Questions on Sanctification

[Alive]

Yes.
And that is the only reason we can and do live the life

Yup…Jesus was crystal when He said, “we can do no thing apart from Him”.

 

[Alive]

And another great word….
“and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

(Romans 8:30 NAS20)
justified G1344 δικαιόω
-----
[Analytics]
justified (29x) G1344 (40x)

[Mounce Greek Dictionary]
gk G1467 | s G1344 δικαιόω dikaioō 39x
pr. to make or render right or just; mid. to act with justice, Rev. 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:29; to set forth as good and just, Lk. 10:29; 16:15; in NT to hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify, Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33; pass. to be held acquitted, to be cleared, Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:24; 6:7; to be approved, to stand approved, to stand accepted, Rom. 2:13; 3:20, 28 → justify; righteous, righteousness.
☞ mounce | niv | esv | csb | nrsv | nkjv | kjv

 

[Carbon]

Yup…Jesus was crystal when He said, “we can do no thing apart from Him”.

Reminds me of John 15 with the vine and the branches. Jesus said in verse 4, Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

We can only abide because we have been placed in Christ (Eph 1:6)
And of course, now we desire to because of what the Spirit has done, we became God seekers through regeneration.

Notice the grape does not have to work with the vine to produce, grow and ripen. The vine takes care of that, all the grape must do is abide. The grape just gets used to being a grape, naturally because that’s what it is.
Does the grape have to do a part and try to grow? Its part is remaining in the vine. So it is with us.

 

[Alive]

Reminds me of John 15 with the vine and the branches. Jesus said in verse 4, Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

We can only abide because we have been placed in Christ (Eph 1:6)
And of course, now we desire to because of what the Spirit has done, we became God seekers through regeneration.

Notice the grape does not have to work with the vine to produce, grow and ripen. The vine takes care of that, all the grape must do is abide. The grape just gets used to being a grape, naturally because that’s what it is.
Does the grape have to do a part and try to grow? Its part is remaining in the vine. So it is with us.

Yup…and that vine has its roots in Christ and deriving all it is from Him. And so does the grape. Christ…Root…Vine…Grape.

 

[Carbon]

John 15:1
In this first half of the passage Jesus was teaching his disciples about progressive sanctification (cf Jn 15:2b-5). The doctrine of “progressive sanctification” focuses upon the concept of personal holiness, which speaks to how believers can “live out” what God has already accomplished in them through Christ.

 

[Carbon]

Yup…Jesus was crystal when He said, “we can do no thing apart from Him”.

Isn't it also true that by means of affliction and cross-bearing God's children make progress in sanctification. So, the church (Christians) need trials in order to be cleaned and purified and by these, believers may be brought closer to God.

 

[Josheb]

I can go with that. So, it can be sanctification is just getting used to justification.

Why?

Why can't a sanctified person, who is " lifelong process" of sanctification, do so already used to justification? Why can't the already sanctified person who is going through the lifelong process of sanctification go through that lifelong process separately or in tandem with from his/her experience of getting used to justification? Why must the definition and experience of sanctification be considered the process that is "just getting used to justification"? Why must justification be used at all to define sanctification? Every single theologian in the book where Forde asserted his definition managed to define sanctification without conflating it with justification. Why must we do as Forde did?

.

 

[Carbon]

Why?

Why can't a sanctified person, who is " lifelong process" of sanctification, do so already used to justification? Why can't the already sanctified person who is going through the lifelong process of sanctification go through that lifelong process separately or in tandem with from his/her experience of getting used to justification? Why must the definition and experience of sanctification be considered the process that is "just getting used to justification"? Why must justification be used at all to define sanctification? Every single theologian in the book where Forde asserted his definition managed to define sanctification without conflating it with justification. Why must we do as Forde did?

.

Why not agree with Forde?

 

[Alive]

Isn't it also true that by means of affliction and cross-bearing God's children make progress in sanctification? So, the church (Christians) need trials in order to be cleaned and purified and by these, believers may be brought closer to God.

Yes. For myself and wife, I can say there is a pressure from just living in this world where so many behave badly in so many ways. It grieves us. So even without overt affliction that brethren experience in parts of the world, we are as strangers in a strange land. All around us exists what is contrary to our Life. We groan from within.

 

[Josheb]

Why not agree with Forde?

