One on One: Sanctification (Elohiym vs. Chileice)

[Chileice]

Again, we have to pause the debate because you will not answer a question. I asked:

Question 8: What is your standard of sin, the mark you can miss that proves you sin?

Let me be clear on this question so that you do not equivocate or answer with another cliché. You used the example of drunkenness as sin. How do you know drunkenness is a sin, and how drunk is too much. Where is the law, rule or standard you are following to make that determination, if it is not your subjective opinion.

You gave Ephesians 5:18 as your answer. While that may be the scripture you are using as A LAW over yourself to determine that drunkenness is a sin, it doesn't help me to determine what your standard of sin is. How does that verse tell you if murder is a sin, or adultery, or any of the other things you believe are sins. State clearly what your standard is so that a child could know right from wrong if you gave her that standard.

First of all, let me say that your question was vague. You asked how I knew drunkeness was a sin. I thought you might realize that the Bible said it was. So I gave you a verse. I told you earlier that whatever is not from faith is sin, which by the way is half of the standard you gave me as well in your answer. I believe that sin is being less than what God desires as HIS best, as others have said, missing His mark. That mark is both objective; clear injunctions of scripture, as well as subjective; for example, if I know that I am to go and visit my neighbour but I chose to type on TOL instead. While that is not a clear injunction of Scripture, I know in MY heart what God wants me to do and I fail to do it. Therefore I fell short of the "glory" of God. I fell short of being all that he desired me to be for my benefit as well as for my neighbour's. NOW, you can not tell me that is vague.

As I asked in my post, I am interested in YOUR standard, what "law" are you talking about?

Now I look forward to your next post, especially your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3.

 

[elohiym]

My opponent claims that “sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ in our conduct and character.” This implies that our flesh becomes more obedient over time to whatever standard one perceives that he must meet, which is not possible (Rom 8:7). He has also stated at least twice in this debate that the first century church described in the New Testament believed in a progressive sanctification. However, not one verse in the entire Bible shows that sanctification is a progressive process, but all verses in the Old and New Testaments implicitly and explicitly show that sanctification is instantaneous. Therefore, his position is untenable.

When God came to dwell with Israel in the wilderness, he told them, “the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.” What that meant was that it was his presence that would sanctify the tabernacle. This is important to recognize because Paul tells us, “...your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you...” Therefore, we are sanctified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul claimed that he was “sanctified by the Holy Ghost” (Rom 15:16), and claimed the readers of his epistles “are sanctified” (1Cor 1:2; 1Cor 6:11). It is not by “becoming more like Christ in our conduct and character” progressively that we are sanctified, but “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10).

The word sanctify means to make holy, to consecrate something or someone. It means that God sets us apart for a sacred purpose. The almighty creator of heaven and earth does not need to gradually make a person or an object holy over time; he can declare it it sanctified with a word. Jesus said, “now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3 ). God can sanctify a person in the womb. It is written of Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer 1:5; See also Luke 1:15). Therefore, it is evident that sanctification is an act of God achieved by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit.

My opponent, and other adherents to the doctrine of progressive sanctification, like the Seventh-day Adventist “prophet” Ellen White, have made a faulty assumption as to the definition of sanctification. They assumed that it meant the gradual transformation of the carnal mind and behavior modification. In reality, sanctification simply meant the you belong to God and are set apart by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only those who are sanctified can be made perfect. It is written: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb 10:14). What that perfection means in terms of sinlessness, I hope to show you in my next post.

Now to address some statements in your post that need addressing:

It still amazes me that you can believe he was unconverted when he preached at Pentecost. Wow! What can I say?

I never said that Peter was not converted when he preached at Pentecost, just that I don’t know when he was converted because the Bible does not say. You are assuming. I will not.

I am puzzled to think that you think you can be divine. I guess you should join the Mormons.

I never stated that I think I can become divine, whatever that means.

Sin will NOT have DOMINION over me, but that does not mean that I am INCAPABLE of sinning.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin” (John 8:34). Therefore, if one commits sin, one serves sin, and it has dominion. Walk in the spirit and sin will not have dominion.

He knows that I do NOT claim that you just “accept Christ” in some cliché manner and go about sinning. That is a knowing caricature of my words which I would think would be sinful because it misses the mark of honesty in order to try to prove himself correct.

No. You appear to me to be using the expression “accept Christ” as a cliché based on your assertion that a murderer can continue to murder and be saved. The verse you quote of Paul’s supports my position, not your position. The murderer has clearly not presented his members as instruments of righteousness, and I have already proven that a murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him.

Passages like Galatians 6 become totally irrelevant and non-sense if we accept that Christians are perfect: 1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression...

First, the word translated as transgression is not the same word used for sin throughout most the NT, and in the KJV it is translated as fault–-it requires a word study. Second, the Galatians were seeking perfection in their flesh (progressive sanctification) and were called foolish by Paul (Gal 3:3). Like any church, there were Christians at different stages of understanding. Third, I have not said that people in churches can’t sin, only that they shouldn’t and can stop completely, and must stop or perish. Therefore, your use of Galatians 6 is pointless. You cannot point to a group of Christians who are being carnal and say, “see, that means Christians will always be carnal.” That’s not reasonable.




My response to your answers to my questions:
-------------------------------------------------------

Question 8: What is your standard of sin, the mark you can miss that proves you sin? Answer: I believe that sin is being less than what God desires as HIS best, as others have said, missing His mark. That mark is both objective; clear injunctions of scripture, as well as subjective...

What you have described as a standard is a moving target, verses you pick and choose from the entire Bible based on your interpretation or that of your denomination. You claim drunkenness is a sin, but that is subjective based on how drunk one assumes is drunkenness.

