The doctrine of subsequence

[renee819]

Originally Posted by houston

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]

Originally Posted by renee819

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]

Originally Posted by houston

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]

Originally Posted by renee819

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]

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]

Originally Posted by renee819

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]

Originally Posted by houston

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]

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.