

The more I look at the Scripture, the more it seems that sanctification goes hand in hand with regeneration, justification, 'conversion', 'salvation', or whatever term one wishes to apply. It is all by faith, it is all by grace, and it is all made possible by the cross.

Therefore, there is no need for a 'second' work. It's all available NOW to 'whosoever will'.

You or Paul one are mistaken because you say that a christian can't be carnal but Paul say the exact opposite:



1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Four times Paul specificly says that these Christians (brethren, babes in Christ) are still carnal!!!

Paul himself also clearly mentions a complete work of sanctification fore christians-

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

Luke
09-27-2013, 05:06 PM
Also, a major issue lying at the root of the difference of opinion here is the issue of original sin.

If the bible does not teach the classical doctrine of 'original sin';, 'inherited sin', 'natural depravity', or whatever it is commonly called, then the 'second work' theory falls apart completely.

I do not see where the bible teaches this 'original sin' theory, of sin being a substance in the very nature of humanity, inherited from Adam, which CAUSES people to sin, which itself as a part of human nature is condemned by God as 'sinful', and possession of which exposes people to the condemnation of hell.

That theory changes sin from 'transgression of the law' (the bible definition) to some sort of disease, or sickness - LITERALLY speaking. Sinners can't help being sinners under this theory.

Because of the doctrine that a person is justified, regenerated, etc simply by giving mental assent to the facts of the gospel (aka 'easy believism'), many such professing persons are in fact unrepentant, unregenerated, unjustified, and certainly unsanctified. To explain this phenomenon, rather than re-examine the doctrine of regeneration and salvation, some have cooked up a need for a 'higher life' for a 'second tier of believers', thus the doctrine of 'subsequence'.

Also, many people have mistakenly believed that mere temptation is itself 'sin', 'sinful', proof of a 'corrupt nature'. And they desire to be free from all temptation, so they look for a second experience where God will 'take it all away'.

But Jesus was 'tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin'. Therefore, mere temptation itself is not and cannot be sinful. And if it is a proof of a 'corrupt nature' then Jesus, the most sanctified being ever to grace Creation, had that same 'corrupt nature'.

The servant is not above his Master. It is our destiny to be like Jesus. He was entirely sanctified (who could deny it?) yet he also experienced temptation.

The difference? He always did the will of God. He kept the First and Greatest Commandment without fail. Not because he's 'superman', but because he is our Example. He did not sin. We are to be like him.

As to the first part of you comment that pertains to the carnal nature of man or the lack there of. I will agree that if there is no carnal nature to remove from man then there is no need for a second work or for sanctification for that matter . Therefore I am curious as to what exactly you believe is accomplished in sanctification?

As to your comment on temptation I agree that we will never be free from temptation while we are earth no matter if we are fully sanctified or not and any that would say otherwise do not understand or do not know the scripture. Adam and Eve did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they were tempted and fell, the angels did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they also were tempted and fell and lastly Jesus did not have a carnal fallen nature yet even He was faced with temptation but He alone did not fall. Since you and I have discussed this topic on another thread and I posted the exact response as I just did I do not understand why you would feel it needful to portray that as what is at the root of the current discussion thus basicly bringing up a straw man argument.

Esaias
09-27-2013, 06:15 PM
If as you say a person is fully submitted at the point of conversion and there is no further need of submission then please explain why Paul wrote-

I never said 'there is no further need of submission'. We are to maintain submission to God. Surely you believe this as well? What do you say when people tell you 'once you are sanctified, I guess there's no further need of submission to God'?



Also you are confusing repentance and submission.

Repentance is a turning from sin. It means to stop sinning and start obeying God. If one has repented from ALL SIN, one is totally submitted to God. If one has NOT repented from ALL sin, one is not obeying God, one is still sinning, one is still in rebellion. Again, the Greatest Commandment requires ENTIRE OBEDIENCE, total love of God with the WHOLE being.

Shall a sinner be told 'to be saved, you must stop sinning SOMEWHAT, but you can keep SOME of your sin. You are not required to love God with your WHOLE being, only a part.'????

The Greatest Commandment is to love God with the whole being. Failure to obey that commandment is sin. Thus, not loving God with the whole being, loving God with 90%, 75%, or 10%, is all sin, because it is transgression of the commandment. It 'falls short' of the Commandment.

The call to repent is the call to turn from sin. Thus, one must turn from loving God with anything LESS than 100% of their being.

If someone loves God with 100% of their being, they are submitted to God. They are obedient. They obey God ENTIRELY. Entire submission.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:7) The one who is a Christian, is one who has been baptised into Christ, and thus baptised into His death. Thus, baptism is a burial. It is the dead who are buried. Thus, the one being baptised is expected to be DEAD. And thus 'freed from sin'. Therefore the one being baptised is properly one who is (certainly ought to be) dead and freed from sin, by virtue of the fact they have REPENTED OF THEIR SIN.

Paul's statements are in reference to those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ, he says they are freed from sin. He says nothing of those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ PLUS have had a secondary experience.




You or Paul one are mistaken because you say that a christian can't be carnal but Paul say the exact opposite:

Paul says this:

Rom 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Paul says nothing of secondary, post-conversion experiences, but speaks of those who have the Spirit of God are not in the flesh, are instead in the Spirit. Those in the flesh mind the things of the flesh, are carnally minded, and at enmity with God. the contrast is not with post-conversion sanctified people, but CHRISTIANS. Paul's concept of a Christian is of a person freed from sin by the grace of God, filled with the Spirit, spiritually minded, in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled.