Since you brought them up, Seventh-day Adventists believe drinking any alcohol is a sin, and they, like you, pick and choose Bible verses and apply subjective reasoning to prove their position. They also believe that Saturday is the sabbath like some Baptists, but other Baptists claim Sunday. Therefore, by using the standard you have, you can never meet the mark, which is why you believe a born again person will commit sin until he dies. A child could never be obedient to your standard.

You also gave the example of typing on TOL when you know God wants you to do something else as being sin, and I agree. It is willful sin because one who knows to do good but doesn’t do it is willfully sinning against God, and that is rejecting the Holy Spirit, the unpardonable sin (Heb 10:26-19). However, a person who is born of God does not willfully sin, but always does what pleases the Father.

Finally, you said whatever is not faith is sin, which is true. Therefore it doesn’t matter what you do or what scripture you attempt to follow as a rule, because if it is not done in faith, it is still sin. A person cannot please God without faith. God’s specific commandments are the ONLY measure of sin, and they are not subjective at all; but those commandments can only be kept by faith. And in faith, they can NEVER be broken. Faith precludes willful sin.



My answers to your questions:
------------------------------------


QUESTION 19: Will you now, in this next post please explain your view of sanctification, since that what this discussion is all about?

Yes. See above.

QUESTION 20: If you have truly discovered the key to perfection without being under the law, why would you wait to reveal such Good News?

I reveal it every chance I get.

QUESTION 21: Will you please exegete the following chapter in light of YOUR understanding of salvation, justification and sanctification? [ I just want to see what your understanding of rewards is.]

The reward is what Jesus calls our treasure in heaven. Those who we as fishers of men have established or built on the foundation of Christ will survive God’s fire and will remain. My reward is to see the people that I have led to Christ with me in heaven. There is nothing else God could give me.

QUESTION 22: Can you direct me to a website where your views are clearly spelled out for all to see and compare?

No. I don’t have one, nor do I know of one.

QUESTION 23: Have I understood you correctly? I do not want to misrepresent your view. If I have not, please help me understand what I failed to see.

No. You don’t understand my position. After I explain perfection you might.

QUESTION 23: Which "law" do YOU mean? The Mosaic law?

The same law Paul and John meant. The ten commandments.

 

[Chileice]

QUESTION 21: Will you please exegete the following chapter in light of YOUR understanding of salvation, justification and sanctification?

The reward is what Jesus calls our treasure in heaven. Those who we as fishers of men have established or built on the foundation of Christ will survive God’s fire and will remain. My reward is to see the people that I have led to Christ with me in heaven. There is nothing else God could give me.

This certainly does NOT qualify as an exegesis of the chapter, in my mind or other readers minds. Look at the verse, quote the verses, see what they meant to the original audience, what they mean to us and how we can apply them in our life. After you are willing to actually do some work on this chapter, I will be glad to answer your questions.

 

[elohiym]

QUESTION 21: Will you please exegete the following chapter in light of YOUR understanding of salvation, justification and sanctification?

The reward is what Jesus calls our treasure in heaven. Those who we as fishers of men have established or built on the foundation of Christ will survive God’s fire and will remain. My reward is to see the people that I have led to Christ with me in heaven. There is nothing else God could give me.

This certainly does NOT qualify as an exegesis of the chapter, in my mind or other readers minds. Look at the verse, quote the verses, see what they meant to the original audience, what they mean to us and how we can apply them in our life. After you are willing to actually do some work on this chapter, I will be glad to answer your questions.

You stated, "I just want to see what your understanding of rewards is." Therefore I have answered your question. I cannot state any clearer what my understanding of reward is. I am also not here to exegete entire chapters of the Bible, but debate the points. If you have a different understanding of reward in the context of that chapter feel free to exegete it or state what it is.

Be advised that your posts are needlessly long, and you are doing an injustice to the reader, in my opinion. I doubt at this point people are even reading this debate. They are probably clicking through, seeing the long meandering posts, and leaving the thread. I wish we had agreed to a post length before we started. :sigh:

Also, I have not asked you anymore questions, so your statement that you will not answer my questions until I exegete an entire chapter of the Bible makes no sense.

 

[Chileice]

You stated, "I just want to see what your understanding of rewards is." Therefore I have answered your question. I cannot state any clearer what my understanding of reward is. I am also not here to exegete entire chapters of the Bible, but debate the points. If you have a different understanding of reward in the context of that chapter feel free to exegete it or state what it is.

Be advised that your posts are needlessly long, and you are doing an injustice to the reader, in my opinion. I doubt at this point people are even reading this debate. They are probably clicking through, seeing the long meandering posts, and leaving the thread. I wish we had agreed to a post length before we started. :sigh:

Also, I have not asked you anymore questions, so your statement that you will not answer my questions until I exegete an entire chapter of the Bible makes no sense.

The problem my friend, is this: you have made up your own theology and so there is no homework to do. You quote no one, you do not take scripture in its entire context. So, yes, my posts are longer, and frankly they take a long time to write. Yours seem to be shot off the cuff. Also, you have centuries of church history to see where I am coming from and yet you have still failed to even give us your definition of perfection. You told us in the post before last that your next post would tell us how to be perfect, without the law. It did not. It is hard to "Debate" against someone who has failed to put all of his argument on the table. So I am forced to try to guess at what your real doctrine is and try to anticipate it and then you come back and tell me that I am too vague, if I don't answer your questions to YOUR satisfaction. You may be perfect to yourself, but your perfection has failed to give me a full understanding of what you believe or what you expect.

The reason I want you to exegete 1 Corinthians 3 is to show how you view rewards in relation to salvation, justification and santification. The word "just" in my final aside was a POOR choice of words. I tend to use "just" often in my own conversation when I don't really mean "ONLY". It's a bad habit. I added the aside just so that you would include your view of rewards in your overall exegesis. However, my main focus on the question is to truly find out what you mean by salvation, justification and sanctification.

