I don't know who you're talking about, but I've been studying sanctification lately.
Wesley got concerned about sanctification because he thought "real" Christians should eliminate as much sin as possible from their lives, and it was obvious to him that people didn't automatically stop sinning just because they became Christians. So he posited two "works of grace", the first being "regeneration" when a person becomes a Christian, and the second being "sanctification" when a Christian eliminates sin from his or her behavior. Wesley thought that a person COULD receive "entire sanctification", where the Holy Spirit removed all sin at one time, but that sanctification is almost always a gradual lidfe-long process.
During the late-1800s, the Wesleyan Holiness Movement started emphasizing entire sanctification, and they associated it with receiving the Holy Spirit. In order to receive entire sanctification, a person would have to "consecrate" himself (it was mostly guys, the women knew better) and he would become without sin here in this lifetime. Sanctification was magnified as a "second work of grace".
William Seymour, the pastor who led the Azuza Street Revival came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement, and Pentecostal theologians came to regard "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as a "third work of grace" to empower Christians for service.
Personally speaking, I think sanctification is the process of eliminating sinful thinking and behavior from a Christian's life. I think it's a gradual process directed for each specific person by the Holy Spirit working in that person. "It is God that works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." I think it is done by the renewing of the mind, as set forth in Romans 12:2. The Bible promises complete sanctification, but I don't think that will come to pass until Jesus appears and we are all either raised from the dead or changed.
I hope this helps some. If you've got more specific questions, newlife, I'd be glad to see what I can dig up. I'm curious about the TV minister you refer to in your post.
Sanctification....Is it by faith only in Christ and him crucified? In other words, anything else that you do outside of that will not sanctify you. You will remain in bondage unless you go by way of the Cross....This is what the guy teaches and I have tried to understand this, and think I finally kind of get what he is saying, but because of the similarities with TWI in aspects I mentioned above, I have had a hard time discerning this teaching as truth, or error. So I thought I would start this thread to see what people had to say about it.
I guess I am really challenged as to his teaching, yet, he is becoming very big and going all over the world via TV teaching this as a "New revelation" that no one else hardly knows.
Sanctification....Is it by faith only in Christ and him crucified? In other words, anything else that you do outside of that will not sanctify you. You will remain in bondage unless you go by way of the Cross....This is what the guy teaches and I have tried to understand this, and think I finally kind of get what he is saying, but because of the similarities with TWI in aspects I mentioned above, I have had a hard time discerning this teaching as truth, or error. So I thought I would start this thread to see what people had to say about it.
I guess I am really challenged as to his teaching, yet, he is becoming very big and going all over the world via TV teaching this as a "New revelation" that no one else hardly knows.
Thanks for your response......
NL
You are sealed into Jesus Christ, therefore you are sanctified now, like Romans chapter 8 says, Therefore there is now no condemnation? Watch out for ministers of righteousness, you are righteousness now.
You are sealed into Jesus Christ, therefore you are sanctified now, like Romans chapter 8 says, Therefore there is now no condemnation? Watch out for ministers of righteousness, you are righteousness now.
"1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
"2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
"3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
"4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Romans 8:1-4
Does Romans 8 really say we are righteous and sanctified without qualification, teachmevp? Was Wierwille righteous and sanctified when he was drugging and raping his young followers? That IS what Wierwille believed and taught, but that's not what Romans says.
Salvation is the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community. First century Judaism held that people needed to change their works BEFORE they could be admitted to the covenant community. Paul differed in saying that God would justify the ungodly on the basis of grace through faith, permitting them to change their fleshly works AFTER entering the covenant community. This is necessary because people CANNOT change from fleshly to spiritual works before they've received the Spirit.
But once a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, that person becomes RESPONSIBLE to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
If people want to be declared righteous at the bema, they need to change their works from fleshly to spiritual.
We are RESPONSIBLE now, newlife, and by God's mercy and grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, we are able to respond properly if we decide to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Don't let anybody talk you out of your responsibility, because your responsibility is also your liberty.
Sanctification is the process whereby we learn to live sanctified, holy, is it not? Which we do by living the best we can today (tomorrow might be better or worse) according to God's commands.
