"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[mikeledes]

Sanctification by “association.” This is getting more outrageous by the minute. So I guess we should throw out what Jesus said about salvation and also throw out the rules of semantics and grammar. You are either sanctified by the blood of Christ or you are not. A person may be associated with Christians, but if they were never “in Christ”, they were never sanctified.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, I grant you that you are a purist in Paul, and that according to your Pauline gospel, which excludes the other NT teachings on salvation, including that in the gospels, you are able to maintain a masterful congruency.

Apophasis’s interpretation of the Pauline Gospel even contradicts Paul himself:

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

This is reaffimed by Romans 2:6-7

6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

1 Timothy 6:18-19
18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

All of the above are foud in Paul’s epistles. And the plain meaning is pretty clear. That is, of course, if we don’t create our own language, using words in ways they’ve never been used before.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[apophasis]

Sanctification by “association.” This is getting more outrageous by the minute. So I guess we should throw out what Jesus said about salvation and also throw out the rules of semantics and grammar. You are either sanctified by the blood of Christ or you are not. A person may be associated with Christians, but if they were never “in Christ”, they were never sanctified.

God Bless,
Michael

I say the same thing to you, Mike, as I do Pax. CONTEXT!!! Can an unbeliever be “sanctified” (set apart) by association with believers? Yes:1 Cor. 7:14 "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.“Sanctified” here does not mean sanctified in Christ, as in 1 Cor. 1:2. But the unbelieving (non-saved) spouses benefit to some degree being in close association with their believing spouse.

Is that so hard to understand, Mike?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If sanctification is a state of being how can it be instanteous or discrete?

Doesn’t the very fact of being require a process and not a discrete event?

 

[mikeledes]

I say the same thing to you, Mike, as I do Pax. CONTEXT!!! Can an unbeliever be “sanctified” (set apart) by association with believers? Yes:1 Cor. 7:14 "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.“Sanctified” here does not mean sanctified in Christ, as in 1 Cor. 1:2. But the unbelieving (non-saved) spouses benefit to some degree being in close association with their believing spouse.

Is that so hard to understand, Mike?

One thing is to be sanctifed (i.e. consecrated/set apart), another thing is to be sanctified by the blood of Christ. The verse in question, Hebrews 10, speaks of one who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ. The unbelieving spouse benefits because he/she is exposed to the gospel and thus the possibility of salvation extends to him/her.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Can it really be a possibility if God has already determined the Elect?

It could be a possibility if one could exercise free will after initial justification and die in mortal sin.

Face it–without Mortal Sin and Freedom of Man’s Will all we are is robots and God has already decided.

That’s what you get with an instantaneous discrete event.

You aren’t left with man having no freedom of will if grace is a continual event and if man can choose either to be neutral and let God do all the saving or impede the flow of God’s grace and go to Hell.

God Predestines.

Man chooses to go to Hell.

You can have both salvation that comes only from God and freedom of the will.

That’s what Catholics believe.

Why can’t everyone else grasp that?

Why can’t they walk and chew gum at the same time?

 

[Pax]

Pax, 2 Pet. 2:20-22 is in the context of Peter warning the saints about “false teachers” in their midst (2:1). These are not true believers. He’s warning them about their true nature, their true character and their eternal condemnation. As he says in vs. 17:"These are springs without water, mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved."Peter is not describing the redeemed, bought by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, for whom an imperishible and undefiled inheritance is reserved in heaven, and who are protected by the power of God (1 Pet. 1:1-5; 18-21).

But these false teachers after being sanctified (by association only), will act according to their nature. And it would have been better for them to have never been introduced to the "way of righteousness" (they were never “made righteous” in Christ). Peter compares them to the dog who, according to its own distainful nature, returns to eat its own vomit, and the sow, after being cleaned up (outwardly only), returns to wallow in the mire.

Peter is warning the saints to be aware of such false teachers that will rise up in their midst, just as false prophets rose up in Israel.

CONTEXT Pax, it’s always CONTEXT.

Who are you trying to kid?!!! The context is clear. Peter never says that these people were never true believers as you claim. Moreover, Peter never says anything about them being sanctified by “association only.” Furthermore, scripture doesn’t talk about being sanctified by “association” as you claim. People can be instruments of God for the purpose of sanctification, but scripture makes it clear that people are sanctified by the blood of Christ[see Hebrews 2:11, Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:14, Hebrews 10:29 and others].

