Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Tath’s=That’s
If that motivation is the promotion of the AV as the only acceptable translation, well, I heard it all before by persons equally uninformed.
But should I ever want to know about “Home Ec” or interior decorating (areas of Riplinger’s expertise) I'll be sure to seek Riplinger out.
Kosta to ES-”Why don’t you post some of them, for all to see instead of just shooting vectors with no force”
All of ES’s info is coming from KJV worshiper Gail Riplinger
“It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms!”
That does it for me!!! Spawn of Satan!!!!
I'll refrain from posting another tome. ;o)
There is both an eternal and a relational realm. For eternal purposes, my sin is paid in full, forgiven, not held to my account, when I by faith accepted and believed in Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior. The relational realm is my own personal daily walk with Christ and the fellowship I have with him. When I sin, my eternal destiny is unchanged since all my sins are covered by the blood of Christ and I will not be held accountable for them - I am freed from the curse of sin and death.
Thanks for your reply.
So, would it be correct to get from this that you are asking for God’s forgiveness in the relational realm?
You have it in the eternal realm already but do not have His forgiveness in the relational realm, so this is the forgiveness you are necessarily asking for.
Would that be a correct statement in your view?
Thanks for telling us who you really are.
.
Keep on worshipping “Tath,” whoever that is.
.
Regardless of whatever it is you two are arguing about, thanks for proving me wrong. I'm "glad" to see that a Protestant will sometimes go for the throat of another Protestant even in a room full of Catholics.
Dr. E was very clear about that in her post (14991) "Sanctification is a life-long process..." as opposed to justification, which "is a one-time event," except that nothing in 1 Cor 6:11 makes that distinction. All three "states" are lumped together in the same aorist as accomplished facts!
Yes, I would agree that 1 Cor. 6:11 does not appear to make that distinction, but that wasn't its purpose. It was making a different point. To see that the FULNESS of sanctification is a lifelong process we simply need to look at other scripture which does address the point, such as:
So Dr. E. is correct, the totality of scripture reveals that sanctification is a lifelong, ongoing process, even though in one verse the Bible makes it "look" like an instant event in order to make a comparison illuminating a completely different point.
[Dr. E.] even throws in John Calvin's statement that "God does indeed destroy the kingdom of sin in us. But though it ceases to reign, it continues to dwell in us...His Spirit will ever form us anew to be better and better, that we may walk to the end in newness of life" suggesting that one who has been "set apart" is continuously being regenerated, re-formed anew.
I think of the word "regenerated" as a theological term of art, and refers to a single action in time. However, the idea of being "re-formed anew" seems consistent to me with scripture describing the on going process:
It is axiomatic that we do not "transform" ourselves, so it is easily seen that the renewing of our minds is an act of God. That this is a process rather than an event is evident from the context. We know that spiritual acts of worship are ongoing, as are refusals to conform, as are our growing abilities to test and approve of God's will. I think this is what Calvin was referring to.
[I won't even go into the idea that God for some strange reason does not destroy sin in his children, but allows it to fester and exert itself in someone who is now supposedly "holy," and continues to remake what sin continues to break! What kind of a perfect work is that?]
It is perfect simply by definition since it is by God. We can trace this all the way back to God creating satan with full knowledge in the first place. I'm not certain why He made that choice, but I am content that it served God's purposes and was/is perfect. God wanted us to continually grow throughout our lives here on earth rather than just simply "jump to the end". He could have created us as sinless spirit beings and skipped the whole earth thing altogether. For His own reasons He didn't so we simply accept that.
Cont. ...
Oh tut tut now, no need for sensitivity or hurt feelings by anyone.
The translators of the AV said themselves that when their work required revisiting for correction or revision they would be willing to do so.
And over the years it’s been possible to do so with earlier manuscripts available.
And then there is, of course, a specific message to the people of Thessaloniki that it is God's will that they be sanctified by staying away from sexual immorality, which is clearly sanctification accomplished by works! [oops]
It appears you are referring to this passage:
If so, then it is perfectly consistent to say that avoiding sexual immorality (or sin in general) is part of God's ongoing sanctification efforts within us. While I would agree that passages like this "sound" like our own acts of ourselves sanctify us, Reformers maintain that the greatest weight of scripture is clear that sanctification is a continuous act of God upon us. Therefore, passages like this are to be taken as encouragements in the light of our human experience. We experience making our own decisions to do good, for example, however, we believe that proper credit is due to God acting through us.