Any reasonable view of the passage will also show that sanctification IS aprocess. And if you do not see a process in that passage, I would sure like to know how you reason it away.

 

[elohiym]

The problem my friend, is this: you have made up your own theology and so there is no homework to do. You quote no one, you do not take scripture in its entire context...

Look, you are breaking the rules we agreed on. I don't need to quote anything but the Bible, and I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. I also do not have to lay out my argument on your time-table, and I never said I was going to explain everything two posts ago. So quit it with these subtle accusations.

We agreed to answer each other's questions. You have decided to make one of your questions a homework assignment for me, but that is not a question. If you want to exegete a chapter of Bible to make your point, go for it. I am only obligated to answer questions, and I have done so in this debate without equivocation.

Make your arguments. Ask your questions. Keep your opinions about me to yourself. Refute my arguments, if you can. Let the reader decide.

I await your next post.

 

[Chileice]

Look, you are breaking the rules we agreed on. I don't need to quote anything but the Bible, and I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. I also do not have to lay out my argument on your time-table, and I never said I was going to explain everything two posts ago. So quit it with these subtle accusations.

HERE is our entire communication on the debate so that others can judge whether I have broken the rules. You accuse me of something and no one could even know whether it is true or not. Here are the full texts of our pre-debate conversation:

Originally Posted by Chileice
I propose a 1 on 1 debate where we discuss the issue of sanctification: is it instantaneous at salvation, or is it a process? Can a born-again Christian sin, and if so, why? And if not, why not?

I propose that we try to stick to the Bible as the basis for our debate. That is not to say that you can bring in quotes from other authors, etc. You certainly can. You can also appeal to history to back up your claims.

I also propose that neither of us discuss who is winning the debate nor make claims that we have won. We will leave that up to those who read our posts.

I also commit to no name-calling and expect the same treatment from you. I believe each of us should put up a post laying out our general ideas related to sanctification without questions posed to the other person. Then, based on what has been said by the other in his initial post, we will begin to ask and answer each other's questions and broaden the discussion of the topic at hand.

Does that sound reasonable?

Again, if you answer more than 20 minutes from now, you probably won't hear anything until this evening. Thanks for the patience!


Originally Posted by elohiym
Quote:
I accept your terms. Shall I start the thread and go first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chileice
Sure, go ahead and start and I will try to answer this evening. Thanks!

Originally Posted by elohiym
Quote:
Will do.

Those ar the rules. I don't believe asking you to exegete a Bible passage is against the rules. As a matter of fact, that would be sticking to the Bible. I never said you HAD to quote anyone, but we agreed that we could if it were helpful. I will let the readers decide if your claim that I broke the rules is true or not.

We agreed to answer each other's questions. You have decided to make one of your questions a homework assignment for me, but that is not a question. If you want to exegete a chapter of Bible to make your point, go for it. I am only obligated to answer questions, and I have done so in this debate without equivocation.

Make your arguments. Ask your questions. Keep your opinions about me to yourself. Refute my arguments, if you can. Let the reader decide.

I await your next post.

If having to actually take more than two minutes with a scripture passage is homework for you, I am sorry you feel that way. I will try to simplify things for you. I think we may be near the end of this "debate" as you are unwilling to truly lay out your positions. But I will respond to your last post even if you are unwilling to answer my questions about 1 Corinthians 3.

 

[Chileice]

He has also stated at least twice in this debate that the first century church described in the New Testament believed in a progressive sanctification. However, not one verse in the entire Bible shows that sanctification is a progressive process, but all verses in the Old and New Testaments implicitly and explicitly show that sanctification is instantaneous. Therefore, his position is untenable.

This may seem a bit arduous, but I am going to list a few of the verses that support the long-standing view of the Christian church, held by almost everyone for all generations, that we as Christians are a work in progress. And as an addition, I will throw in some OT verses as well sice it seems that my opponent is unaware that they exist.
Hosea 6:3; Psalm 119:5-7 (actually, all of Psalm 119 is about learning more of God's precepts so that the psalmist could increase in righteousness. It certainly teaches and implies progression). Another from the OT that I want to print out for the readers to see:
14But I will hope continually
and will praise you yet more and more.
15My mouth will tell of your righteous acts,
of your deeds of salvation all the day,
for their number is past my knowledge.
16With the mighty deeds of the Lord GOD I will come;
I will remind them of your righteousness, yours alone.

17O God, from my youth you have taught me,
and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds.
18So even to old age and gray hairs,
O God, do not forsake me,
until I proclaim your might to another generation,
your power to all those to come.
19Your righteousness, O God,
reaches the high heavens.
You who have done great things,
O God, who is like you?
20You who have made me see many troubles and calamities
will revive me again;
from the depths of the earth
you will bring me up again.
21You will increase my greatness
and comfort me again.
This is the psalm of a man who is now advanced in years and sees how from youth to old age, he has grown in the knowledge of the Lord. Why would he need to grow if he were perfect? Can perfect become more perfect? Mature can become more mature, but if one has reached perfection, this psalm would be senseless.

Now let me move to the NT for the sake of time, not for lack of verses to show this idea IS Biblical and why it has been accepted for centuries as the doctrine of the churches of Jesus.