Your absurd claim is in direct opposition to what Peter actually says. His words are: “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

–Only people that have been justified have escaped the defilements of the world and they do this through Jesus Christ.

–those that have been saved but fall back into sin and are overpowered are worse off than if they had never been saved. Their last state is worse for them than the first. The first state would have been unbelief. Then they believed and were saved, and then they were overcome and entangled by the defilements of the world!

–it would have been better had they never been saved and known the way of righteousness because they turned away from God.

This is supported in numerous places in scripture. An example would be Hebrews 10:29-31 which says:

“How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

You should stop making comments about context. It is really wearing thin especially when you consistently violate the context by twisting the scriptures to fit a set of preconceived ideas that are not supported by the scriptures you choose and that are clearly refuted by those that you dismiss.

 

[apophasis]

Who are you trying to kid?!!! The context is clear. Peter never says that these people were never true believers as you claim. Moreover, Peter never says anything about them being sanctified by “association only.” Furthermore, scripture doesn’t talk about being sanctified by “association” as you claim. People can be instruments of God for the purpose of sanctification, but scripture makes it clear that people are sanctified by the blood of Christ[see Hebrews 2:11, Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:14, Hebrews 10:29 and others].

Your absurd claim is in direct opposition to what Peter actually says. His words are: “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

–Only people that have been justified have escaped the defilements of the world and they do this through Jesus Christ.

–those that have been saved but fall back into sin and are overpowered are worse off than if they had never been saved. Their last state is worse for them than the first. The first state would have been unbelief. Then they believed and were saved, and then they were overcome and entangled by the defilements of the world!

–it would have been better had they never been saved and known the way of righteousness because they turned away from God.

This is supported in numerous places in scripture. An example would be Hebrews 10:29-31 which says:

“How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

You should stop making comments about context. It is really wearing thin especially when you consistently violate the context by twisting the scriptures to fit a set of preconceived ideas that are not supported by the scriptures you choose and that are clearly refuted by those that you dismiss.

So then, Pax, if I understand you correctly, you believe those false teachers Peter is referring to in that chapter were saved. Interesting, indeed.

 

[apophasis]

One thing is to be sanctifed (i.e. consecrated/set apart), another thing is to be sanctified by the blood of Christ. The verse in question, Hebrews 10, speaks of one who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ. The unbelieving spouse benefits because he/she is exposed to the gospel and thus the possibility of salvation extends to him/her.

God Bless,
Michael

Actually, we were talking about 2 Peter chapter two. And the passage about the unbelieving spouse is in 1 Cor. 7.

 

[guanophore]

Your absurd claim is in direct opposition to what Peter actually says. His words are: “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

Pax is right, Apophasis. It is impossible to escape the defilements of the world apart from the saving grace of Jesus and His blood shed on the cross.

This is supported in numerous places in scripture. An example would be Hebrews 10:29-31 which says:

“How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

You should stop making comments about context. It is really wearing thin especially when you consistently violate the context by twisting the scriptures to fit a set of preconceived ideas that are not supported by the scriptures you choose and that are clearly refuted by those that you dismiss.

It is true, God is judging “His people”. Those that belong to Him. How can someone spurn the Son of God who has never known HIm?

However, Pax, the reason that Apo can persist in this theology is that there are plenty of scriptures that do support it. True, scriptures that you cite in your post do have to be explained away somehow, but there are far more verses supporting his Pauline gospel than there are verses such as these which speak differently.

 

[guanophore]

So then, Pax, if I understand you correctly, you believe those false teachers Peter is referring to in that chapter were saved. Interesting, indeed.

Not in the truncated sense of salvation in which you use the word, Apo. These people were initiated. Or are you saying that they were not purchased by the Master, as the text indicates?

…even denying the Master who bought them… 2 Peter 2:1

 

[Jerry-Jet]

None of the Bible ever has to be explained away. One truth never cancels another. Since it doesn’t justification by faith alone will always be a lie.

And what is the greatest lie? Satan will tell you that his best lies are telling only part of the truth.

So what part of the truth of James 2:24 do Protestants not understand?

Why do they keep trying to sell only part of the truth?

 

[apophasis]

Not in the truncated sense of salvation in which you use the word, Apo.

You mean “by grace through faith” according to Paul?

These people were initiated. Or are you saying that they were not purchased by the Master, as the text indicates?

