That said, I am quote familiar with the Greek word hagiazo (to make holy) but I disagree that it can be "positional" and "practical." Holiness is a state. Something is either holy is or not.
It is a state, but it clearly is used to describe both that which is sanctified by way of consecration but without any real change (Mt. 23:17,19), as well as that which actually is being made practically holy, clean, though it was considered to have been in a state of sanctification. (Eph. 5:26; 1Thes. 5:23) Israel collectively was considered “holy seed” but that did not ensure they practically were and were true children of God.
by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God
That's Paul's babble as far as I am concerned. No man can make himself holy. Also Jewish "holiness" and Pauline idea of holiness, salvation, etc. are like night and day.
Just the opposite. Just as the gift was considered sanctified by the altar of dedication, (Mt. 23:17,19) so the believers body, and that is part of Old Testament sanctification.
every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God
That's right. Jews are God's holy people. That's why a Jew could not own a Jewish slave. Each Jew belongs to God. They are the priestly nation. They are given 613 mitzvot to observe and the Gentiles are given seven. The OT make sit clear that the Gentiles have no role in God's plan. Only the Jews do.
“Own” and “slave” as defined by manner of treatment and length of required service. Jews could sell themselves into servitude to Jews, but were to be treated as hired hands, and offered freedom after 6 years, or the 50th if it came first, with severance pay, unless it was a virgin sold to be a wife for which special rules applied. And Jews who sold themselves into servitude to foreigners could be redeemed by their brethren before the 6th year.
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response
What "volitional response"? You don't get up one morning and decide to believe. It must be given, according to Christian apologists.
It must be granted, but as i stated, a human response is required, God persuading, and some do resist, as referenced. Jesus wept due to the impenitence of Jerusalem, whose salvation (the peoples) He desired. But i do understand the debate.
Jesus did not perform many [baptisms] either, if any
No, but that was before the Great Commission given to his disciples to baptize. I suppose Paul felt that this was not "his job." The Great Commission doesn't say "except Paul." Given Paul's own theology, water baptism was not that important, so he didn't do it. Apparently he was not aware of the Great Commission probably because it was made up a later date, just as Mark's was.
This is incorrect, as the reason Jesus was not baptizing was because his disciples did so, just as others baptized when Paul himself did not. And the recorded evidence shows Paul typically baptizing in their case of individual or small group conversion, and he did more than 1Cor. 1:14,16 mentions, which was in the context of the Corinthians. As for the made up and later date charge, i shall leave others to dealing with such these ideological necessities, would likely need another thread.
But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
That's part of the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity. Different Christian groups believe different things as regards baptism and faith.
Christians are not the only ones who express different views, and while this is understandable as regards baptism, its place does not require making works to merit salvation. What may be the occasion of coming to faith and or the means by which it is expressed is one thing, but supposing such constitutes salvific merit is the error. One is saved by faith, but it is a faith that is characterized by the obedience of faith, and to this all the NT teaches.
By the way, the "born again" is a mistranslation of Greek.
OK, born from above, but it still constitutes an additional birth, of another type. You need two birthdays to see the KOG.
and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train.
Nope. Once you believe (and that is not even your doing, but God;s) no matter what you do nothing will get you thrown off the train. Nothing you do will affect your salvation. Or so the Protestants teach.
You must very well know that such was historically a minority teaching, as i described, and is not classic Protestantism. From Westminster and others. Perseverance of the saints meant a fruit bearing faith would be possessed at the end if one had it at the beginning.
The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray
They will persevere because God wants them to.
Which contradicts your denial, as if any kind of faith saves than there is no need to persevere in one.
Remember the "Your will be done"? The world is as God wants it to be. Or else he is no God.
I think i have heard this argument somewhat and perhaps it has a name, but being almighty is one thing, and choosing to exercise your power is another, though as i recall there is more to the polemic.
while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
Just another example of self-contradictions taught in the New Testament. Calvinists will find you verses in John to counter these without saying the Bible contradicts itself.