Mt. 5.23,24; Mt. 6.7-15; (Why would Jesus teach us to pray as he did unless he only wanted us to pray once in our lives. But it says "When you pray" we should ask forgiveness, ask not to be led into temptation, etc. Perfect people wouldn't have to pray like that.) Mt. 7.1-5; (we are told not to judge because we might have a log in our own eyes while we are trying to get the speck out of the other guy's eye. Perfect people would not have logs in their eyes. 1 Thes. 5:12-25; Luke 9.23; 2 Thes. 1.3; 1 Tim. 1.12-17; Read the entire book of 2nd Timothy and tell me in all honesty, that our sanctification has led to instant perfection. It is so clear that it has not.

Matthew 9:10And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."


It seems that only those who admit their own sinfulness stand able to be saved. Because if one thinks they are perfect and have no need, as did the pharisees, Jesus can't do anything for them. Yet, Matthew and his buddies knew their need.

The almighty creator of heaven and earth does not need to gradually make a person or an object holy over time; he can declare it it sanctified with a word.

He does not NEED to, but he chooses to. Why? I do not know, other than to make our lives full of purpose. In Mt. 9 Jesus sees the multitudes, has compassion on them, but does nothing other than tell his disciples to pray. Thare was NOTHING instantaneous about Jesus' solution:

35And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."

Therefore, it is evident that sanctification is an act of God achieved by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit.

I will agree that it is an act of the Holy Spirit but it is one that requires our cooperation. Read 1 Thes. 5:12-25:

12We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16Rejoice always, 17pray without ceasing, 18give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22Abstain from every form of evil.

23Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

25Brothers, pray for us.

Verse 23 teaches that this sanctification is NOT yet complete. And he teaches in verse 19 that we can quench the Spirit, which is not the same as blaspheme against him. We can toss water on Him when he is trying to grow us and shape us and sanctify us. Paul does NOT want that to be the norm for his readers and neither do I. I want us to press on to grow in the graces Paul talks about here.

What that perfection means in terms of sinlessness, I hope to show you in my next post.

PLEASE DO!

Now to address some statements in your post that need addressing:
I never said that Peter was not converted when he preached at Pentecost, just that I don’t know when he was converted because the Bible does not say. You are assuming. I will not.
Let's check out what you said in post #11:
Question 10: Is hypocrisy a sin?

Yes.

Question 11: When Peter sinned, did he lose his salvation, or was he never truly converted in the first place?

Salvation cannot be lost, as I have already stated, and you agreed. Whoever is born of God (converted) does not and cannot sin (1Jo 3:6; 1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 5:18); therefore, Peter was not yet converted if he sinned.

You certainly implied it because Peter preached at Pentecost in Chapter 2 of Acts and Paul was not even a believer yet. Still, Peter, who was clearly called a hypocrite in Galatians 2 while Paul was ther HAS to be after the Pentecost preaching. So he either got unconverted before the Galatians 2 experience or he preached the sermon unconverted.

QUESTION 24: Which is it, he became unconverted after preaching at Pentecost or he was not yet converted when he preached at Pentecost?

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin” (John 8:34). Therefore, if one commits sin, one serves sin, and it has dominion. Walk in the spirit and sin will not have dominion.

That is a leap of false logic. Allowing a person to babysit my kid one day, does not mean I have given that person dominion over my child. If I just dump my kid with the babysitter and walk away, then I have given her dominion. I direct the readers back to my earlier posts regarding John 8 where I gave a CLEAR exegesis on this WHOLE passage (POST#7).

First, the word translated as transgression is not the same word used for sin throughout most the NT, and in the KJV it is translated as fault–-it requires a word study.

My fellow debater seems to have a bunch of time to post long posts on other threads trying to counter-jab whatever appears to be against his self-developed theology. Yet he has no time to give us the word study nor to exegete one chapter of the Bible. I find that somewhat curious. This debate forum would be an excellent place for him to present in a well-thought-out and easily expressed way the basic virtues of this new doctrine he is teaching. I would be glad to see his word study, if it is important for undersatnding his stance.

Second, the Galatians were seeking perfection in their flesh (progressive sanctification) and were called foolish by Paul (Gal 3:3). Like any church, there were Christians at different stages of understanding. Third, I have not said that people in churches can’t sin, only that they shouldn’t and can stop completely, and must stop or perish. Therefore, your use of Galatians 6 is pointless. You cannot point to a group of Christians who are being carnal and say, “see, that means Christians will always be carnal.” That’s not reasonable.

I will allow our readers to read Galkatians and see that the Galatians were being influenced by judaizers who were trying to take them away from the freedom offered in Christ. Their problem had NOTHING to do with "progressive" or "instantaneous" sanctification. They were no longer trusting the grace of Christ and were instead being lured into trusting in Jewish rituals. I will let the readers of Galatians judge as to whether my argument from Galatians 6 stands. It is VERY reasonable.

My response to your answers to my questions:
-------------------------------------------------------

Question 8: What is your standard of sin, the mark you can miss that proves you sin? You claim drunkenness is a sin, but that is subjective based on how drunk one assumes is drunkenness.