Now, about the 'carnal Christian' you bring up.



1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

Paul sets the stage, giving the context and purpose for his statements. He says 'as unto carnal'. He says he has to speak to them AS IF they were 'carnal', ie unspiritual, AS IF they were mere babies. He is not saying they are the 'carnal' people described in Romans 8, because those people in Romans 8 are not even Christians according to Paul!

3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Who is carnal? The CONGREGATION. 'Ye' is the second person plural, and the context of the discussion is the CHURCH is 'carnal' in that they were acting like the world by identifying with human teachers in opposition to one another. The problem is not SIN, but lack of KNOWLEDGE, lack of MATURITY.

BTW, if what you say is correct, then every sanctified Wesleyan holiness believer is 'carnal' and thus unsanctified for identifying with their own particular denomination, or with Wesley, or with 'the holiness people', or with the 'second blessing revival movement', etc.

But let's consider it even further. Suppose this passage teaches that there are, in fact, 'carnal Christians'. If it does, it is the ONLY passage in the entire bible that does. If it does, it is in direct contradiction to Paul's teaching in Romans 8 (and elsewhere) regarding 'carnality'. But if 1 Cor 3 does not in fact teach the idea that Christians, saved, regenerated, justified, can also be 'carnal' in the sense you describe, then such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The fact is, Paul was writing to a CHURCH. Is every single person in a local congregation 'saved'? Not necessarily. Notice what he says:

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? The people he was rebuking were 'walking as men'. What men? Saved men? Or the unregenerate? They were walking as the unsaved. And Paul says 'ye are YET CARNAL'. Ie he says to these schismatics, 'You are STILL CARNAL', or in other words, STILL UNREGENERATE.

Obviously, Paul is not condemning everyone. Some in the church were guilty of schism and faction, some were guilty of taking the Lord's supper in an erroneous fashion, some were guilty of mishandling the gifts of the Spirit. Surely not ALL? It cannot be ALL, for he addressed them in his salutation as 'them that are sanctified'.

So then either the church was AS IF carnal, AS IF babes in Christ, ie lacking in KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING (not 'unsanctified'), or there were certain persons in the congregation who were STILL UNREGENERATE and thus 'yet carnal', or else there were some (or even many!) in the church who were immature and acting like the world through their ignorance and immaturity.

In either case, they are not saved people who need a second experience of 'entire sanctification'. Notice, Paul never tells them they need to get the second blessing to fix these problems!

In short, to sum it up, IF your interpretation is correct, there is a direct contradiction with Romans 8. On the other hand, the alternatives I have suggested allow for both 1 Cor 3 and Romans 8 to be without contradiction.



Paul himself also clearly mentions a complete work of sanctification fore christians-

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

So then the Thessalonians were not sanctified when Paul wrote his words? Just because he offers a prayer for their continued and perpetual entire sanctification ('unto the coming of our Lord') does not mean they were not then wholly sanctified, any more than the fact he says in verse 19 'quench not the spirit' requires that they were, in fact, quenching the spirit, when he wrote those words.

Also, it is noteworthy he does not include any teaching or exhortation to seek a second, definite experience of 'entire sanctification'. Why not?

Why is that everytime you find some proof or evidence of a second blessing of santification, there is never any definite teaching on how to get it, or any definite exhortation from the apostles on the fact of a second blessing or the way to a second blessing, or encouragement to 'get sanctified'?

Paul was offering a prayer for their whole sanctification lasting until the end. In other words, their PERPETUAL sanctification.

One may be sanctified, and yet 'fall from grace', may they not? Is it not required that one not only be sanctified, but maintain it unto the end? That is to say, one must receive God's grace, and walk in that grace until the end? This is what Paul was praying for, as he said: 'preserved blameless until the coming of our Lord.'

Luke
09-27-2013, 09:57 PM
I never said 'there is no further need of submission'. We are to maintain submission to God. Surely you believe this as well? What do you say when people tell you 'once you are sanctified, I guess there's no further need of submission to God'?

I agree that we must remain submitted but that is different than becoming submitted.

Yes you did say that


There can be no 'partial obedience' or 'partial submission'. The great commandment is to love God with all you have. If one does this, one is fully in the will of God, entirely consecrated to God, set apart entirely to God. 'With all thine heart, mind, soul, and strength' leaves no part out, thus 'entirely'. If the ENTIRE heart, soul, mind, and strength is loving God, then the person loves God FULLY, they are submitted FULLY.








Repentance is a turning from sin. It means to stop sinning and start obeying God. If one has repented from ALL SIN, one is totally submitted to God. If one has NOT repented from ALL sin, one is not obeying God, one is still sinning, one is still in rebellion. Again, the Greatest Commandment requires ENTIRE OBEDIENCE, total love of God with the WHOLE being.

Shall a sinner be told 'to be saved, you must stop sinning SOMEWHAT, but you can keep SOME of your sin. You are not required to love God with your WHOLE being, only a part.'????

The Greatest Commandment is to love God with the whole being. Failure to obey that commandment is sin. Thus, not loving God with the whole being, loving God with 90%, 75%, or 10%, is all sin, because it is transgression of the commandment. It 'falls short' of the Commandment.

The call to repent is the call to turn from sin. Thus, one must turn from loving God with anything LESS than 100% of their being.