And both hold that it is by grace. Judaism was not without its significant divisions either, but both Catholic and Prots actually are agreed on most core doctrines, and those who do basically hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the word of God (which “cults” typically do not) manifest a remarkable unity despite its decentralization and their doctrinal disagreements, which principally are on the issue of predestination and the perpetuity of gifts. And diversification around common essentials has its benefits.
Christianity is strained because it is an amalgam of different beliefs and traditions, a mixture of Judaism, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism, inherently incompatible traditions stitched together and then laboriously "harmonized" over centuries.
Rather, some of its truths are found outside the Bible, while the inherently incompatibility charge depends upon selective use of texts and misconstruance of them and others , such as already seen here.
Sometimes I think the reason we don't have older version of the NT manuscripts is because they were destroyed by Christians, as new beliefs predominated.
Perhaps that explains same problem with other sources of antiquity, though I thought the argument was that they rewrote them. Must have the wrong group, but besides the dating contest, such convenient theories are found useful by some.
Get to the rest later. Good day/night.
Holiness is a state that is acceptable to God. Obviously, people are not always in that state. And neither are things. Exodus 30 shows that what has been made holy by the priest does not remain holy but must be re-sanctified on a continuous basis. People and things are either acceptable to God or they are not. In 1 Thessalonians 5:22, Paul is reminding the readers to "abstain from all form evil" in order to be acceptable to God. It is a conditional state. Those who persevere in holiness will be saved.
The presumption is that those who persevere will do so under grace because of their faith. This does not assure that everyone who thumps his chest and waves to God but doesn't abstain form all form of evil really believes. So, it is the fruit of your faith, the works, that saves you.
Just the opposite. Just as the gift was considered sanctified by the altar of dedication, (Mt. 23:17,19) so the believers body, and that is part of Old Testament sanctification.
The OT says that those who touch a holy thing became holy. It doesn't say they stay holy. Nevertheless, one cannot make himself holy. Only something holy can make other things holy.That is the OT sanctification.
“Own” and “slave” as defined by manner of treatment and length of required service.
No, Jews could own non-Jews, even their offspring, as inheritable property. A Jew, however, could not own a Jew.
This is incorrect, as the reason Jesus was not baptizing was because his disciples did so, just as others baptized when Paul himself did not
I can see Jesus being an exception (although I think it's poor leadership), but Paul is no Jesus. As a supposed apostle of Jesus, he was under the same commandment as the rest as per Matthew 28:19. By what right or presumption does Paul exempt himself from Christ's general commandment to his apostles?
OK, born from above, but it still constitutes an additional birth, of another type. You need two birthdays to see the KOG.
That might have some validity were it not that John 3:3 is highly problematic.
You must very well know that such was historically a minority teaching, as i described, and is not classic Protestantism
It is the teaching of both Luther and Calvin. What other "Protestant" teaching is there?
From Westminster and others. Perseverance of the saints meant a fruit bearing faith would be possessed at the end if one had it at the beginning.
How is that different from works-based salvation?
Which contradicts your denial, as if any kind of faith saves than there is no need to persevere in one.
Well, those who persevered will do so because God wants them to.
I think i have heard this argument somewhat and perhaps it has a name, but being almighty is one thing, and choosing to exercise your power is another, though as i recall there is more to the polemic.
If I say I hate brick homes and I build a brick home, what message am I sending? If I hate loud music it would be utterly ridiculous to find that I live surrounded by loud music. If God hates sin it utterly ridiculous that he created a world full of it and has spent whatever time it took from the creation until now to try to fix the wicked world without any sign that he is succeeding.
and those who do basically hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the word of God (which “cults” typically do not) manifest a remarkable unity despite its decentralization and their doctrinal disagreements
Protestants mainly agree on the Bible being the sole authority and that's about it. Scratch the surface of their doctrines of men and you will find heterodoxy on a biblical scale (no pun intended)!