That is not an answer to my question. It is a dodge. We are all being asked to subscribe to Forde's definition, a specifically Lutheran definition instead of the definition provided in scripture itself. The book from which you obtained Forde's definition provide four other definitions, none of which are identical to Forde's and all those critiquing Forde's views disagreed with his definition (in part or entirety). Forde's definition stands in stark contrast to the definition provided by the Calvinist contributor, and none of the other definitions have been provided for discussion. Only Forde's definition was selectively asserted.

Why?

When it comes to answering that question the answer is, "Why not?" Not only is that an avoidant answering-a-question-with-a-question (red herring), but it's also an attempt at shifting the onus away from answering the question asked onto another. Furthermore, I have already answered the "Why not?" question and done so at great length. I linked everyone here to the answers to that question. I am being asked a question already answered in avoidance of answering the question asked you. Perhaps the irony has escaped you but you're being asked to justify the conflation of sanctification and justification and refusing to do so. How about just answering the question(s) asked? Provide everyone here with a reason for subscribing to Forde's definition to the exclusion of all others (including the definition provided in scripture itself).


Why can it be that sanctification is just getting used to justification? Why can't sanctification of the already sanctified be defined and understood as something separate from getting used to justification?


.

Well I’m still trying to work with you so you will see the truth in this matter.

Then please start by answering the question asked without further delay.

 

[Arial]

Yes. For myself and wife, I can say there is a pressure from just living in this world where so many behave badly in so many ways. It grieves us. So even without overt affliction that brethren experience in parts of the world, we are as strangers in a strange land. All around us exists what is contrary to our Life. We groan from within.

This, and what @Carbon said in post #66, reminds me of Psalm 23. "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me. Your rod and your staff, they comfort me."

We pretty much live, for now, in the valley of the shadow of death. And there are times we have to walk through that valley---and this I do not believe refers only to physical death, but dangerous and threatening situations. We see in the first verses of the Psalm that it is our Shepherd who is leading us. He gives us rest, and nourishment, and living water, and at times it is He who leads us through danger and hardship. We cannot stop and refuse, but our very soul that is united with Christ compels us through. We follow Him. In this we are strengthened in our faith and trust. And in the very presence of our enemies He prepares a table before us, goodness and mercy follow behind. (Such a picture of the cloud and the pillar of fire in the wilderness wanderings.) And joy of joy we will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

 

[Carbon]

That is not an answer to my question. It is a dodge. We are all being asked to subscribe to Forde's definition, a specifically Lutheran definition instead of the definition provided in scripture itself. The book from which you obtained Forde's definition provide four other definitions, none of which are identical to Forde's and all those critiquing Forde's views disagreed with his definition (in part or entirety). Forde's definition stands in stark contrast to the definition provided by the Calvinist contributor, and none of the other definitions have been provided for discussion. Only Forde's definition was selectively asserted.

Why?

Josheb, if you would like to present the others, feel free. Did you notice the title of the op? I’m not asking questions about the theologians in that book. You can subscribe to what you want to. Is it okay if I agree with Forde? That really seems to upset you.

When it comes to answering that question the answer is, "Why not?" Not only is that an avoidant answering-a-question-with-a-question (red herring), but it's also an attempt at shifting the onus away from answering the question asked onto another. Furthermore, I have already answered the "Why not?" question and done so at great length. I linked everyone here to the answers to that question. I am being asked a question already answered in avoidance of answering the question asked you. Perhaps the irony has escaped you but you're being asked to justify the conflation of sanctification and justification and refusing to do so. How about just answering the question(s) asked? Provide everyone here with a reason for subscribing to Forde's definition to the exclusion of all others (including the definition provided in scripture itself).

Everyone here is free to agree with whoever they decide to. It’s obvious you and I cannot discuss this without you getting heated. If someone else wants me to explain a certain part I will. You and I already discussed this.

Why can it be that sanctification is just getting used to justification? Why can't sanctification of the already sanctified be defined and understood as something separate from getting used to justification?

You implied a few times you were no longer going to continue in this topic, but you do keep continuing. Are you trying to get me to agree with your belief in this? We simply have to agree to disagree.

Then please start by answering the question asked without further delay.

 

[Carbon]

Why?

Why can't a sanctified person, who is " lifelong process" of sanctification, do so already used to justification?

This question makes no sense.

Why can't the already sanctified person who is going through the lifelong process of sanctification go through that lifelong process separately or in tandem with from his/her experience of getting used to justification?

Why can’t they go through it separately from just getting used to justification?
You can call it what you like, explaining the process that is.
Getting used to justification is one way of explaining it. It expresses it as monergistic, and what is wrong with God doing all the work and getting all the glory?