If someone loves God with 100% of their being, they are submitted to God. They are obedient. They obey God ENTIRELY. Entire submission.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:7) The one who is a Christian, is one who has been baptised into Christ, and thus baptised into His death. Thus, baptism is a burial. It is the dead who are buried. Thus, the one being baptised is expected to be DEAD. And thus 'freed from sin'. Therefore the one being baptised is properly one who is (certainly ought to be) dead and freed from sin, by virtue of the fact they have REPENTED OF THEIR SIN.

Paul's statements are in reference to those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ, he says they are freed from sin. He says nothing of those who have been baptised into Jesus Christ PLUS have had a secondary experience.


I agree that a saved person should stop sinning and I agree that a saved person must both renounce all of their sin and turn from all of their sin but this is salvation not sanctification. Salvation deals with committed sin while sanctification deals with the roots of sin or the draw of sin.



Paul says this:

Rom 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[/QUOTE]

You should have went ahead and listed through vers 13 and then you would have seen that there is no contradiction but both romans 8 and 1 corinthians 3 say the same thing namely that there remains something in the Christians that needs to be done away with namely carnal flesh.

Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

You will notice that in each of these places there is something to put off or something that needs to be mortified and each of these are talking to Christians individually not to the church collective.


Paul says nothing of secondary, post-conversion experiences, but speaks of those who have the Spirit of God are not in the flesh, are instead in the Spirit. Those in the flesh mind the things of the flesh, are carnally minded, and at enmity with God. the contrast is not with post-conversion sanctified people, but CHRISTIANS. Paul's concept of a Christian is of a person freed from sin by the grace of God, filled with the Spirit, spiritually minded, in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled.

Now, about the 'carnal Christian' you bring up.

Paul sets the stage, giving the context and purpose for his statements. He says 'as unto carnal'. He says he has to speak to them AS IF they were 'carnal', ie unspiritual, AS IF they were mere babies. He is not saying they are the 'carnal' people described in Romans 8, because those people in Romans 8 are not even Christians according to Paul!



Who is carnal? The CONGREGATION. 'Ye' is the second person plural, and the context of the discussion is the CHURCH is 'carnal' in that they were acting like the world by identifying with human teachers in opposition to one another. The problem is not SIN, but lack of KNOWLEDGE, lack of MATURITY.

BTW, if what you say is correct, then every sanctified Wesleyan holiness believer is 'carnal' and thus unsanctified for identifying with their own particular denomination, or with Wesley, or with 'the holiness people', or with the 'second blessing revival movement', etc.

But let's consider it even further. Suppose this passage teaches that there are, in fact, 'carnal Christians'. If it does, it is the ONLY passage in the entire bible that does. If it does, it is in direct contradiction to Paul's teaching in Romans 8 (and elsewhere) regarding 'carnality'. But if 1 Cor 3 does not in fact teach the idea that Christians, saved, regenerated, justified, can also be 'carnal' in the sense you describe, then such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The fact is, Paul was writing to a CHURCH. Is every single person in a local congregation 'saved'? Not necessarily. Notice what he says:

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? The people he was rebuking were 'walking as men'. What men? Saved men? Or the unregenerate? They were walking as the unsaved. And Paul says 'ye are YET CARNAL'. Ie he says to these schismatics, 'You are STILL CARNAL', or in other words, STILL UNREGENERATE.

Obviously, Paul is not condemning everyone. Some in the church were guilty of schism and faction, some were guilty of taking the Lord's supper in an erroneous fashion, some were guilty of mishandling the gifts of the Spirit. Surely not ALL? It cannot be ALL, for he addressed them in his salutation as 'them that are sanctified'.

So then either the church was AS IF carnal, AS IF babes in Christ, ie lacking in KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING (not 'unsanctified'), or there were certain persons in the congregation who were STILL UNREGENERATE and thus 'yet carnal', or else there were some (or even many!) in the church who were immature and acting like the world through their ignorance and immaturity.

In either case, they are not saved people who need a second experience of 'entire sanctification'. Notice, Paul never tells them they need to get the second blessing to fix these problems!

In short, to sum it up, IF your interpretation is correct, there is a direct contradiction with Romans 8. On the other hand, the alternatives I have suggested allow for both 1 Cor 3 and Romans 8 to be without contradiction.


Paul never once says that those who were still carnal were not saved rather he calls them babes in Christ. Notice he says they are in Christ. I have never said that I am better than anyone nor will you find any classical Wesleyan writer that said that either to do so would be to claim that my holiness is of my self rather than say it is from and of God. therefore how could I brag about it?

So then the Thessalonians were not sanctified when Paul wrote his words? Just because he offers a prayer for their continued and perpetual entire sanctification ('unto the coming of our Lord') does not mean they were not then wholly sanctified, any more than the fact he says in verse 19 'quench not the spirit' requires that they were, in fact, quenching the spirit, when he wrote those words.

Also, it is noteworthy he does not include any teaching or exhortation to seek a second, definite experience of 'entire sanctification'. Why not?

Why is that everytime you find some proof or evidence of a second blessing of santification, there is never any definite teaching on how to get it, or any definite exhortation from the apostles on the fact of a second blessing or the way to a second blessing, or encouragement to 'get sanctified'?

Paul was offering a prayer for their whole sanctification lasting until the end. In other words, their PERPETUAL sanctification.

