The doctrine of subsequence

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Luke

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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:

Originally Posted by Luke

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]

Originally Posted by Luke

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.