Progressive Christian sanctification: Moral relativism of liberal humanitarianism

[Ghada]

Sometimes the words alone condemn the doctrine. Why would any Christian naming Christ, especially these days, ever want to use the word 'Progressive' for their personal doctrine of sanctification?

In any case, Liberal progressivism is secular humanitarianism of good or bad works by man's own judgment, not God's. It's founded upon the moral relativism of no clear and firm line between black and white, light and dark, good and evil.

However, there is another side of moral relativism: Frequency of deeds.

Frequency is where progressive sanctification of 'gradual' repentance, becomes moral relativism in the churches.

The goal is only to sin less than before, and now do more good than evil. It's not the commanded repentance of the righteous Lord to repent of all our sins and trespasses.

Condemnation of sin is not by the act itself, but only by the frequency, or 'commitment', to the sinning: The Lord says the soul that sins shall die, not the soul that sins too much...

Progressive repentance is the relative frequency of sinning, as compared to before. But progressive sanctification also judges sinning frequency relative to others.

And so, God's standard of the act no longer draws the line between good and evil, light and dark, but only man's relative standard of frequency.

And who draws that relative line of judgment? They do. They become the frequency-judges of works in their own churches. They judge among themselves whose faith is 'salvific' or not.

Note: I have never heard from anyone preaching their own church's progressive sanctification and judgment of works by frequency, who also confess their own relative frequency of sinning is too much, and not less 'enough' for their own faith to be 'efficacious' enough for salvation and justification with God.

But, since 'salvific' faith is judged by frequency of works relative to before and to one another, then isn't justification by faith still judged by works? And since it's not God, but themselves that judge the works-to-frequency quotient, then is not their own, and their justification with themselves, and not God?

Are not they become the teachers of their own progressive sanctification, and judges to be justified with by acceptable frequency of sinful deeds?

Gen
{3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[Josheb]

In any case, Liberal progressivism is secular humanitarianism of good or bad works by man's own judgment, not God's. It's founded upon the moral relativism of no clear and firm line between black and white, light and dark, good and evil.

What does liberal humanitarianism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification? Are you perhaps thinking of humanism rather than humanitarianism?

However, there is another side of moral relativism: Frequency of deeds.

What does moral relativism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification?

Frequency is where progressive sanctification of 'gradual' repentance, becomes moral relativism in the churches.

???

Could you perhaps cite a specific occasion or source for the premise frequent repentance is somehow related to progressive sanctification?
Would you please provide and example and source for the premise frequent "gradual" repentance become moral relativism?

The goal is only to sin less than before, and now do more good than evil.

???

Would you please provide some source espousing sanctification is associated with less sin and "more good than evil"?

It's not the commanded repentance of the righteous Lord to repent of all our sins and trespasses.

Could you provide an example found in scripture in which the scripture explicitly reports someone repented of all their sins and trespasses?

Condemnation of sin is not by the act itself, but only by the frequency, or 'commitment', to the sinning: The Lord says the soul that sins shall die, not the soul that sins too much...

Aside from the fact Ezekial 18:20 was just applied in a manner separated from its specific context, that proof-texted Old Testament verse also stands alongside the fact the LORD also states those who call in the name of Christ are no longer condemned (John 3:18) and has eternal life John 3:15). The quote mining of Ezekiel 18:20 also stands in juxtaposition of the fact a sacrifice was provided for the unknown sins of an individual and his/her community.

How would you suggest a person confess and the repent of an unknown sin?

Progressive repentance....

It looks like you're talking about something only you know about, something that has nothing to do with scripture and orthodox Christianity. So, would you please provide three examples of what this op is about and one or two sources for where you learned these ideas?

Are not they become the teachers of their own progressive sanctification, and judges to be justified with by acceptable frequency of sinful deeds?

HERE is an example of "progressive sanctification" that could be considered to fall within the pale of orthodoxy, but it doesn't look anything like what this op describes. This source provides lots of scripture to support the position described. That article also defines sanctification. This op does not define sanctification so no one reading the op has any information regarding what the op means or how the discussion is to be had with a shared definition. I, for my part, disagree with Gow Questions' definition, because while it is true sanctification is associated with separation in the sense of holiness (the word "holy" means "separate" and carries with it the connotation of being separated for sacred purpose), sanctification carries with it the added meaning of being made clean, not just separate. That is missed in both the op and the Got Questions article.

So, would you please define your terms, starting with a definition of sanctification? Thx

 

[Ghada]

What does moral relativism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification?

Reread. It's the Christian doctrine of progressive sanctification. (Which is called Christian by some, because some Christians teach it.)

Could you perhaps cite a specific occasion or source for the premise frequent repentance is somehow related to progressive sanctification?

Reread. Nothing is said about frequent 'repentance'. Only frequency of works.