One may be sanctified, and yet 'fall from grace', may they not? Is it not required that one not only be sanctified, but maintain it unto the end? That is to say, one must receive God's grace, and walk in that grace until the end? This is what Paul was praying for, as he said: 'preserved blameless until the coming of our Lord.'
Paul here is telling of something that will happen in the future not telling of what has happened in the past . This can be seen by the wording in at least two places in the passage. First in the verb ending of the word sanctify instead of sanctified but mainly by the wording of the following verse. In that he says-

Faithful is He that calleth you WHO ALSO WILL DO IT.

Notice he said WILL not has or is doing but he speaks of a future occurrence not past or present.

Luke
09-28-2013, 01:42 AM
Also I am still waiting on the context to be pointed out that shows the passage from:

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Is speaking about a church and not the individuals of the church?

I meant to put this in the last post also when I was responding to your comment pertaining to 1 Corinthians 3 and carnal Christians. It should be noted that in fact Paul does differentiate between those in Corinth that are sanctified and those which are saved but not sanctified:

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

You will notice this differentiation in most of his epistles.

renee819
09-28-2013, 09:17 AM
Can we start all over? It is all a one package deal. As I see it.

You are not saved just because you repent.
You are not saved just because you got baptized in Jesus name.
You are not even saved when you receive the Holy Ghost, however, you are then after all three, born of the water and the Spirit. You are born again. Regenerated..

But you are not saved, until you hear Jesus say, “Well done,”

Why argue about when regeneration takes place, except for those that are trying to get by, “by the skin of their teeth.” Or to teach a more acceptable Doctrine, to the world. A do-nothing Gospel, or at least the bare minim.

Jesus opened up the Apostles understanding, just before He was taken up. And then spent 40 days with them after His resurrection, revealing to them what they should teach.
He left the setting up of the Church to the Apostles, and Peter understood perfectly when he revealed the gospel message of Acts 2:38. And no where in the Bible was it ever changed.

Those that change it are adding to or subtracting from the Word of God.

houston
09-28-2013, 09:56 AM
Why argue about when regeneration takes place, except for those that are trying to get by, “by the skin of their teeth.” Or to teach a more acceptable Doctrine, to the world. A do-nothing Gospel, or at least the bare minim. Typical response from those on your side of the fence when posters do not make concessions.

renee819
09-28-2013, 10:32 AM
Typical response from those on your side of the fence when posters do not make concessions.

I believe I am on the same side of the fence as Jesus and the Apostles.

Come on----hop on over the fence.

houston
09-28-2013, 11:04 AM
I believe I am on the same side of the fence as Jesus and the Apostles. Come on----hop on over the fence.If I believed that your doctrine was correct I would have stayed.

renee819
09-28-2013, 11:41 AM
If I believed that your doctrine was correct I would have stayed.

Then are you denying that I am on the same side of the fence that Jesus and the Apostles were on? I'm on the same side as Jesus in Luke 24, and the Apostles all thru the book of Acts. And I believe the whole Bible harmonizes.

Show me in the Bible when the gospel changed. When it switched sides from Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells people how to be saved, to another gospel. And what is that other gospel?

houston
09-28-2013, 12:37 PM
Then are you denying that I am on the same side of the fence that Jesus and the Apostles were on? I'm on the same side as Jesus in Luke 24, and the Apostles all thru the book of Acts. And I believe the whole Bible harmonizes. Show me in the Bible when the gospel changed. When it switched sides from Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells people how to be saved, to another gospel. And what is that other gospel?Why are you so defensive?

renee819
09-28-2013, 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by renee819 View Post
Then are you denying that I am on the same side of the fence that Jesus and the Apostles were on? I'm on the same side as Jesus in Luke 24, and the Apostles all thru the book of Acts. And I believe the whole Bible harmonizes. Show me in the Bible when the gospel changed. When it switched sides from Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells people how to be saved, to another gospel. And what is that other gospel?

Houston wrote
Why are you so defensive?

Why can't you ever answer questions?

houston
09-28-2013, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by renee819 View Post Houston wrote Why can't you ever answer questions?You made my statement about you. It is about me... Not you.

renee819
09-29-2013, 04:51 AM
You made my statement about you. It is about me... Not you.

Because I said, "Hop on over the fence." That makes it about me?????

Esaias
09-29-2013, 10:06 AM
I agree that we must remain submitted but that is different than becoming submitted.

Yes you did say that

No I did not say 'there is no further need of submission'. I said that when one repents one is fully submitted (by the very definition of 'repent'). This does not mean one does not need to continue to submit. I deny that one can 'submit partially', because the very meaning of 'partial submission' is NOT FULLY SUBMITTED. If one is not fully submitted to God one is not submitted to God at all. I emphatically deny 'partial obedience to God' in any moral sense is possible. Obedience to God is to love God with all your being. If you do not love God with all your being then you are not submitted to God, are not obedient.

How this means 'no further submission is required' is beyond me. UNLESS, you mean 'no increased submission if required'. That is true, IN A SENSE, namely, that if one is obedient to God, one cannot increase their obedience except as more light becomes available. As one discovers more opportunities to obey God, as one's strength is increased, as one's ability is increased, one is obligated to obey God with that increased ability. In that sense one may 'increase submission' although I would describe it more as 'abounding more and more'. One is not going from PARTIAL obedience to a more complete obedience, but rather as one's ability expands, one's obedience must necessarily expand to keep pace. Hope that makes sense.



I agree that a saved person should stop sinning and I agree that a saved person must both renounce all of their sin and turn from all of their sin but this is salvation not sanctification. Salvation deals with committed sin while sanctification deals with the roots of sin or the draw of sin.