…even denying the Master who bought them… 2 Peter 2:1

Not sure what you mean by “initiated,” but Peter warns them that these false teachers will rise up from among them, introducing destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. If you call such denial salvation faith then you and I truly do come from two very different places. Maybe even two different “faiths.”

 

[apophasis]

None of the Bible ever has to be explained away. One truth never cancels another. Since it doesn’t justification by faith alone will always be a lie.

And what is the greatest lie? Satan will tell you that his best lies are telling only part of the truth.

So what part of the truth of James 2:24 do Protestants not understand?

Why do they keep trying to sell only part of the truth?

Even James 2:24 must be understood in its proper context to be properly understood. James 2:24 has been discussed on this forum more than any verse in the Bible. It has a context, Jerry. It doesn’t stand alone.

 

[onenow1]

None of the Bible ever has to be explained away. One truth never cancels another. Since it doesn’t justification by faith alone will always be a lie.

And what is the greatest lie? Satan will tell you that his best lies are telling only part of the truth.

So what part of the truth of James 2:24 do Protestants not understand?

Why do they keep trying to sell only part of the truth?

Right on Jerry !
I might add this also.Genesis. 4: 6-7, The Lord said to Cain “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen ? If you do well, will you not be accepted ? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, you can still master it.”

Cain most certainly believed in God I would say, he knew what God’s will was, however he chose his will and not God’s.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[guanophore]

You mean “by grace through faith” according to Paul?

No, I mean separating justification from sanctification.

Not sure what you mean by “initiated,” but Peter warns them that these false teachers will rise up from among them, introducing destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. If you call such denial salvation faith then you and I truly do come from two very different places. Maybe even two different “faiths.”

We have two different understandings of saving faith, for sure. The Catholic understanding of “saving faith” is not a one shot, once only event, as you believe. Catholics believe saving faith is a faith that persists, and that can be lost. I know you believe that, once a person is “saved” he is always saved. This passage clearly indictes that a person can be bought by the Master, then deny Him, just as Judas and Peter did. It is possible to partake of the heavenly gift (salvation) then reject the gift.

 

[apophasis]

Pax is right, Apophasis. It is impossible to escape the defilements of the world apart from the saving grace of Jesus and His blood shed on the cross.

You’re confusing “defilement” with condemnation. It is impossible to escape the condemnation of this world apart from being redeemed with the blood of Jesus Christ through personal faith in Him (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

But the word used in 1 Pet. 2:20 is miasmata and means pollutions of the world, it’s filthy vices. These can be escaped by practicing the dictates of a religion. Even Mormons escape many of the pollutions [vices) of the world by abiding in the religious principles of their cult. But they have not been sanctified “*in Christ;” they’ve not escaped the “condemnation” of this world, not being set apart (sanctified) “in Christ” they’ll still die in their sins.

Peter describes those false teachers as having only knowledge" of the Savior, not personal faith “in Him.” Keep in mind, they’re “false” teachers."

 

[mikeledes]

Actually, we were talking about 2 Peter chapter two. And the passage about the unbelieving spouse is in 1 Cor. 7.

:doh2: Pardon me! I thought you were referring to Hebrews 10. But I am aware that the ubelieving spouse is in 1 Corinthians.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

No, I mean separating justification from sanctification.

But Scripture surely separates the two. Justification is presented in Scripture as a “gift” by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus - as is salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23). Whereas, sanctification is never called a gift.

Scripture presents three kinds of sanctification in respect to the believer: (1) positional, (2) experiential, (3) ultimate.

1) Positional sanctification is the believer now being “in Christ.” By identity believers are now “sons of God” having been redeemed and cleansed by His precious blood, forgiven of all sins, made righteous in Christ, justified and purified. All which indicates a distinct classification and separation (sanctification) from the rest of the world, deep and eternal through the saving grace of Christ. It’s based on revealed FACTS, not experience, addressed to faith and bears no relationship to the believer’s daily life, although it should certainly inspire him to holy living. His daily condition should reflect his eternal, sanctified position now in the resurrected Christ (see Rom. 12:1; Eph. 4:1; Col. 3:1).