Spiritually, sanctification is a completed work. Practically, it's an ongoing process. Spiritually we are many things as well as sanctified - including being seated in heaven; being more than conquerors, having all things necessary to live. But we aren't yet, physically, are we? And you only have to look at Christian churches overseas to see that many Christians are still being persecuted for their beliefs, including to the point of being murdered. Others live in great poverty with barely enough food to eat each day.
But it's available to everyone to live joyfully and giving thanks in (not for) all things. And we know that one day we will see the reality of the things that are promised.
Living sanctified is in my view living looking forward to the future physical reality of the promised things, and doing our best to live each day as if they were a present physical reality. Living with integrity in the ways God would have us live. Living sanctified is part "active" living = doing what we know God would have us do; and partly abstention living = refraining from some types of behavior. Some of those behaviors are specified in the Bible; others are cultural norms. Living sanctified is doing our best with what we know, understand, hold in our hearts. And not beating ourselves up about what we don't know, don't understand, or don't yet have deeply within our hearts.
Thanks everyone. This has been one of those threads where as I read it and thought about what was written, parts of my understanding were pushed into place such that I have a much fuller understanding of sanctification; what it is, and what it isn't. I remember some one taught me in my early days that sanctification meant that I could stand before God without any sense of sin, guilt or unrighteousness. Of course that means I have to be doing my job too. I'm not trying to return to twi thoughts and contrivances - - but those words in light of this thread help put it together for me.
Steve said: <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">We are RESPONSIBLE now, newlife, and by God's mercy and grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, we are able to respond properly if we decide to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Don't let anybody talk you out of your responsibility, because your responsibility is also your liberty.
This falls right in line with what my mother would tell me when I was out of line....You're 9 years old (or whatever age I was at the tine) now act like it! I'm sure I had the only parent in the world who spoke those words (not)
Sanctification is the process whereby we learn to live sanctified, holy, is it not? Which we do by living the best we can today (tomorrow might be better or worse) according to God's commands.
Spiritually, sanctification is a completed work. Practically, it's an ongoing process. Spiritually we are many things as well as sanctified - including being seated in heaven; being more than conquerors, having all things necessary to live. But we aren't yet, physically, are we? And you only have to look at Christian churches overseas to see that many Christians are still being persecuted for their beliefs, including to the point of being murdered. Others live in great poverty with barely enough food to eat each day.
But it's available to everyone to live joyfully and giving thanks in (not for) all things. And we know that one day we will see the reality of the things that are promised.
Living sanctified is in my view living looking forward to the future physical reality of the promised things, and doing our best to live each day as if they were a present physical reality. Living with integrity in the ways God would have us live. Living sanctified is part "active" living = doing what we know God would have us do; and partly abstention living = refraining from some types of behavior. Some of those behaviors are specified in the Bible; others are cultural norms. Living sanctified is doing our best with what we know, understand, hold in our hearts. And not beating ourselves up about what we don't know, don't understand, or don't yet have deeply within our hearts.
Recently, I got into watching this TV ministry on TV.....and I was really drawn into it. The guy claims to have a revelation from God regarding sanctification. (sound familiar?) He claims that most churches do not know this about sanctification and he basically has staked his ministry on this revelation, which he wants to carry throughout the whole word at God's direction. (Does it sound familiar....Word over the world) I realized that there is truth there but, error also, but the guy is raising millions a dollars each month for this WOW......He constantly puts down every church there is....(Ding ding)
But, my question is Sanctification.......What do you know about it?? I know we were taught sanctification was "Set" apart. But, I've been reading Romans 6,7,& 8 and Regarding this process of sanctification....not living in sin, but realizing we have been raised to "new life"......My question is just what is the definition of sanctification and how what is exactly the process of this....the how.
Also, has anyone else listened to this guy and his message???
Thanks....
Newlife
I've been considering this...
As far as I can see, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", which means whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at that time, which guarantees that person will be raised from the dead or changed when Jesus Christ returns.
What does it mean to "call upon the name of the Lord"? I think every person is confronted with an opportunity to decide to be arrogant or humble. My decision to be humble enabled the Lord to work his will in me. I think THAT is when I "called on the name of the Lord". I think it is a personal as well as a communal experience, and I think the personal experience is VERY unique to each individual. The communal aspect is baptism.