So then sanctification deals with temptation? You believe sanctification eradicates temptation, or the ability to be tempted?

Otherwise, I hear what you are saying, but I cannot deny the fact that I honestly do not see any place where either Jesus or the apostles taught sanctification the way you are presenting it, as a 'second work'. I see that you interpret various passages to be in agreement with the second work theory, but I do not see where the apostles actually TAUGHT such a thing.

Various passages are being interpreted as suggesting a second, post-conversion work, but i would expect such a fundamental doctrine to be clearly expounded by the apostles, wouldn't you?

Entire sanctification is most definitely and clearly taught by the apostles (especially by Paul, in Romans 6-8, and by John in his first epistle). Of that there is no doubt. But entire sanctification 'as a second, definite experience or work after salvation' I do not see it.

Suppose you are preaching an evangelistic message to the lost. Can you put forward to them, the following points?

1. They are sinners in need of pardon.
2. They are unholy and unrighteous, blackened by sin.
3. Jesus died so they can not only be 'declared righteous' (pardoned), but actually made righteous and holy.
4. Faith is the only way to come to God or receive pardon and cleansing from God.
5. If they believe the gospel, they can, right now, tonight, be forgiven of their sins and cleansed from ALL unrighteousness, made pure, holy, good, right with God in all ways, they can have their hearts purified by faith, they can be filled with God's Spirit and empowered to live and walk as Christ lived and walked?

If you can, then we are on the same page.

Luke
09-29-2013, 12:55 PM
No I did not say 'there is no further need of submission'. I said that when one repents one is fully submitted (by the very definition of 'repent'). This does not mean one does not need to continue to submit. I deny that one can 'submit partially', because the very meaning of 'partial submission' is NOT FULLY SUBMITTED. If one is not fully submitted to God one is not submitted to God at all. I emphatically deny 'partial obedience to God' in any moral sense is possible. Obedience to God is to love God with all your being. If you do not love God with all your being then you are not submitted to God, are not obedient.

How this means 'no further submission is required' is beyond me. UNLESS, you mean 'no increased submission if required'. That is true, IN A SENSE, namely, that if one is obedient to God, one cannot increase their obedience except as more light becomes available. As one discovers more opportunities to obey God, as one's strength is increased, as one's ability is increased, one is obligated to obey God with that increased ability. In that sense one may 'increase submission' although I would describe it more as 'abounding more and more'. One is not going from PARTIAL obedience to a more complete obedience, but rather as one's ability expands, one's obedience must necessarily expand to keep pace. Hope that makes sense.





So then sanctification deals with temptation? You believe sanctification eradicates temptation, or the ability to be tempted?

Otherwise, I hear what you are saying, but I cannot deny the fact that I honestly do not see any place where either Jesus or the apostles taught sanctification the way you are presenting it, as a 'second work'. I see that you interpret various passages to be in agreement with the second work theory, but I do not see where the apostles actually TAUGHT such a thing.

Various passages are being interpreted as suggesting a second, post-conversion work, but i would expect such a fundamental doctrine to be clearly expounded by the apostles, wouldn't you?

Entire sanctification is most definitely and clearly taught by the apostles (especially by Paul, in Romans 6-8, and by John in his first epistle). Of that there is no doubt. But entire sanctification 'as a second, definite experience or work after salvation' I do not see it.

Suppose you are preaching an evangelistic message to the lost. Can you put forward to them, the following points?

1. They are sinners in need of pardon.
2. They are unholy and unrighteous, blackened by sin.
3. Jesus died so they can not only be 'declared righteous' (pardoned), but actually made righteous and holy.
4. Faith is the only way to come to God or receive pardon and cleansing from God.
5. If they believe the gospel, they can, right now, tonight, be forgiven of their sins and cleansed from ALL unrighteousness, made pure, holy, good, right with God in all ways, they can have their hearts purified by faith, they can be filled with God's Spirit and empowered to live and walk as Christ lived and walked?

If you can, then we are on the same page.

I never said that sanctification did away with temptation in fact I posted on this thread just a few post ago that I did not believe that.

Here is my post on the topic of temptation from earlier:



As to your comment on temptation I agree that we will never be free from temptation while we are earth no matter if we are fully sanctified or not and any that would say otherwise do not understand or do not know the scripture. Adam and Eve did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they were tempted and fell, the angels did not have a fallen carnal nature yet they also were tempted and fell and lastly Jesus did not have a carnal fallen nature yet even He was faced with temptation but He alone did not fall. Since you and I have discussed this topic on another thread and I posted the exact response as I just did I do not understand why you would feel it needful to portray that as what is at the root of the current discussion thus basicly bringing up a straw man argument.

As to you list I agree with it though I might word the last one differently in that I would specify that we are not made holy at the point of salvation since there is nowhere in scripture that sys this. Rather I a would point out that we are made after salvation we are then eligible to be made holy (sanctified). I am not saying you can't recurve everything on the same trip to the alter but I am saying that they are all distinct works.

I disagree that it is not a clearly taught doctrine in scripture.

1. In 1Corinthians and in 1Peter there are given calls to Christians to holiness.

2. In Romans 1 Corinthians Galatians James ect there is shown that believers are yet carnal and retain their fleshly nature.

