|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 117
Joined: July 2025
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,543
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383
Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251 |
Pilgrim. I just did not know that literally sanctify can mean a progression in holiness. The quotes I provided seem to speak of the opposite.
There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
Joe k said:
Pilgrim. I just did not know that literally sanctify can mean a progression in holiness. The quotes I provided seem to speak of the opposite. Let's not fall into the trap of the "psycho-statistical-mean hermeneutic".  It is a fatal mistake to assign a static meaning to individual words. We need to be careful to take words in CONTEXT from which the actual meaning is derived. "Sanctify" (Grk: agios) can mean several things. And one of those meanings from the actual usage of the word in context is to "become more holy; conformed to the image of Christ, to be in more harmony with the law of God, et al. This is shown to be true in the several articles I linked to. To deny a progressive sanctification is to also deny that believers by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit undergo a real and radical change consequent to regeneration. And that is not a good thing.  In His grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif) simul iustus et peccator![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251 |
Pilgrim said:Joe k said:
Pilgrim. I just did not know that literally sanctify can mean a progression in holiness. The quotes I provided seem to speak of the opposite. Let's not fall into the trap of the "psycho-statistical-mean hermeneutic". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> It is a fatal mistake to assign a static meaning to individual words. We need to be careful to take words in CONTEXT from which the actual meaning is derived. "Sanctify" (Grk: agios) can mean several things. And one of those meanings from the actual usage of the word in context is to "become more holy; conformed to the image of Christ, to be in more harmony with the law of God, et al. This is shown to be true in the several articles I linked to. To deny a progressive sanctification is to also deny that believers by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit undergo a real and radical change consequent to regeneration. And that is not a good thing. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> In His grace, I like Murrays article the best. And how does PS relate to the quotes I provided? Were these men misunderstanding? I do not deny the power of the Spirit to make one hate what they once loved and love what they once hated, but the progression in holiness is carried too far by some and become navel gazing and introspection
There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
Joe k said:
I do not deny the power of the Spirit to make one hate what they once loved and love what they once hated, but the progression in holiness is carried too far by some and become navel gazing and introspection It seems to me that your rejection of progressive sanctification is based upon subjective experience, e.g., your having met and/or read of abuses of the truth rather than basing your view upon solid biblical ground.  There are always going to be those who "abuse" the truth regardless of what the teaching is. But that abuse does not and cannot alter the truth. All truth is like a razor's edge. It is very easy to lose one's balance and fall off to either side of it. Wherever one finds truth you will also find myriad more who diminish, distort or deny it. John Murray held no less firmly to progressive sanctification as he did definitive sanctification. Again, it is NOT and "either/or" situation but rather a "both/and" one. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 277
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 277 |
I am going to have to go with both in the same way that in our sin we are unable to respond to God but we are still responsible for doing so. We are commanded to work at our sanctification but finding we are unable to do so we throw ourselves again and again on God--and, SURPRISE! We find that there's where He does the work.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
219
guests, and
34
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