QUESTION 25: Do you believe drunkeness is NOT a sin? If it is NOT a sin, why not? If it is, what is your standard? Finally, you said whatever is not faith is sin, which is true. Therefore it doesn’t matter what you do or what scripture you attempt to follow as a rule, because if it is not done in faith, it is still sin. A person cannot please God without faith. God’s specific commandments are the ONLY measure of sin, and they are not subjective at all; but those commandments can only be kept by faith. And in faith, they can NEVER be broken. Faith precludes willful sin. I guess this is the crux of getting to your belief QUESTION 26: HOW does faith preclude willful sin? My answers to your questions: ------------------------------------ QUESTION 20: If you have truly discovered the key to perfection without being under the law, why would you wait to reveal such Good News? I reveal it every chance I get. You haven't revealed it in this debate, which would have been a very logical place to reveal it. I am still sorry to see that you find it too difficult to answer question 21. It would be helpful, but if you refuse, I will not beg. QUESTION 22: Can you direct me to a website where your views are clearly spelled out for all to see and compare? No. I don’t have one, nor do I know of one. It would make me a bit uncomfortable to think that I was the only one who held my doctrines and that no one else had ever written about them before. That is how cults begin. No. You don’t understand my position. After I explain perfection you might. Again, I wish you would as do the other readers of this thread and of the other thread as well. QUESTION 23: Which "law" do YOU mean? The Mosaic law? The same law Paul and John meant. The ten commandments. QUESTION 27a,b: Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are the only law? If I keep those 10, I am perfect? I hope the readers can see how difficult this is for me. I have to invent the questions, try to guess what my opponent believes and try to maintain some kind of interesting debate while he just says: "I am only obligated to answer questions, and I have done so in this debate without equivocation." I feel like I am playing 20 questions. But, I still hope that something on this thread has been helpful to you, the readers and hopefully to elohiym as well. If nothing else, I have enjoyed going back over this wonderful doctrine of the Christian faith. Blessings, Chileice

 

[elohiym]

My opponent continues to complain and make subtle accusations about me with every post. Combined with his long meandering arguments which have failed to address many of my points, and his superfluous and mostly pointless questions, his annoying debating style has become more than I care to tolerate. Therefore, I will finish my argument with this post, allow my opponent to respond, and then in my final post I will summarize my points and conclude. The reader can decide who made the convincing argument.

Being set apart by God through the instant sanctification of the Holy Spirit, as I proved in my last post, we are able to be made perfect. But how? It is written: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb 10:14). God has perfected us by abolishing the old covenant by the cross (Eph 2:15), taking away the Mosaic ordinances that condemned the infirmities of our flesh (Col 2:14), and by writing his law on our hearts (Heb 10:16), which is the new covenant. (See also Jer 31:33; Rom 2:14-15)

What does it mean when God writes his law on our hearts? It means that through his Holy Spirit we fulfill the law always. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal 5:14 See also Rom 13:9; and James 2:8). Therefore, our standard of righteousness is love. "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1Jo 4:16). One who is born of God, converted, always meets that standard. "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him" (1Jo 2:10).

My opponent wants you to believe that you can stumble in Christ, that you are not perfect yet, but must conform your behavior to a subjective standard based on picking and choosing Bible verses to follow like laws. The truth is, if you love your neighbor as yourself, you fulfill all the law and you are perfect. The carnal mind is not capable of love (Rom 8:7), so progressive sanctification is a myth. It is no more real than progressive love. Love is love always, and can be nothing less than love. One may express love in a variety of ways, and there is no rule that states how love must look. It is unique and personal for each of us, and only God knows the true intent of the heart.

You can grab verses out of the Bible and create a list of "do and do not" to attempt to live by if you want to fail, or you can simply be perfect as the good Samaritan was perfect and have eternal life. The good Samaritan wasn't a Jew or Christian, and he didn't profess a belief in Jesus, but he had a perfect heart and a perfect spirit. Your perfection, should you decide to accept it, is nothing more than perfection of heart and spirit that you either have or you don't. You cannot strive to attain this love by works, and having this love will not make your flesh perfect. You will still make mistakes, but those are not sins. Only an unconverted heart, filled with hate and idolatry can sin. God supposedly gave you a new heart. Did you get it?


My answers to your questions:
--------------------------------

QUESTION 24: Which is it, he became unconverted after preaching at Pentecost or he was not yet converted when he preached at Pentecost?

I don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us when Peter was converted. As I have already shown, Jesus stated that Peter was not converted prior to the cross. See my previous posts. Many unconverted people preach and perform miracles.

QUESTION 25: Do you believe drunkeness is NOT a sin? If it is NOT a sin, why not? If it is, what is your standard?

Drunkenness is a form of idolatry. It is a sin. It does not have to involve alcohol, but can involve false doctrines like progressive sanctification. Re 18:3 "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication..." Jesus drank wine, and unless he was immune to the effects of alcohol, he got drunk to some extent, but did not sin. My standard of sin is the law, as was Jesus'.

QUESTION 26: HOW does faith preclude willful sin?

Because what ever is not faith is sin, and conversely whatever is faith is not sin. As Paul said, "walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). The spirit is God, and God is love. So walk in love, and you will not sin. You can only do that by faith, not a subjective standard you assume by picking and choosing Bible verses to follow.

QUESTION 27a,b: Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are the only law? If I keep those 10, I am perfect?

[a] No. No. If you fulfill the entire law, you are perfect and keep the entire law. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal 5:14). It is so simple that a child can understand it.

Now, you may respond, after which I will make my final post. Then, as a courtesy, I will allow you to make the last post and have the last word in the debate.

 

[Chileice]

(H)is annoying debating style has become more than I care to tolerate. Therefore, I will finish my argument with this post, allow my opponent to respond, and then in my final post I will summarize my points and conclude. The reader can decide who made the convincing argument.

While I disagree with your assessment of the debate and the substance, I agree that it is time to wrap this up. I have also had trouble with your "debating" style.

Being set apart by God through the instant sanctification of the Holy Spirit, as I ¿proved? in my last post, we are able to be made perfect.

I must have missed SOMETHING. I certainly saw nothing like a PROOF of your argument, other than to say you said it and so that's the way it is.

But how? It is written: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb 10:14). God has perfected us by abolishing the old covenant by the cross (Eph 2:15), taking away the Mosaic ordinances that condemned the infirmities of our flesh (Col 2:14), and by writing his law on our hearts (Heb 10:16), which is the new covenant. (See also Jer 31:33; Rom 2:14-15)

Again the entire context would add to the readers' understanding Hebrews 10:

8When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

This passage is a comparison of the old sacrificial system and the perfect sacrifice of Christ. And NOTE that he says. "who are BEING (ongoing process) sanctified." His sacrifice is complete and our sanctification will be perfect. But we are still in that process.