Why must the definition and experience of sanctification be considered the process that is "just getting used to justification"?

Again, it is one way of explaining it monergisticly.

Why must justification be used at all to define sanctification?

Justification I believe needs to be used in some ways when discussing sanctification. Justification is being declared righteous and sanctification is being made clean and holy. You don’t see a relation?

Every single theologian in the book where Forde asserted his definition managed to define sanctification without conflating it with justification.

And that is fine. Shouldn’t you be able to do the same? Or does Forde bother you that much to where you can’t get him out of your head.

Why must we do as Forde did?

Why do you feel you must?

 

[makesends]

I can go with that. So, it can be sanctification is just getting used to justification.

It can be that, but that sounds to me more of a human POV, than God's. That is, I wouldn't call it "just" that.

But, yeah, it is a way to look at it, as are most of our statements.

 

[Carbon]

It can be that, but that sounds to me more of a human POV, than God's. That is, I wouldn't call it "just" that.

But, yeah, it is a way to look at it, as are most of our statements.

Ever since this became an interesting doctrine to study, I haven't been able to stay away from it for long. It has proven to be one of those doctrines, like most, that is very deep. My wife reminds me often that I am never going to figure all of these doctrines out, maybe God only wants us/me to know so much. Though He and His ways are unknowable and unsearchable He is so wonderful and His ways are so interesting. If He didn't condescend to us and explain in His word, we couldn't know anything. Knowing I could be wrong because I am just a dumb human, I am at the place where I believe sanctification is all monergistic, all the glory of it belongs to God Himself. Perhaps in time, I might see it differently, I can't see that change happening but, it wouldn't be the first time.
I am saying these things so you know where I am coming from. And I appreciate these discussions because I learn when I am challenged. But please, no one think for a minute I believe you should agree with me as I agree with Forde.

 

[makesends]

Yup…that old pesky already and not yet deal.
“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”


(1 Corinthians 6:11 NAS20)

Yep!

 

[Josheb]

This question makes no sense.

A lack of understanding is not a measure of any question's veracity. Btw, the answer to these questions does NOT begin with "You, Josh..." The answer to the question asked does not have anything to do with me and only the person asserting Forde can explain why that happened.

Josheb, if you would like to present the others, feel free.

I would like the question asked to be answered, and answered in a polite, respectful and collaborative manner without further delay or obfuscation.

Why can it be that sanctification is just getting used to justification? Why can't sanctification of the already sanctified be defined and understood as something separate from getting used to justification?

Why must Forde's definition be used at all?

 

[Josheb]

Or does Forde bother you that much to where you can’t get him out of your head.

Ugh. Forde does not "bother" me at all, and it is petty to post that nonsense. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. Just answer the question asked.

Why can it be that sanctification is just getting used to justification? Why can't sanctification of the already sanctified be defined and understood as something separate from getting used to justification?

Why must Forde's definition be used at all?

 

[Ritajanice]

Isn't it also true that by means of affliction and cross-bearing God's children make progress in sanctification. So, the church (Christians) need trials in order to be cleaned and purified and by these, believers may be brought closer to God.

100%..imo.

Trials has certainly brought me closer to God..in retrospect that is..never felt like it at the time I was going through these trials..he wants us to be 100% solely dependent on him!...just my thoughts....

I must say, I love reading your posts, I know I have much to learn, your posts are so easy to understand.

If I don’t understand some posts, then I’m not scared to ask what they mean...that’s how we learn...I’m a slow learner...

 

[makesends]

Carbon said:
Isn't it also true that by means of affliction and cross-bearing God's children make progress in sanctification. So, the church (Christians) need trials in order to be cleaned and purified and by these, believers may be brought closer to God.

100%..imo.

Trials has certainly brought me closer to God..in retrospect that is..never felt like it at the time I was going through these trials..he wants us to be 100% solely dependent on him!...just my thoughts....

I must say, I love reading your posts, I know I have much to learn, your posts are so easy to understand.

If I don’t understand some posts, then I’m not scared to ask what they mean...that’s how we learn...I’m a slow learner...

@Carbon is correct. "I would offer", as one humble member of this site says, that trials, as do all things, in the end, also result in the individual's character and characteristics of what God is making. We are not only being sanctified, but built up, to be that particular glorified member of the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ, that God spoke into existence from the beginning.

One might not be too far off to say that we are not yet complete persons.