The process of sanctification, being guided by the Holy Spirit, can be accomplished only after a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (which is NOT necessarily the same thing as SIT in public). So, yes, the only way to progress in sanctification is through Jesus Christ, but I am suspicious of the pastor's claim that he is the only person who knows what the truth is, and that his way is the only one.
I don't believe true Christians walking by the Spirit dismiss other Christians the way Wierwille did, or the way this pastor seems to be doing.
Thanks everyone for your responses.....I really appreciate them.
I think I have a better grasp on sanctification. For me, who am just a believer, with no specific learning about the bible, other than TWI....It sometimes gets confusing when you listen to other people teach on something. Like this guy I have referenced, it sounds right, and I can't specifically point out if there is anything wrong in his teaching. But, things like, He's got this revelation that no one else has had, and he puts down everyone else because they don't have this knowledge that he has.....that is one thing that sets me to questioning what he is teaching. He's actually written his comments and notes in a bible and sells it to people. And the way it is written, he makes comments after EVERY verse and explains what that verse is saying. He doesn't claim that he is without error in his notes, but does claim that it is anointed (Which I am not sure I understand)
I guess I am in a holding pattern about him and what he teaches. Just things that I see about him and his ministry, that as Kit Sober said, "Quacks like TWI"....there seems to be a lot of anger in people when they are doing the different shows.....like this is the truth and if you don't believe it, you are screwed up and possibly going to "hell". This absolute belief in what they are saying....
And perhaps this is something I should look at.....why am I looking to a man to give me answers??? Cause that's all I've known I guess and I don't at all trust myself to know what it is saying. I was never a "research person" so It gets very frustrating at times. So many questions.
I say to God many times, better send your Son back soon....this world is in a spiritual mess.......my opinion only.
When I was involved with TWI, I did not pay attention to what other Christians were teaching, because I thought EVERYTHING they taught was contaminated by the "errors" they taught. When I realized that I, as a follower of TWI, had been teaching error also, I considered that those errors had NOT contaminated the truth that I had been teaching, too. And the same thing was true of everybody else.
After that, I paid more attention to the parable of the wheat and the tares (weeds that can't be distinguished from wheat until harvest time) in Matthew chapter 13. There are wheat and there are weeds in EVERY faith community (as they like to call them in theological circles). There were wheat and there were weeds in TWI. Unfortunately, the weeds were in the upper hierarchy. There are wheat and there are weeds in EVERY religious organization! Every church teaches a degree of truth and a degree of error.
The Lord sets people in his body where it suits him!
The fact that the TV minister you reference thinks the Lord has revealed something to him that He hasn't revealed to anybody else, and something as important as sanctification, raises a red flag in my mind. The fact that the minister and his followers think that the Lord Jesus Christ, who went onto the cross to save us, is going to condemn people to Hell because they don't fall in line behind this particular minister, is just too big of a red flag for me. When people condemn other people to Hell, they are usurping the authority of the Lord. Jesus Christ is the ONLY ONE who can judge who is and who is not worthy of salvation!
I'd like to know the title of the particular version of the Bible they are trying to sell, if you'd care to post it. Thanks!
newlife, what you say seems to be ringed in red flags! This preacher fellow seems to have a lot of "look at me!" and not a lot of "look at God!" or "look at Jesus Christ!"
You have a bible; read that and do the best you know to do. Ask the Lord to show you better ways to do what is required. Ask him to show you where you can work on reckoning your "old man nature" dead. Stay humble to God and he will show you. Seek the loving support of those you can see live a Christian lifestyle and avoid those who want to berate or belittle you. Avoid like the plague anyone who tells you you are not "meek to the Word" or who is angry or self-opinionated.
Go to a church, or better yet two, if that's helpful. If you keep hearing the same thing in both it's quite likely right. If you hear something that sounds off the wall in one, you can ask at that church or in the other church. Look at the people in your workplace, in your community, and see if any of them are leading a Christian lifestyle, and ask them about it. "I've noticed you always seem so peaceful/ that you always have a smile on your face/ that you're gentle with.../ you're so encouraging with your children..."