What does it mean when God writes his law on our hearts? It means that through his Holy Spirit we fulfill the law always. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal 5:14 See also Rom 13:9; and James 2:8). Therefore, our standard of righteousness is love. "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1Jo 4:16). One who is born of God, converted, always meets that standard. "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him" (1Jo 2:10).

While I agree that the standard is love, I think many of the readers of this debate might question whether or not all of the posts were written in love. I don't believe you or I are perfect. I am trying to grow in that love and you need to as well. Again saying we all meet the standard is a leap of logic that does not follow from what you said. Just because the standard is love, that does NOT mean we always live up to it. I am sure your children do not always live up to your standards or desires, yet I imagine that they love you.

You can grab verses out of the Bible and create a list of "do and do not" to attempt to live by if you want to fail, or you can simply be perfect as the good Samaritan was perfect and have eternal life. The good Samaritan wasn't a Jew or Christian, and he didn't profess a belief in Jesus, but he had a perfect heart and a perfect spirit. Your perfection, should you decide to accept it, is nothing more than perfection of heart and spirit that you either have or you don't. You cannot strive to attain this love by works, and having this love will not make your flesh perfect. You will still make mistakes, but those are not sins. Only an unconverted heart, filled with hate and idolatry can sin. God supposedly gave you a new heart. Did you get it?

This is rather disturbing. According to what I read, one does not have to be a Christian to be saved, just perfect. That would make Christ's sacrifice worthless and this statement false teaching. It appears that my opponent depends more on his own perfection than on trusting Christ. I put my faith and my trust in Him. I trust Christ alone for my salvation and make no claim that my own perfection has anything to do with being saved, justified, sanctified or glorified. I guess the readers will have to decide with whom they stand.

My answers to your questions:
--------------------------------

QUESTION 25: Do you believe drunkeness is NOT a sin? If it is NOT a sin, why not? If it is, what is your standard?

Drunkenness is a form of idolatry. It is a sin. It does not have to involve alcohol, but can involve false doctrines like progressive sanctification. Re 18:3 "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication..." Jesus drank wine, and unless he was immune to the effects of alcohol, he got drunk to some extent, but did not sin. My standard of sin is the law, as was Jesus'.

QUESTION 28a,b:So what is that limit? How do you know what is sin in regard to drunkeness?

QUESTION 26: HOW does faith preclude willful sin?

Because what ever is not faith is sin, and conversely whatever is faith is not sin. As Paul said, "walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). The spirit is God, and God is love. So walk in love, and you will not sin. You can only do that by faith, not a subjective standard you assume by picking and choosing Bible verses to follow.

At least I let the Bible guide me to know what love is. Read 1 Cor. 13 and see if you TRULY love like that all the time. I have my doubts. I agree that we should walk in love, but when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. 1 John 2:1.

QUESTION 27a,b: Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are the only law? If I keep those 10, I am perfect?

[a] No. No. If you fulfill the entire law, you are perfect and keep the entire law. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal 5:14). It is so simple that a child can understand it.

Now, you may respond, after which I will make my final post. Then, as a courtesy, I will allow you to make the last post and have the last word in the debate.

I agree that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. But what you say is far more subjective than using the Bible as my source for what is sin. If YOU alone decide if you are loving, you could do just about anything and say you weren't sinning. I have seen how you have responded to Glenda and the Called-out and to others and by almost anyone's standard other than your own, you did not treat them with love. So if love is the standard, you have not kept it. But, you, of course will say that you have because you have set up your own subjective standard as to what constitues love. So, in many ways, sanctification has no ultimate goal, it is not a goal for you, it is an accomplished fact. Therefore, you are able to justify your actions and attitudes by convincing yourself that you are perfect when, at least by any credible measure of other people, you are not living up to the standard of love.

I at least admit that I have failed to do so, not because I don't want to but because i still have a sinful nature. I am much more mature than I was before and I have a lot of maturing to go. I hope some day you will see the benefits of allowing God to continue to work on your character.

I appreciate that you took the time to do this debate. And in spite of the fact that we remain poles apart, I appreciate that you at least tried to get your view out there and it allowed the readers to see two very different views and to make their decisions. Blessings, Chileice.

 

[elohiym]

In my first post in the debate I summarized my beliefs. I made the point that Christian is merely a label that many who are not saved will claim, and that those who are saved are the ones born of God--converted. I presented scriptures which show that people who are born of God do not sin, namely 1Jo 5:18, 1Jo 3:6 and 1Pet 4:1. I stated that my belief is that sanctification is instantaneous, and provided John 13:10, John 15:3 and Acts 10:15 as evidence. I also pointed out that my opponents argument hinges on a logical fallacy (appeal to popularity), in that he makes the unsubstantiated claim that the first century church believed in progressive sanctification, which he has not proven in the debate. My opponent, in his response, failed to address 1Jo 5:18, 1Jo 3:6 and 1Pet 4:1, which state that someone born of God does not sin; nor did he address John 13:10, John 15:3 and Acts 10:15, which state that we have been made clean (sanctified). Essentially, he ignored all my points in his first response.

In my second post, I made the point that Jesus can to set us free from the bondage of sin, not merely the guilt and penalty, citing John 8:32 and John 8:34; and I also showed that Jesus said we must repent from all sin, citing Mat 9:13, Mat 5:29-30, and Mat 18:8-9. Following that, I made the point that we must choose between serving sin or serving God, citing Jos 24:15, Luke 16:13, Rom 6:16, and Rom 6:18. In his response, my opponent side-stepped John 8:34, ignoring the sin bondage issue and turning the issue into right belief instead of sin. For him the sin is wrong belief, not the unrighteous acts. He agreed that we must choose who we will serve, but did not address that it is not possible to sin and serve God at the same time.