A true believer is not now accepted in himself, he’s accepted in the Beloved. He is not righteous in himself, Christ has been made unto him righteousness. He is not now redeemed in himself, Christ has been made unto him redemption. He is not now positionally sanctified by his daily walk, Christ has been made unto him sanctification. This is all God’s doing on the believer’s behalf through Christ Himself:1 Cor. 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,…Positional sanctification is as perfect as Christ is perfect. As everlasting as the resurrected Christ in whom he has now been sanctified (set-apart, made holy, sainthood) by God. It’s as complete for the weakest saint as it is for the strongest. It depends only on his union and position in Christ, a calling which cannot change (Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 10:10; Jude 1).

(2) Experiential sanctification refers only to the daily walk of the saint in this life, this side of glory. As positional sanctification is absolutely dissociated from the daily life, so experiential sanctification is absolutely dissociated from the believer’s sanctified, position in Christ. Experiential sanctification is related to Christian growth (2 Pet. 3:18) depending on one’s wilful yieldedness to God and wilful separation from sin (for instance, 1 Thess 4:1-7). Neither of which effect his positional sanctification being now a new creature “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17)

(3) Ultimate sanctification is related to the believer’s final perfection (body, soul and spirit) which will be his in glory (at the resurrection of the body). His total condition will forever reflect his now position in Christ (1 Jn. 3:1-2; cf. Col. 3:1-4)

So you see, guano, Biblically sanctification is not justification, but it is the justified whom God sanctifies unto Himself in Christ Jesus: positionally, experientially and ultimately.

 

[mikeledes]

(2) Experiential sanctification refers only to the daily walk of the saint in this life, this side of glory. As positional sanctification is absolutely dissociated from the daily life, so experiential sanctification is absolutely dissociated from the believer’s sanctified, position in Christ. Experiential sanctification is related to Christian growth (2 Pet. 3:18) depending on one’s wilful yieldedness to God and wilful separation from sin (for instance, 1 Thess 4:1-7). Neither of which effect his positional sanctification being now a new creature “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17)

And yet without this “experiential” sanctification, one cannot be saved:

**14Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. **

1. Positional sanctification is the believer now being “in Christ.” By identity believers are now “sons of God” having been redeemed and cleansed by His precious blood, forgiven of all sins, made righteous in Christ, justified and purified. All which indicates a distinct classification and separation (sanctification) from the rest of the world, deep and eternal through the saving grace of Christ. It’s based on revealed FACTS, not experience, addressed to faith and bears no relationship to the believer’s daily life, although it should certainly inspire him to holy living. His daily condition should reflect his eternal, sanctified position now in the resurrected Christ (see Rom. 12:1; Eph. 4:1; Col. 3:1).

Can you please point out a verse in which the word “sanctification” is used in such a way. Protestants generally emphasize the distinction between justification and sanctification, but I never heard of a distinction between “positional sanctification” and “experiential justification.” Here is a definition of sanctification from a Baptist website:

Though absolutely inseparable, yet these two great blessings of Divine grace are quite distinct. In sanctification something is actually imparted to us, in justification it is only imputed. Justification is based entirely upon the work Christ wrought for us, sanctification is principally a work wrought in us. Justification respects its object in a legal sense and terminates in a relative change—a deliverance from punishment, a right to the reward; sanctification regards its object in a moral sense, and terminates in an experimental change both in character and conduct—imparting a love for God, a capacity to worship Him acceptably, and a meetness for heaven. Justification is by a righteousness without us, sanctification is by a holiness wrought in us. Justification is by Christ as Priest, and has regard to the penalty of sin; sanctification is by Christ as King, and has regard to the dominion of sin: the former cancels its damning power, the latter delivers from its reigning power.

They differ, then, in their order (not of time, but in their nature), justification preceding, sanctification following: the sinner is pardoned and restored to God’s favour before the Spirit is given to renew him after His image. They differ in their design: justification removes the obligation unto punishment; sanctification cleanses from pollution. They differ in their form: justification is a judicial act, by which the sinner as pronounced righteous; sanctification is a moral work, by which the sinner is made holy: the one has to do solely with our standing before God, the other chiefly concerns our state. They differ in their cause: the one issuing from the merits of Christ’s satisfaction, the other proceeding from the efficacy of the same. They differ in their end: the one bestowing a title to everlasting glory, the other being the highway which conducts us thither. “And an highway shall be there,…and it shall be called The way of holiness” (Isa. 35:8).

This quote is from the following link:

pbministries.org/books/pink/Sanctification/sanct_02.htm

Positional vs. eperiential sanctification is an artificial distinction.

God Bless,
Michael