This passage notes that God gives us Holy Spirit and we know from other scripture that He was sent to "teach all things". Certainly avoiding lustful thoughts or acts is part of that, and further shows that such sanctification (teaching) is an act of God. Of course we nevertheless blow it by continuing to sin (generally), but it is also true that sinning should become less and less as we are sanctified and matured.
And what about Paul's "alternate path" to sanctification "formula" (1 Corinthians 7:14), whereby all an unbeliever has to do is marry a believer? Isn't that works-related as well? [another oops?]
I acknowledge that the text on its face does not seem to match the doctrine in that it has an unbeliever being sanctified when we say that only believers can be sanctified. I would not call this a mistake, though, but rather something requiring further inquiry into the point Paul was really trying to make. I admit I am not certain of the answer, but I find Calvin's view to be plausible enough for me. Essentially, Calvin opined that since Paul knew that sanctification would be of no actual benefit to the unbeliever, he must have (or could have) meant that the unbelieving spouse was "sanctified" in the sense that his unbelief would not be allowed to pollute the marriage itself or the believing spouse. That is, the actual benefit of the sanctifying would inure to the believing spouse.
In 2 Cor. 6:14 Paul tells us not to marry unbelievers in the first place. So, here the context is that it is already too late and the marriage is done. The POINT is, then, that the marriage is NOT dissolved by the "pollution" of the unbeliever, and that the marriage IS valid and should be maintained by the fact of the unbeliever being "sanctified" so as not to cause harm to the believer for the fact of the marriage. I again acknowledge that this approach may not be airtight, but I do find it plausible to explain Paul's apparent contradicting of himself. Naturally, we start with the presupposition that God's word is inerrant and so if this explanation is not the correct one, then there is simply some other explanation that IS true, thus Paul does not contradict himself.
However, if I recall correctly, [Paul] doesn't deal with what happens to this "heavenly citizenship" in case of a divorce. Does the spouse, previously made "holy," revert to being "unholy," i.e. gets "de-sanctified," and is that a one-time event or a life-long process as well? You know, every day, God de-forms you a little bit...until you are unholy. :)
The doctrine I agree with, and I believe is supported by the greatest weight of scripture, and the doctrine I believe Paul preached, is that unbelievers do not spiritually benefit from sanctification. Since Paul's point in this section promotes the validity of the marriage I assume that a resulting divorce would be treated as any other divorce without Biblical justification. It would be wrongful. I'm actually unaware of there being any "de-sanctification" of believers. :)
And what happens if the spouse happens to be a Thessalonian pagan who, having been made "holy" through a marriage to a Corinthian believer, engages in sexual immorality? Which rule applies, pray tell? The spouse is still married to the unbeliever, but the spouse also engaged in a holiness-busting act, so which prevails? Do holiness-busting works annul holiness-building marriage (which is also holiness by works!)?
I believe Paul's point was that the unholiness of the non-believing spouse did NOT annul or otherwise invalidate the marriage. The believing spouse was protected from the "holiness-busting acts" :) by God's use of sanctification. If that is correct, then all of the relevant scripture seems to be in agreement.
I try to civil toward all, respectful of none.
It wasn’t actually you I was referring to... :)
Sorry, I was just caught up in my own eloquence.
Well put!!! Positional vs. relational is a good way to explain it. The problem some may have is when they then don't differentiate between imputed vs. infused righteousness.
Yes, and also RC's are not forgiven for sins after baptism unless confessed to a priest who then forgives them, BUT they still must perform penance(usually hail Marys, Our Fathers) to pay for temporal punishment of sin.
Christ is not enough! THEY must atone for these temporal punishments themselves.
Is there any GOOD News in this gospel?
Nothing is more pathetic than ridiculing someone's my typo (which I immediately corrected) with a typo of your own! How is crow, with feathers, for you today?
someone’s my = someone’s/my
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the Calvinist view the good news is you were born with a free ticket to heaven, sin all the away, no matter what.
Or..
The bad news is you were born with a free ticket to hell, sin all the way, no matter what.
Makes this whole discussion moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.