We can reasonably conclude, based on grammar, that it is a done an accomplished package deal without regard what comes first or last.
As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification
So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.
If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love
I asked where does it say it is a life-long process, FK, not whether the Bible is at fault. But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin...the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. [Phil 3:20-21]
It is not the image but the likeness of God that man lost in the Fall. In other words, being, and not looking God-like. As for the Philippians, Christ never promised that to his hand-picked disciples. Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle on his word?
That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.
In Slavonic, as in Greek, it has a slightly different "flavor": them whom he predefined, he also invited, and the ones he invited them he excused, and the ones he excused them he celebrated.
The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God.
I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?
if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case
I don't know. However, the pre-Fall Adam did have that potential. Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?
So far, the "glorified" man will not share God's eternal nature and will not have free will. Doesn't sound very perfected or worthy of glory to me, FK. :)
So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.
I see this passage we were talking about as indicating the future:
This is a supplication for something to be done both in the future and on an ongoing basis. His word is truth and as we grow in our maturity in His word, so we continually grow in our sanctification.
But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
I would say perceiving the truth of scripture is a matter of both. I can't imagine even an avowed atheist scientist asserting that there is no historical fact anywhere in the Bible. After that we go right to eyes and ears, etc.
Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle [Paul] on his word?
I'm actually torn on how to answer this. :) On the one hand none is with excuse so you should believe. OTOH, according to the model I follow, it appears that it is simply not your time yet for faith (or its restoration), so there is no reason you "should" believe. I'll have to think about this. :)
I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?
I would say that it is what we call the remnant of sin. Believers still have sin now, but will not in eternity going forward.
Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?
Perfection for me would certainly include losing all desire to sin forever. If free will for us is only defined as including having the free will to sin then I want no part of it. :)