Ask yourself if the way you treat other people is the way you'd like God to treat you. If it's not, do your best to treat others as you would expect a loving God to treat you. As you would expect Jesus, if he were right beside you, to treat you - or the other person. If you try to match your behavior to that ideal, you'll be living out your sanctification in grand style. Don't beat yourself up when you fall short of the standard...we all do.
As far as I can see, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", which means whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at that time, which guarantees that person will be raised from the dead or changed when Jesus Christ returns.
I guess that's one way to look at it...
But that quote actually comes from the Old "Testament"(covenant) and I believe has little to nothing to do with the gift of h.s.. This was and always has been God's promise since the beginning of time. Trust in Him, and He shall save you. Both now and in the future. While I'm aware a good many that have left TWI still think like that, since OSAS is so prevalent a teaching these days in Christianity, I have yet to see that written, unless one does the whole administrational separation of writings to gain the view.
In my view (which is just one's man view), putting your trust in Him, is that process of sanctifying your flesh now which is a life long process. Allowing God's path be your path. Whereas putting your trust in Him also, by his grace and mercy, grants you that gift of life through His son forever. Yet one does not require the gift of h.s. anymore than those of old had to have it to gain the gift of everlasting life. And yes, that gift of everlasting life has always been available via the same way, Trusting in Him. That gift of h.s. is not your new you that is saved. (The new man that TWI claimed it to be). It is not your incorruptible seed that TWI claimed it to be. (The good news is the incorruptible seed). And while it is the down payment. It is not THE guarantee that you can walk away from God, go commit murders, and still be granted eternal salvation.
TWI's view of God's gift of h.s. (especially renaming it things like 'new man','incorruptible seed', 'Christ in you', 'inward man' that have a different and clear biblical understanding) , mixed with it's administrational hacking of scriptures and calling scripture irrelevant for today has led to so much misunderstanding. Thinking those in old times were saved by anything BUT grace, anything BUT by trusting God, clearly wipes out a good amount of understanding one can gain from understanding the old writings dealing with the old covenant.
While it is true, the new covenant, promised of old, would place God's spirit in each person's heart. It didn't change how or to whom God saves. Salvation is based on the heart not some spirit gift you don't control. And while the ONE new man that we are saved into (Christ) and are now a part of sanctifies us wholly, our flesh side needs help daily to be sanctified. So while our salvation is a guarantee WHILE we are in that body(His body), that does not mean we do not have the ability to turn our heart and trust away, and that dead person that we are, now made alive and new in Christ, can still choose to serve another, let it not be so.
But that quote actually comes from the Old "Testament"(covenant) and I believe has little to nothing to do with the gift of h.s.. This was and always has been God's promise since the beginning of time. Trust in Him, and He shall save you. Both now and in the future. While I'm aware a good many that have left TWI still think like that, since OSAS is so prevalent a teaching these days in Christianity, I have yet to see that written, unless one does the whole administrational separation of writings to gain the view.
I agree with the things you say about sanctification, Trust And Obey. You hit the nail on the head, but what Wierwille taught about the quote from Joel 2 in PFAL was wrong. Wierwille taught that Peter meant "This is LIKE that which was spoken by the prophet Joel", but that's not what the Word of God says. Peter said "This IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel." That's exactly what Peter meant, and Peter was right. The outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the outpouring prophesied by Joel, and by Ezekiel in 36:27 of his book. The outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is the enablement of the New Covenant.
The dispensationalism Wierwille taught is baloney, pure and simple. The Church, the body of Christ, is composed of the believing remnant of Israel, under the New Covenant promised to Israel in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
What does the phrase "the promise of the Father" mean? Where was the promise made? It was made in the "Old Testament"!
Sorry bout that last post.. Sounds like I was ranting and all.. Just got frustrated when I read the statement that didn't make much sense to me about
"The process of sanctification, being guided by the Holy Spirit, can be accomplished only after a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit.."
Kind of like the chicken and egg, which came first.. The process of setting yourself apart, sanctifying, is what starts the thing, YOU - making that decision to turn to sanctify ones self, starts the process, starts with that act of sanctifying yourself, and was done without the gift.. Kind of hard to say the gift that comes as a result of starting that process is required, when it wasn't required to begin it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and someone can explain it to me!