3. In Romans Galatians Ephesians Colossians 1 Peter Hebrews all promise the possibility of having the Carnality removed.

4. Acts shows it is by faith in Jesus name, Romans shows it is death to self and the destruction of the old man through the sacrifice of Jesus, 1 Thessalonians shows it is an wholly (entire, complete) work of God in believers that is to be expected in this life and retained until the coming of Jesus, Hebrews shows it makes the believer perfect and that it was purchased at Calvary by Jesus blood, 2 Peter shows it makes those who have been saved partakers of the divine nature and that it is promised.

5. Nearly all of Pauls epistles begins by recognizing that there are those who are sanctified and that there are those who are saved but not sanctified, the book of Jude says it was written to those who are sanctified, Revelations says there will be those who remain righteous in eternity and those who will remain holy in eternity.

There a two questions I would you to answer

1. Do you believe that salvation and sanctification are distinct works or the same work?

2. If distinct works then what is accomplished at sanctification that is not accomplished at salvation?

The major difference in our positions in my opinion is simply I believe in a sinful nature and you do not.

Esaias
09-29-2013, 01:06 PM
I never said that sanctification did away with temptation in fact I posted on this thread just a few post ago that I did not believe that.



Then please explain what you mean when you say that sanctification deals with the 'draw of sin'.




There a two questions I would you to answer

1. Do you believe that salvation and sanctification are distinct works or the same work?

2. If distinct works then what is accomplished at sanctification that is not accomplished at salvation?

I believe sanctification is part of our salvation. Salvation covers much more than just being justified from our past sins. It involves the redemption of the entire person, from the initial choosing (election) to final redemption (resurrection and inheriting the kingdom of God).

Sanctification is distinct from justification, but not separable. Our salvation can be looked at under many different aspects. As such, those aspects are distinct, but they cannot be separated from each other.

Can a person be 'right with God' but at the same time 'unholy and unclean'? How is that possible?

The major difference in our positions in my opinion is simply I believe in a sinful nature and you do not.

That is most likely where the difference lies. Although, I want to make clear, rejecting the catholic doctrine of original sin and the 'inherited sinful nature' does NOT mean a rejection of the truth that our nature is corrupted, less than it was intended to be when God first created it, nor does it imply that there might be some folks who can 'get to heaven without Christ'.

As for your references on the second work being clearly taught, I will look over those and pray about it.

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:10 PM
From initial salvation they can and should desire to but they cannot because of the flesh still wars within them.

Does your view allow for spiritual growth are we fully mature when filled with the Spirit?

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:11 PM
From initial salvation they can and should desire to but they cannot because of the flesh still wars within them.How do we crucify the flesh?

Esaias
09-29-2013, 01:14 PM
Charles Finney explained it rather well, I think:

"To sanctify is to set apart, to consecrate to a particular use. To sanctify anything to God is to set it apart to his service, to consecrate it to him. To sanctify one's self is voluntarily to set one's self apart, to consecrate one's self to God. To be sanctified is to be set apart, to be consecrated to God. Sanctification is an act or state of being sanctified, or set apart to the service of God. It is a state of consecration to him. This is present obedience to the moral law. It is the whole of present duty, and is implied in repentance, faith, regeneration, as we have abundantly seen.

Sanctification is sometimes used to express a permanent state of obedience to God, or of consecration. In this sense it is not a condition of present justification, or of pardon and acceptance. But it is a condition of continued and permanent acceptance with God. It certainly cannot be true, that God accepts and justifies the sinner in his sins. I may safely challenge the world for either reason or scripture to support the doctrine of justification in sin, in any degree of present rebellion against God. (See argument, Lecture XV. II.) The Bible everywhere represents justified persons as sanctified, and always expressly, or impliedly, conditionates justification upon sanctification, in the sense of present obedience to God. 1 Cor. vi. 11; "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This is but a specimen of the manner in which justified persons are spoken of in the Bible. Also, Rom. viii. 1; "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." They only are justified who walk after the Spirit. Should it be objected, as it may be, that the scriptures often speak of saints, or truly regenerate persons, as needing sanctification, and of sanctification as something that comes after regeneration, and as that which the saints are to aim at attaining, I answer, that when sanctification is thus spoken of, it is doubtless used in the higher sense already noticed; to wit, to denote a state of being settled, established in faith, rooted and grounded in love, being so confirmed in the faith and obedience of the gospel, as to hold on in the way steadfastly, unmovably, always abounding in the work of the Lord. This is doubtless a condition of permanent justification, as has been said, but not a condition of present justification.

By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended.

(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and his service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God.

(2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must return to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. This is the most express teaching of the Bible, as we shall fully see.

5. Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connexion, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation."

http://www.stopsinning.net/justification_f.htm

Esaias
09-29-2013, 01:15 PM
How do we crucify the flesh?

Paul said 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with it's passions'.

So it seems that 'crucifying the flesh' is part of initial conversion, ie repentance.

Esaias
09-29-2013, 01:19 PM
Finney concludes:

"The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his Substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law. But in order to make out the possibility of his obedience being imputed to them, it must be assumed, that he owed no obedience for himself; than which a greater absurdity cannot be conceived. Constitutional depravity or sinfulness being once assumed, physical regeneration, physical sanctification, physical divine influence, imputed righteousness, and justification, while personally in the commission of sin, follow of course." (ibid.)

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:21 PM
I never said that were not being led by the Spirit rather I said they were not WALKING (continually) in the Spirit. I also never said that they were in rebellion but I did say that their nature was still carnal and not subject to the law of God (Paul also said this) and therefore at wars against the Spirit. Total submission comes when the flesh is destroyed at the point of sanctification then we can experience continual walking in the Spirit.