Would you please provide and example and source for the premise frequent "gradual" repentance become moral relativism?

It doesn't become moral raltivism, it begins with it.

Would you please provide some source espousing sanctification is associated with less sin and "more good than evil"?

If someone doen't believe in what is being rebuked, then they can freely ignore the rebuke to it.

Could you provide an example found in scripture in which the scripture explicitly reports someone repented of all their sins and trespasses?

I've heard people demanding to know who today has obeyed God and repent from all their sins and trespasses. This is the first time anyone has demanded God prove it by Scriptural record.

1Th 2:10
Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

This the Apostle Paul of Biblical record, not that worst of sinners 'Paul', that some unrepented evil-doers want to follow.

the LORD also states those who call in the name of Christ are no longer condemned (John 3:18) and has eternal life John 3:15).

This is another gospel for the unrepented, with a promise made by one's own faith alone for all continued sinners, that choose to believe and act as they.

Rom 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

2Ti 2:22
Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

The Bible good news of promise is only to those who repent and call upon the Lord from a pure heart. They sahll be saved from their sinning and trespassing.

Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Similarly, the Bible promise of no more condemnation is only for them that are now walking after the Spirit, and not after the flesh.

The quote mining of Ezekiel 18:20 also stands in juxtaposition of the fact a sacrifice was provided for the unknown sins of an individual and his/her community.How would you suggest a person confess and the repent of an unknown sin?

Mar 11:29
And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Do you believe in repenting from all your own sins and trespasses at any time?

If one's own faith alone does not believe in repenting from all their known sinning, why ask about unknown sinning?

But, if you answer honestly, so will I.

This op does not define sanctification

From sinning and trespassing.

"The goal is only to sin less than before, and now do more good than evil. It's not the commanded repentance of the righteous Lord to repent of all our sins and trespasses."

The context is plain enough for any honest reader. (It's certainly not about sanctification from unclean vessels and dead bodies...)

so no one reading the op has any information regarding what the op means or how the discussion is to be had with a shared definition.

Not to all readers of course. Some people think too highly of themselves, and judge everyone else to be as themselves.

Whether it be their own manner of life, or read without a clue like they do.

(the word "holy" means "separate" and carries with it the connotation of being separated for sacred purpose)

True. But this is first about sanctification from sinning and trespassing by repentance from dead works, so that Christ sanctify His born saints from the sins and trespasses of the world.

Like His circumcision, it is now and completely all at once.

It's not the gradual hacking away circumcision of sinful man's slow-moving hands:

Jerem
{3:8} And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also... {3:10} And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

, sanctification carries with it the added meaning of being made clean, not just separate.

True. Even as cleaning the flesh makes the body sanctified from dirty bodies, so does cleaning the spirit make the soul sanctified from sinful souls.

1 Peter
{1:22} Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

2Co 7:1
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

The soul can be clean and sanctified with a dirty body, but the soul can never be sanctified unto Christ with unclean hearts.

If we repent to sanctify our lives from old sinful deeds, Christ cleanses and sanctifies our heart from old lust for sin:

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Unrepented sinners, that do not sanctify themselves from their old sinning, still have old lust of heart, that are not sanctified unto Christ Jesus.

And anyone by their own faith alone can doctrinally separate repentance from sanctifcation, and even teach progressive repentance for gradual sanctification, but without whole repentance from the heart, there is no spiritual sanctification nor justification by Christ Jesus.

1Co 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[Josheb]

Reread. It's the Christian doctrine of progressive sanctification.

I've re-read it a dozen times. The fact remains you have not provided a single objectively verifiable example justifying the criticism, explained how the so far non-existent problem is a problem and, as a consequence, are arguing a ginormous red herring. If I posted an op that started out with the following...

All premillennialists are boneheads who cook elderberries in a closet on Sterno wearing rubber gloves on their heads to imitate a chicken's comb.....​

Would you find that assertion veracious, efficacious, and/or worthy of discussion? I hope not. This opening post makes a lot of claims it has not evidenced (much less proven). It assumes conditions it has not established to have existence in real life. In other words, there's no evidential justification for the op's existence so it reads as a rant, a screed of prejudice, not an evidence based well-reasoned critique of anything.

Hence my questions....

What does liberal humanitarianism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification? Are you perhaps thinking of humanism rather than humanitarianism?

What does moral relativism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification?

Could you perhaps cite a specific occasion or source for the premise frequent repentance is somehow related to progressive sanctification?
Would you please provide and example and source for the premise frequent "gradual" repentance become moral relativism?

Would you please provide some source espousing sanctification is associated with less sin and "more good than evil"?

Could you provide an example found in scripture in which the scripture explicitly reports someone repented of all their sins and trespasses?