(I'm not saying it's not a help.. That comforter, that helper, Christ promised.. But being required.. And the process can only be accomplished AFTER... Yeah, just don't get that)..
I wasn't upset by your post, TrustAndObey! In fact, I find it very helpful.
I was in the hospital in intensive care for a week last August, and I dropped out of school this semester. I'll be strong enough to go back in January. I've been doing some extracurricular reading in the mean time, especially regarding sanctification because the faith community which founded and supports the school I attend came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement of the late 1800s, and one of their distinctive doctrines was that of "entire sanctification", that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a "second work of grace", and when a person receives this second work of grace, that person is incapable of sinning anymore in this lifetime. But it's something nobody ever explains, because they all take it for granted.
I recently read Paul & Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation by Preston M. Sprinkle, and it helped me understand a lot of things. Part of what I've been doing here is figuring out how to articulate some of the things I've learned (since I ain't writin' any papers this semester!)
Sprinkle compares the things Paul wrote with the things that were written in the Qumran community (the Dead Sea Scrolls). First, Sprinkle defined "salvation" as "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community." First century Jews in general believed they were in the covenant community as a matter of birth. The Qumran community regarded itself as the believing remnant of Israel, and to become a member of the community, you had to clean up your act first, by doing the works of the law.
Paul said a person could become a member of the covenant community by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Nobody could become a member of the New Covenant community by works of the law, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed us from the law of sin and death. It is by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit that a person becomes a Christian. That doesn't mean a person has to set through session 12 of PFAL or anything at all like that. It means a person simply gets humble in their own heart before the Lord, and when a person does that, the Lord gives them the Spirit of the New Covenant, which enables that particular person to hear straight from God, and do the specific things Jesus wants that particular person to do.
After a person becomes a Christian, that person becomes responsible to do the things the Spirit leads them to do, and those things are not grievous. And Jesus is the ONLY person who can judge how well a member of his body discharges their responsibility. There are NO cookie-cutter Christians.
So stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free! That's what sanctification under the direction of the Holy Spirit is!
Thanks Steve for explaining. And I'm glad you are getting better..
While I understand many "Jewish" communities thought they could "work" their way into being God's elect, that was one of the problems God continually attests to having with them in the old covenant writings. It never was about the "law". Just as it was written, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ... burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required ... I desired mercy not sacrifices." But yet their heart was far from Him. And people still today think God required offerings and sacrifices of them back then when it wasn't. He only wanted their heart. And that, my friend, is the same today. Christ didn't change that. He didn't change law requirements. He only accomplished what God asked.
Just as you say:
Paul said a person could become a member of the covenant community by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Nobody could become a member of the New Covenant community by works of the law
And so it was that no one could become a member of the old covenant community any other way.. It was through faith[Trust] in the "coming" resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ now has come. But it didn't change anything regarding salvation except accomplish what God planned to make salvation available. Had Christ not done so, even those of old would not have salvation. For as Christ said, NO MAN cometh unto the Father but through him. He is, was, and shall always be the ONLY way. That has and never will change. And that God continually tried to tell the Israelites. Just as today, many have to be told, it's not by works. So did the Israelites have to be told. As Romans states, there is no salvation by works. Ever! Period! Those who ever thought or think so, delude themselves into thinking they are in control of their destiny. I like the statement, "Not by works, lest any should boast".. The Israelites of old have nothing to boast of, for if they have salvation it is only through Christ and their trust in God.. David look forward to the day.. He trusted God that would happen/ It is only in his trusting that he has salvation, not his works!
That's why I don't quite get your statement that:
It is by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit that a person becomes a Christian.