I am confused by your statement. The Corinthian saints had many fleshly faults but Paul didn't hesitate to declare them sanctified. Your version of what it means to be sanctified is at odds with this verse. From what I gather we are sanctified by faith and the Holy Spirit. Acts 26:18, Romans 15:16

1 Corinthians 6:11
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 by the Spirit of our God.

Esaias
09-29-2013, 01:26 PM
1 Corinthians 6:11
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 by the Spirit of our God.

Notice too the order - washed, sanctified, justified...

Further, he says 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God', which seems to be a reference to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit baptism.

Thus, it seems Paul understood cleansing, sanctification, and justification as being accomplished in the new birth, or in other words, those terms - washed, sanctified, justified - are essentially synonyms for 'gettin' saved' as we call it today.

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:41 PM
It looks like a life a submission to God. Have you ever read the book in His steps? That is a good picture. It is basically living your life with the one goal of glorifying God in all things.

Yes, I've read the book, In His Steps. I liked it except that it wasn't a real life story.

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:46 PM
I never said that were not being led by the Spirit rather I said they were not WALKING (continually) in the Spirit. I also never said that they were in rebellion but I did say that their nature was still carnal and not subject to the law of God (Paul also said this) and therefore at wars against the Spirit. Total submission comes when the flesh is destroyed at the point of sanctification then we can experience continual walking in the Spirit.

I don't think the fleshly sinful nature is ever completely destroyed otherwise the command for us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses would only have to be done once and not on a daily basis. Luke 9:23

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 01:59 PM
Not what I meant at all. What I was referring to was the same thing that Paul talks of when he speaks of the inner war that rages within believers between the flesh and the Spirit

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

At the point of sanctification the flesh (carnal nature) is done away with/removed. Then there is total submission. Before this happens total submission is not possible

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Why doesn't Paul come right out and tell the Galatians to totally submit to the Spirit? He tells them to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, to love our neighbors as ourselves...there is no talk of submission in order to be sanctified.

Romans 8 talks about the those whose minds are set on the flesh as not being submitted to God's law but nothing about sanctification.

mizpeh
09-29-2013, 02:29 PM
Yes but not just sanctified Upton a point but as it says in 1 Thessalonians 523,24 wholly sanctified.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Does your doctrine imply that our soul and body can be sanctifed but not our spirit? or that our spirit and body can be sanctified but not our soul? or that our body can be sanctified but not our spirit and soul? Or can part of our spirit be unsanctified?

It would also appear to be saying that God is the sanctifier and we are the sanctified.

Luke
09-29-2013, 04:20 PM
The term used to describe the extent of what is offered is WHOLLY. In other words all of the man/woman is sanctified and none remains unsanctified. Also you are correct sanctification a work of grace that is wrought by in us.

Luke
09-29-2013, 10:28 PM
Does your view allow for spiritual growth are we fully mature when filled with the Spirit?

Yes we must grow in grace and in knowledge but these do Morale us holy which is what sanctification does.Sanctification pills out the weed of Carmelita so that good deeds can grow and grow more rapidly.

Luke
09-29-2013, 10:30 PM
How do we crucify the flesh?

By the blood of Jesus and faith in His name.

Luke
09-29-2013, 10:34 PM
I am confused by your statement. The Corinthian saints had many fleshly faults but Paul didn't hesitate to declare them sanctified. Your version of what it means to be sanctified is at odds with this verse. From what I gather we are sanctified by faith and the Holy Spirit. Acts 26:18, Romans 15:16

1 Corinthians 6:11
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 by the Spirit of our God.

Paul never calls of the corruption church saints and he never says that all of the Corinthian church is carnal.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:


Notice there is more than one group spoken of here.

Luke
09-29-2013, 10:40 PM
I don't think the fleshly sinful nature is ever completely destroyed otherwise the command for us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses would only have to be done once and not on a daily basis. Luke 9:23

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

That word destroy means to render ineffective or to do away with its influence or to annul or abolish to cause to cease to do away with

Luke
09-29-2013, 10:43 PM
I don't think the fleshly sinful nature is ever completely destroyed otherwise the command for us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses would only have to be done once and not on a daily basis. Luke 9:23

This passage still applies in that the flesh though done away still seeks to get back in so we must keep it out.

Esaias
09-30-2013, 09:18 AM
.Sanctification pills out the weed of Carmelita so that good deeds can grow and grow more rapidly.

I know this is a serious discussion and all, and I have no idea how that got in there, but man that's funny right there.

'The weed of Carmelita'.

(Not making fun of you, I just had an uncontrollable fit of laughter when I read 'the weed of carmelita'. I don't know if you are using google translate or something, or if something just got lost in transmission, but man... that is funny.)

:slaphappy:ursofunny:killinme

renee819
09-30-2013, 09:26 AM
Yes, Esaias, it made me smile also, ----With, whaooo, where did tha come from?

Luke
09-30-2013, 09:36 AM
Lol I have know idea where that came from it must have been auto correct spelling. :) should have said pulls the weeds of carnality.

My bad I was on my phone .

Luke
10-01-2013, 06:07 PM
Eaaias I appreciate the Finney quote but what in your opinion is accomplished in sanctification?

houston
10-25-2018, 12:24 AM
I believe I am on the same side of the fence as Jesus and the Apostles.

Come on----hop on over the fence.