In my third post, using the example of David, I showed that God can spare a man from the death penalty (as he does us), and then that it is possible that that man can no longer sin again. I provided the evidence that David never sinned again and his heart was perfect, citing 1Kings 15:5, 1Kings 11:4, 1Kings 15:3, and Acts 13:22. Also, I iterated in my post that my opponent has not shown how it is possible to sin and serve God at the same time. I countered his use of the prarable of the prodigal son by stating: "The prodigal son returns home to abide, not to leave again and return again over and over." Then I provided the parable of the two sons, Mat 21:28-32, and Jesus own words to "go, and sin no more" (John 8:11) to support my position. My opponent responded, "Of course we can leave over and over again," and ignored the point of parable of the two sons, and completely ignored that David ceased from sin and had a perfect heart. It should be noted that my opponent also side-stepped the point about Heb 6:4-6 and Heb 10:26-29 condemning willful sin, showing unambiguously that a person cannot sin then repent in spite of grace.

In my fourth post, based on my opponent's claim that "sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ in our conduct and character," I made the point that Jesus was tempted as we are, yet he did not sin, and that we are to have the mind of Christ and cease from sin, citing Heb 4:15 and 1Pet 4:1. In his response, my opponent ignored Heb 4:15 and 1Pet 4:1, and claimed we cannot be like Jesus and we cannot stop sinning. He provided no evidence to support his claims, which ignore Jesus' statement: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (John 14:12). My opponent also claimed that Jesus is his righteousness, which appears meaningless in his use of the term seeing he dos not believe he can be like Jesus.

In my fifth post, based on my opponent's claim that a murder can continue to murder while in Christ and be saved, I presented the case of Dennis Rader the serial killer who had been a Lutheran for 30 years while he murdered people and held to the doctrine of progressive sanctification. I proved that no murderer has eternal life, providing 1Jo 3:15, 1Jo 2:9, 1Jo 2:11, and 1Jo 4:20 as evidence, refuting my opponents claims. I then cited 1Cor 6:9-10 to prove that people engaged in willful sin will not be saved, again refuting my opponents claims. In his response, my opponent totally ignored 1Jo 3:15, 1Jo 2:9, 1Jo 2:11, 1Jo 4:20 and 1Cor 6:9-10 and continued to argue his defeated point. rather than address the scriptures, he turned to attacking me, claiming I am twisting his position, falsely accusing me of having my own self-styled religion, and complaining that I have no religious affiliation. As the reader can see, I stuck to the Bible with my argument, which my opponent cannot refute.

In my sixth post, I used the Bible to show that sanctification is instantaneous, because we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, not by becoming progressively more obedient in the flesh as my opponent asserts. I showed that sanctification means that God sets us apart for his purpose so he can perfect us, in contrast to the false concept that sanctification is being progressively perfected, never being completely perfected. In my seventh and last post, I showed that perfection is not of the flesh, as my opponent asserts, but of the heart and spirit. I showed that the standard of righteousness is love, not a nebulous belief in Jesus as my opponent portrays throughout the debate. My opponent's response is to attempt to turn 1 Cor 13 into another law for you to fall short of, and he accuses me (and himself) of falling short of it. This is typical of the legalist mind-set, they will always fall short, and would have accused Jesus of lacking love because he whipped the money changers and called people names. Ignore them. You can have victory in Christ. Let the Holy Spirit lead you.

 

[Chileice]

Debate summary, Chileice

First I want to thank elohiym for the opportunity to debate in this one and one and thank all of the readers for their readership and interest. With this post, we will terminate the debate. But I hope you will read my summary statement and take time to review the points we have laid before you.

I introduced the debate with a brief history of the Christian faith noting that the idea of instantaneous sanctification is found nowhere among the early churches and is a new doctrinal invention. I then presented a thorough exegesis of Colossians 3 to show the readers that we are being renewed as verses 9 and 10 clearly show:

9Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

My opponent did not treat even one of the verses from Colossians 3 in ANY of his subsequent posts. I then proceeded to give the readers further historical information showing that his doctrine was unknown even to the time of Wesley. Yet, his only reply was:

“Popular opinions are like rear ends; everybody has one and they all stink.”

This reply does a great disservice to the millions of Christians who lived before elohiym began promoting his doctrine of instant perfection. It is a slap in the face to people like Luther, Calvin, Knox, Helwys and multitudes who died for their faith and who shared the Gospel with people that we might know it today. I was not appealing to popularity, as my opponent stated, but rather to sound biblical judgment. The first believers who gave their lives for Jesus were anything but popular.

While my opponent “threw out” many different verse, he made no coherent attempt to exegete scripture, and when asked to do so, he claimed it was “homework” and all he was “required” to do in the debate was answer questions. In my second post, for example, I directed the reader to the context of Matthew 7.23 which my opponent had just thrown out there in order to take advantage of a phrase he found convenient for his argument.

Using Titus 2.11-3.8, I showed the relationship between our salvation and our call to do good works. None of those verses were addressed by my opponent either. My opponent would have you believe that I ignored verses that he posted. In some cases I did because he just posted verse numbers with no commentary to show how they related to his argument. In many cases, however, I dealt not only with verse he posted, but with the context in which the verses are found.

My second post concluded with an analysis of Paul’s own pilgrimage as found in Philippians 3 where he CLEARLY states that he has not yet attained perfection, but that he continues to move forward in the progress of sanctification, toward the goal set before him by Jesus. Again no comment was ever made about this passage.