When in reality a person becomes a Christian when he trusts God. Follows Christ. Turns his heart to Him. In doing so, he becomes a Christian and in return receives the gift. Again, the chicken and the egg. The gift comes because one has turned not to turn them. It is given to be a help, a guide. In fact, it's mission has never changed. Who was it that received it in the Old Testament? The leaders of course. And who are we today. A kingdom of priests.. The leaders.. All are.. That is what changed from the old to the new covenant. The leaders of old, despite having the gift, turned from God, and in doing so turned many away from God by teaching salvation by works, salvation through yourself. God changed that, everyone is a priest. We all now have the gift. And we all now have that guide, that help. So long as trust in Him instead of ourselves. When we stop trusting in Him, and instead trust in our works as the Israelites did, we turn away from God. That is the reason for the gift. No more blind leading the blind. You have the gift to lead you. You now can lead, be that priest. Doesn't make you perfect. Doesn't guarantee you won't turn away and stop trusting and lose God's gift. But it is the best thing God has done. Because of Christ. This gift is not what saves you or makes you a Christian. It didn't save or make those in the Jewish community part of God's elect. Neither did their works.
Sanctification has been, and is the same. Salvation has been, and is the same. Redemption has been, and is the same. Christ didn't change any of this. He accomplished the plan so that it could continue.
Thanks for the dialogue, Trust And Obey! You're giving me a workout, and it's good practice for the defense of my thesis I'll have to give when I finish writing it!
Back to some basics: What IS spirit?
Words have literal meanings, but as they are used in metaphors and similes, they take on figurative meanings as well. The literal meaning of "spirit" (ruach in the Hebrew, pneuma in the Greek) is "air in motion". And that is the earth/water/air/fire/ether element "air"... "in motion". Ruach and pneuma both can be translated as "wind", "breath" or "spirit".
Wierwille taught that Adam was originally a three part being, body, soul and spirit, and man's spirit was the part that was created in the image of God. When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirits died, and they went on as body and soul "empties", as TWI came to call non-wafers.
But Genesis 2:7 doesn't say that. It says God formed man, NOT his BODY but man himself, from the dust of the ground. When God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, man BECAME a LIVING soul. It doesn't say man acquired a living soul... it says he BECAME one.
Adam (and later Eve, too) was a two part being, a soul component made up of dust, animated by a breath component. Breath is respiration,air in motion. All breath is spirit, air in motion, but not all spirit is breath, air moving in and out of a material,mortal soul.
What died in the day that they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The animals God had them kill in order to cover themselves with skins. It was a substitutional sacrifice pointing forward to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
I think freedom/responsibility is the aspect in which God created Adam and Eve in His image, and that has never died.
Without quoting a LOT of scripture, the Bible associates identity with the human dust component. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Man's identity is never associated with his respiration.
Now, back in the days the Bible was being written, nobody had the electronic monitors we have in hospitals today. They didn't even know what the pulse meant. The most accurate way to tell if a person was alive or not was whether or not they were breathing. If a person had air moving in and out of him, he was alive. If a person didn't have air moving in and out of him, he was dead. So the literal air in motion "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "life force, as evidenced by the power to move." Moving air moves other things, giving "life" to them.
In Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, it means the life force of God interacted with His creation, moving and imparting life to it.
When people die, they are buried in a hole in the ground. That's why "hell" is underground. Avoiding another bunch of quotations, there is no consciousness in death, because the person's mortal, material soul is dead.
Not much hope in THAT!
Then comes Ezekiel 37 and the valley of the dry bones. God has the son of man speak to the bones, and they come together, flesh comes up on the bones, and the flesh becomes covered with skin, but the Israel does not yet live. God has the son of man prophesy to the wind (ruach = "spirit"), to come into the people, and they lived. "13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves. 14 And shall put my spirit (ruach = "spirit") in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD."
Theologians call this the promise of the "eschatological spirit", the spirit of the last times. THIS is the promise of the Father referred to in Acts chapter 2. God was able to raise Jesus from the dead by giving him this spirit, the spirit of resurrection life. He could do that because Jesus was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Then on the day of Pentecost, Jesus was able to pour out "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which was promised in Joel 2, unto all those who "call upon" his name.
I think the phrase "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2 means "the Holy Spirit, of which the gift is a part" because the Spirit poured out that day was not the whole Spirit of resurrection life. That will be poured out when Jesus returns. The dead will be raised, and those who are still alive will be changed. I capitalize "Holy Spirit" because it is fully God, the life force of God as evidenced by the power to move, combined with the fully human personality of Christ Jesus. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the one place where "Jesus is God".
Every person who is a Christian has received the gift of the Holy Spirit. According to Paul, that's what makes Christians Christians!
