[Kosta:] But that's not what 1 Cor 6:11 says, is it? It says you are (already) sanctified.
Well, the context is that it is part of a list distinguishing between what they were before and are now, i.e. washed, sanctified, and justified. According to Strong's the actual word used here is:
NT:37 a(gia/zw hagiazo (hag-ee-ad'-zo); from NT:40; to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: KJV - hallow, be holy, sanctify.
[The same word is used in your other examples (1 Cor. 1:2 and 1 Cor. 7:14).] The idea here is that "to be" sanctified means that one has been set apart, consecrated. That matches the spirit of washed and justified. However, the elect continue to be set apart through the life-long process of sanctification. I think this is not a contradiction at all and is analogous to the Bible's various uses of the concept of "saved". The Bible alternately refers to one already having been saved, being in the process of being saved, and being saved in the future. All are correct taken in the correct context.
Thanks, FK. BTW, good seeing you again. Surprise, I couldn't agree more. :) The message, however, is one of a change that has been accomplished, not one that is being accomplished.
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!
The idea here is that "to be" sanctified means that one has been set apart, consecrated. That matches the spirit of washed and justified. However, the elect continue to be set apart through the life-long process of sanctification
Yes, indeed, the word hagiazo (comes from haigos or holy), means "to make holy," which is—rooted in Greek words for purity and warmth—something that has been set apart from impure (profane), i.e. picked, or elected, or chosen, for purity. [interestingly, the word heresy is also derived as something that used to mean set apart, or chosen for God, but it's meaning has come top mean something else, and quite opposite]
But where does it say that this choice is being repeated continuously, as Dr. E suggests in 15051? Certainly not in 1 Corinithians 6:11!
She 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 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?]
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]
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?] Paul makes it sound like holiness is a citizenship one can acquire by choice! The unbeliever, and even the children, regardless how they are raised, are sanctified automatically through marriage of a believer. Isn't that convenient? :)
However, if I recall correclty, he 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. :)
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 think this is not a contradiction at all and is analogous to the Bible's various uses of the concept of "saved".
I am glad you don't. It's much easier to just look the other way. :)