In my third post I clearly showed that our Father is forgiving and relenting of evil and that even though one of his SONS (converted believers) should stray from the house and sin, he would still be accepted back by the Father. This is an argument that my fellow-debater tried to refute by saying,

“The prodigal son returns home to abide, not to leave again and return again over and over.”

When I pointed out that Christians can sin, he accused me of being a libertine; just like first-century Jews accused Paul. Elohiym is unable to understand that God’s grace is even greater than the grace we show to our own children. He readily admitted that he would even die for his own children, which is admirable, and that he would forgive them. Yet, he is unable to see that our Heavenly Father, who has much greater love and patience than we could ever have, forgives us for Christ’s sake.

Although my opponent says I side-stepped John 8.34, if you look at the debate, I took the time to exegete the entire passage, in context, rather than to just throw out a pet verse. Then he accused me of sidestepping Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10. Yet, again, I looked at the whole passage and invited the readers to view the verses in the entire context of the Book of Hebrews. For some reason, that does not set well with my opponent. I LOVE the Book of Hebrews, it is one of my favourite books in the Bible, yet he wants to only slice out two small sections, out of their context, to make HIS point.

In my fourth post, I PROVED, and I do say PROVED, that my opponent did not think Peter was saved when he preached at Pentecost. He admitted that hypocrisy was sin and that Peter was therefore unconverted at least up until the meeting with Paul in Galatia. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” “Feed my sheep”. How could Jesus trust a man who was unconverted? His argument reduces to absurdity, because he HAS to say that Peter was unconverted when he denied Christ and when he was a hypocrite. I will give him credit for being consistent in his doctrine at this point. But being unwilling to think Peter was a Christian is a steep price to pay to hold to a basically home grown doctrine.

In his summary, my opponent says I ignored the parable he quoted from Mt. 21. On the contrary, I even added to it by posting the following parable as well, which Jesus told at the same time in order for the readers to get the whole picture. One thing we were able to agree on is that sin is unbelief. I’m not sure we got far past that, but at least we agreed to that. After giving a detailed answer from Hebrews to my fellow debater, I tried to discover what doctrinal background he came from. I missed on my guess, but in post five I asked directly and got this answer:

[a] I affiliate with no "church" or denomination, but have a home church with my family. I am not in sympathy with any movement anywhere, only the Holy Spirit.

While that may sound admirable to some, it leaves my opponent to be the judge of his own actions and his own doctrine.

In my fifth post I stated:

JESUS is my righteousness. I do NOT trust in my own righteousness. HE is the ONE who overcame the world. John 16.33. In this world there will be trials, temptations, failures and sin, but I have taken courage because HE has conquered the world.

In his final summary, my opponent claims that having Jesus as my righteousness appears meaningless. I have no righteousness. I trust Him for salvation, not my own perfection. I posted both the written work of Horatius Bonar and of the Apostle Peter, neither of which were ever dealt with by my opponent. Instead he chose to try to portray me as a supporter of serial killers, which is ridiculous. I am just making a point that God’s grace is sufficient to cover any sin, even the worst, and I was also clear to state that God does not want us to sin, but that does not make us incapable of doing so.

Debating my friend, elohiym was very tricky indeed. After my FIFTH post my opponent said:

Later in this debate I will explain what true sanctification is, and how one can be completely free from sin without being under the law.

I never did understand why, in a debate about sanctification, I could not get a definition of his view. I never did get any answer about the relation between salvation, justification, sanctification and glorification… not even once. As a matter of fact he refused to answer my call to exegete 1 Cor. 3 where all of those topics could have been addressed. In a later post he responded to my question like this:

QUESTION 23: Have I understood you correctly? I do not want to misrepresent your view. If I have not, please help me understand what I failed to see.

No. You don’t understand my position. After I explain perfection you might.

Since perfection is a big part of his argument, it seems so odd that I NEVER got an answer as to what perfection really is, in my opponents mind. Perfection to me means that you are without flaw. The failure to address this issue makes his whole argument incomprehensible.

In my sixth post, I quoted R E O White, former Principal of Scottish Baptist College and quoted how he expertly dealt with the issue of instantaneous sanctification. Again, he never touched Romans 6 or 1 Corinthians 3 and I posted the verse on the debate for everyone to see. Yet, nothing was said to show how those Bible passages fit into the doctrine he is constructing.

After my opponent claimed there was not ONE verse in the entire Bible which relates to sanctification as most all Christians have understood it over the ages, I posted numerous verse in my seventh post. Of course, in his final post, none were addressed. But he did save perhaps his most bizarre statement for the last (actually, next to last, counting his summary) when he stated:

You can grab verses out of the Bible and create a list of "do and do not" to attempt to live by if you want to fail, or you can simply be perfect as the good Samaritan was perfect and have eternal life. The good Samaritan wasn't a Jew or Christian, and he didn't profess a belief in Jesus, but he had a perfect heart and a perfect spirit. Your perfection, should you decide to accept it, is nothing more than perfection of heart and spirit that you either have or you don't.

I countered with:
“This is rather disturbing. According to what I read, one does not have to be a Christian to be saved, just perfect. That would make Christ's sacrifice worthless and this statement false teaching. It appears that my opponent depends more on his own perfection than on trusting Christ.”

It is a statement my opponent did not refute, so I assume it is his view. I would leave readers to judge whether the standard Christian view of sanctification: one that depends on the righteousness of Jesus Christ; or the elohiym view of sanctification: one that depends on personal perfection is correct. I will stand with the Scriptures, with the saints of the last 20 centuries and with the righteousness of Christ.

Again, Thanks for this chance to review such an important topic. I hope the readers have been edified in some way by coming to grips with God’s word. Thanks again, elohiym. See you on the boards!