If I believed that your doctrine was correct I would have stayed.

reading through this thread that Esaias recommended and... insert foot in mouth. MY MY MY.... :foottap :heeheehee



that was posted 5 years ago, MONTERREY :foottap

Esaias
10-26-2018, 09:27 PM
Eaaias I appreciate the Finney quote but what in your opinion is accomplished in sanctification?

I can't believe I didn't respond to this post, and the thread just died off. Weird.

I know Luke isn't posting here anymore, that I know of, but I'm going to give a short answer, maybe get everyone's gears turning.

Sanctification has multiple aspects, and essentially is a synergistic, two-fold thing.

By synergistic, I mean there is what God does, and there is what we do.

The Bible clearly declares that sanctification is an act of God (Ex 31:13), yet it also declares it is something we are to do (Lev 11:44).

It also clearly identifies sanctification as both a positional relationship, and yet also a practical and experiential reality. We are sanctified, or holy, by virtue of being in covenant with God (Psalm 50:5). Yet, we are sanctified or holy by actual conformity to the will of God (Deut 28:9).

Sanctification, or holiness, includes the idea of separation. Something is sanctified when it is segregated from other things. In a moral sense, the separation is a separation from the profane and a separation unto divine service. An offering, say, of a lamb, was "holy" when it was singled out and separated from the other lambs and devoted to or appointed to use as an offering to God. A Nazarite was "holy" during the time of their vow (Num 6:5), because during that time they were separated unto God in a special sense. Israel is holy because they are separated from the heathen unto the service of God (Lev 20:26).

Sanctification also includes the idea of purging or cleansing (Lev 16:19). This is a corollary to separation. That which is sanctified, or separated from the profane to the divine, has had the profane purged out of itself, as when gold is purged of dross through refining. It is a separating process. Persons are sanctified by a cleansing from the impurity of sin and guiltiness, which is to say, they are separated from sin and guilt. Holy and clean have a parallel relationship (Ezekiel 44:23), and therefore sanctification and cleansing likewise has a parallel relationship, they go hand in hand.

From this we can see there is a close relationship between sanctification, or holiness, with justification, or righteousness. Both have to do with our standing in God's sight, that is, our relationship to God. Both have to do with freedom from sin, in both the positional or legal sense as well as the actual experiential sense. Both are imputed to us by God (that is, both are the result of a positive decree of God towards and concerning us). Yet, both are things we must do (being made righteous results in a lifestyle of righteous living, being made holy results in a lifestyle of holy living). Both are accomplished, made available, and received, on the basis of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11).

In this we see that sanctification and justification are really two terms for the same thing. That is, each term describes the same thing but from a slightly different perspective. We can make distinctions intellectually, but truthfully they are just different aspects of the same reality. Much as the terms separation, cleansing, purging, and washing describe the same reality, but under different perspectives and in different aspects. Or as redemption, purchase, deliverance, salvation, and election (choosing) describe the same basic truth but in consideration of different aspects.

So then, sanctification really includes everything in salvation, because salvation is nothing else than being separated (or, sanctified, or hallowed) from sin, guilt, condemnation, death, the flesh, and the world, and being cleansed (washed, as with water, or purged, as with fire) of those things, and being separated to God, to righteousness, to holiness, to Christ, and to His Kingdom.

Esaias
10-26-2018, 09:59 PM
And from this we can see that it is simply incorrect to think of a person as justified but not sanctified, or as sanctified but not justified, except in a very limited sense.

A person may be sanctified in the sense that God has called them to covenant relationship. In this, limited, sense of sanctification, a person has been separated from their old lifestyle and from the rest of unsaved humanity, but only in the calling of God. They may not at this point have actually entered into Covenant with God, they may not at this point actually be justified, nor cleansed from sin, nor sanctified from sin.

An example of this is Acts 10-11, in the story of the conversion of the first gentiles. In Acts 10 vs 15 (and see vs 28), it is said that God has "cleansed" Cornelius and the gentiles. However, they were not yet saved, justified, or cleansed (purged, that is, purified) until their conversion had been completed via faith in Jesus' resurrection, receiving His Spirit, and being baptized in His Name.

So, in the full sense, sanctification and justification go hand in hand with salvation and regeneration. 1 Cor 6:11 states that believers have been washed, sanctified, and justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by God's Spirit. This connects washing (cleansing), sanctification, and justification, with regeneration/conversion (repentance and baptism in the Name of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit).

Originalist
10-27-2018, 07:20 AM
And from this we can see that it is simply incorrect to think of a person as justified but not sanctified, or as sanctified but not justified, except in a very limited sense.

A person may be sanctified in the sense that God has called them to covenant relationship. In this, limited, sense of sanctification, a person has been separated from their old lifestyle and from the rest of unsaved humanity, but only in the calling of God. They may not at this point have actually entered into Covenant with God, they may not at this point actually be justified, nor cleansed from sin, nor sanctified from sin.

An example of this is Acts 10-11, in the story of the conversion of the first gentiles. In Acts 10 vs 15 (and see vs 28), it is said that God has "cleansed" Cornelius and the gentiles. However, they were not yet saved, justified, or cleansed (purged, that is, purified) until their conversion had been completed via faith in Jesus' resurrection, receiving His Spirit, and being baptized in His Name.

So, in the full sense, sanctification and justification go hand in hand with salvation and regeneration. 1 Cor 6:11 states that believers have been washed, sanctified, and justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by God's Spirit. This connects washing (cleansing), sanctification, and justification, with regeneration/conversion (repentance and baptism in the Name of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit).

Amen.