What does sanctified mean in this case??? This would contradict Hebrews 10:14 just preceding that…
Hebrews 10:14 NAS95 14 For by one offering He has **perfected for all time **those who are sanctified…
So, you’re saying that you believe the writer of Hebrews is proposing, with this verse, that sanctification is a one-time event too? That is the logical end to the point you’re making. If sanctification is a past event, that perfects us for all time, then you cannot increase in sanctity. If you’re perfect, you can’t become more holy OR righteous. Thus, you have even turned the Protestant notion of sanctification on it’s head with this line of argumentation.
No, this verse is making the point that Christ’s sacrifice was perfect and is sufficient to perfect us. The verse even states, “because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” In other words, the PROCESS of sanctification is able to make us ultimately “perfect” because of the “one sacrifice” of Christ. It is not of our own that we are sanctified, but rather of Christ.
Look at 1 Corinthians 7…
1 Corinthians 7:12-14 NAS95 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
What do you think sanctified means here?
Since you cited the verse, why don’t you tell us what you think it means. I am not a big fan of prooftexting. If you are going to use a verse, please explain how it is relevant to your point. Prooftexting is so presumptuous, as if to say that the one you are citing this verse to wouldn’t have seen it before. Or that you are some how showing them the light. I doubt that is your intent, but prooftexting comes off that way. So please exegete the passages you cite. Thanks.
Be honest…you cannot get around the bold statements of 1 John…
I don’t typically hear people that are “open” making statements like this. Is this a game or a dialogue in pursuit of truth? I don’t need to “get around” anything. If I am wrong, I want to know it, so I can make appropriate changes. I am not Catholic because I grew up Catholic. I am Catholic because I have studied the Catholic faith, along with other faiths, and I believe it to be right.
1 John 3:9 NAS95 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God…
This verse does not support your argument. I think it takes a rather nice twisting of context to arrive at the conclusion that you made. John starts this passage with, “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.” In other words, John believes that they CAN be lead astray. If they couldn’t be lead astray, to tell them to guard against it would be superfluous. Furthermore, we know John is speaking to Christians, because he addresses them as “children.” Or in other words, he is their spiritual father. Context is key brother.
John goes on to say, “He who does what is right is righteous,” and “He who does what is sinful is of the devil.” In other words, what a person DOES, matters. If we continue to sin, and are “lead astray” we are a child of the devil. If we continue to do what right, we become “righteous,” and are thus a child of God.
The part you seem to get tripped up on is the “cannot go on sinning” part. This does not mean he is not metaphysically capable of sinning. In fact, we know that is not true, because each one of us sins daily STILL! What he is saying is that we cannot rightly call ourselves children of God when we continue to live a life of sin. Nothing more! Again, I simply disagree with your exegesis of this passage. I can understand the confusion, but in no way does this support your position.
In Hebrews 10, the person is sinning wilfully - if they were born of God, they would not…And they would overcome…
We have already addressed Heb 10, so no need to re-hash the same argument. However, I would point out that your point here merely begs the question. Your interpetation of Heb 10 stands entirely on the shoulders of your interpretation on 1 Jn. In other words, if you’re wrong on one, you’re wrong on both. I say that because your assumption that someone that is born of God is not metaphysically capable of sinning willfully comes from the verse in 1 Jn. This is a dangerous way of exegeting passages.