Aside from the fact Ezekial 18:20 was just applied in a manner separated from its specific context, that proof-texted Old Testament verse also stands alongside the fact the LORD also states those who call in the name of Christ are no longer condemned (John 3:18) and has eternal life John 3:15). The quote mining of Ezekiel 18:20 also stands in juxtaposition of the fact a sacrifice was provided for the unknown sins of an individual and his/her community.

How would you suggest a person confess and the repent of an unknown sin?

It looks like you're talking about something only you know about, something that has nothing to do with scripture and orthodox Christianity. So, would you please provide three examples of what this op is about and one or two sources for where you learned these ideas?

And I tried to do what I am asking you to do. I provided an example of "progressive sanctification" that everyone could access and consider. I provided evidence of progressive sanctification's existence. In other words, I tried to help, and I did so specifically so you would not take an unnecessarily adversarial stance to my inquiries and commentary.

HERE is an example of "progressive sanctification" that could be considered to fall within the pale of orthodoxy, but it doesn't look anything like what this op describes. This source provides lots of scripture to support the position described. That article also defines sanctification. This op does not define sanctification so no one reading the op has any information regarding what the op means or how the discussion is to be had with a shared definition. I, for my part, disagree with Gow Questions' definition, because while it is true sanctification is associated with separation in the sense of holiness (the word "holy" means "separate" and carries with it the connotation of being separated for sacred purpose), sanctification carries with it the added meaning of being made clean, not just separate. That is missed in both the op and the Got Questions article.

So, would you please define your terms, starting with a definition of sanctification? Thx

Take them one or two questions at a time, if you like. Inform the readers what it is - specifically and exactly - this op is about. Define the terms, provide evidence of the problem's existence, and explain why the (real or perceived) problem is a problem.

Otherwise, this op is nothing more than a red herring.

And if your sources for this op did not do what I have asked you to do then they were arguing the red herring and you got drawn in to replicate their mistake.

 

[Ghada]

I've re-read it a dozen times.

Not the part about progressive sancitifcation being moral relativism.

The argument is not against sanctification.

And I tried to do what I am asking you to do. I provided an example of "progressive sanctification" that everyone could access and consider.

I provided evidence of progressive sanctification's existence.

And many religions on earth practice it. The Christian one may be a better homes and garden version, but it's still not Jesus Christ's sanctified body on earth.

Sinning man's is always progressively in part. Jesus Christ's is wholly complete now.

What does moral relativism have to do with the Christian doctrine of sanctification?

My argument is made plain enough. Quote anything for any specific clarification.

Could you perhaps cite a specific occasion or source for the premise frequent repentance is somehow related to progressive sanctification?

This is avoiding the argument against a teaching (in this case progressive sanctification), by demanding an example of anyone teaching it.

Would you please provide and example and source for the premise frequent "gradual" repentance become moral relativism?

Once again, the argument is about gradual repentance being moral relativism, not becoming it.

And, this is also another diversion seeking some sort of citation of sources.

Would you please provide some source espousing sanctification is associated with less sin and "more good than evil"?

Progressive sanctification does.

Once again, the argument is not against sanctification.

It looks like you're talking about something only you know about,

Many people know about progressive sanctification.

HERE is an example of "progressive sanctification" that could be considered to fall within the pale of orthodoxy,

As we see HERE.

And so, HERE is said to be the orthodox religion of progressive sancitfication. Which is not the pure religion of Jesus Christ.

It begins with a change of thought only, which is only hearing the faith, not doing it.

Isa 55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

James
{1:22} But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

It's the dead substance of faith alone. It's the dead faith of hearers only, that repent and sanctify themselves in mind only, and not in way.

It separates instant repentance of thoughts alone, from gradual repentance of ways, that is never complete in this life. It's not the instant and whole repentance of ways and thoughts, that is by the wholly complete circumcisison and sanctification by the Spirit of Christ today.

It's the orthodox progressively, but never-complete, sanctification from dead works, that is only by one's own faith alone, not by the faith of Jesus given only to them that wholly repent of their ways and thougts.

It's also the vain hope of faith alone, that only believes in being wholly sanctified and newborn after the grave.

It's the faith of unrepented and/or repenters in part, that do not believe in repenting of all sins and trespasses, and now made a whole new creature in Christ Jesus:

Ezek 18:31
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

2 Cor
{5:17} Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. {5:18} And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ

It's the faith, repentance, and sanctification of religious sinners and trespassers, that is unbelief, unrepentance, and unsanctification toward the righteous God and His Christ.

That's why we must separate progressive sanctification of sinners, from the sanccification of saints in Christ Jesus..

The former is the religious version of progressive humanism, and the latter is the pure religion of Jesus Christ.

 

[Josheb]

And many religions on earth practice it.

Prove it.