Now I hope I haven't gone off on a rant! And if you can poke holes in what I've said, please feel WELCOME to do so! I need the feedback from people who care!
I'm hoping it's a welcomed workout, else I'll be glad to refrain. I wouldn't want to impede your recovery.
What is spirit.. I am sure much could be said because while it has a literal meaning, it has a good amount of figurative meaning as well.
Moving air.. Sure, I can agree with that being a good basic literal definition..
But the moment spirit is used figuratively is where I think there is much misunderstanding. It is used of God, and His life giving force. It also used to represent one's desire and direction(ours, God's, and the evil ones). Heck just the use of the evil spirit is misunderstood.
So it is a very vast subject, and one I can't say I have a complete grasp on.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your view, but it looks pretty similar to TWI's view in that the gift of h.s. is considered an individual force given to each believer as their own. God's seed, they say. And being "filled completely" with it, it is different than the spirit given in the Old "Testament"(covenant).
I personally don't subscribe to any of that view.
I first don't see how one can make a distinction between the new covenant spirit and what was given to those in Israel. While VPW tried to say the difference was that the spirit is "in" the believer, but not "in" the Old, or that it is filled to overflowing in the new and not the old, but that doesn't hold up to anyone who does a search. Since they will find old testament believers being "filled" and having the spirit "in". Why I never did search myself until I left TWI, I will never know.
When the spirit was given to the 70 Israel elders and Medad and Eldad prophesied in the camp. Moses proclaimed, that he desired God to put his spirit on all his people, that they might prophesy. This is what happened on the day of Pentecost. It was God's will from the beginning. It was prophesied about that he would place it in all. There is no mention of this being something "different" other than placing it in "all" instead of some.
So my question to you is where do you see a distinction written in scripture? (Or do you see the spirit given to the 70 the same as given in Acts)
The predominant view in the new covenant writings of course calls the gift of holy spirit God's. It doesn't call it "your spirit", and certainly not "your spirit in the inner man" as TWI liked to call it. It is always called "God's spirit in you". His spirit that abides in you. That is the gift given to us. But it is no more you than God is you.
But to say it is what makes a Christian a Christian. I think that's overstating it. Sure, all who are truly Christian's have God's spirit in them. But to say it is what makes you one, if you would please explain where in the scriptures you get such a view. It would be like saying books is what makes a student a student because he get's them when he becomes a student (ignore that he could lose the books and still be a student). The books don't make a student a student, they are just a result of being one.
If God's spirit in us is what makes us a Christian and is the same "resurrection life" given to Christ when he arose, there would be no more death. We die, and God's spirit returns to Him. It was never you, it did not give you eternal life. It only "helps", "guides", and directs you while you are alive(via breathing air). To try and make it synonymous with the resurrected life force Christ received (even a small tiny portion), to me, just makes zero sense. I don't believe a living soul is made of 2 things or 3 things. Neither body and soul, nor with the added spirit. Man is man. Living soul is a living soul. A living soul has parts, sure. A Body. A head, A leg, a brain, synaptic thoughts.. But to separate body and soul.. Unless soul is used figuratively, which it is at times, it typically refers to a whole person. A living being(err I mean soul). God breathed into man life, and he became what? 2 parts - body and soul? No, it says he became a "living soul". A living being. And that added spirit you've been given. Well, it's not you! It's still called God's spirit not yours! Yours is that figurative use of spirit, your desire..
I agree, when Christ comes back, we will be changed. Corruption will put on Incorruption.. Oh wait, don't we already have that incorruptible seed? Yes, we do. BUT IT ISN"T THE SPIRIT. Only usage is in 1 Peter 1:23, and it is referring to God's word! What God says is incorruptible. Lives and abides forever, it says. Not your spirit! Your spirit will definitely die a death (unless Christ returns). God's spirit.. It doesn't die, cause, well, it's part of God! And whether he gave it to you or not, you still would have eternal life. Unless you mean God grants you eternal life, in saying the holy spirit gives you life, it doesn't just cause you have God's spirit in you, any more than it makes you a Christian. It is the result of being one. It is a gift.
To me, it's circular logic. How can one receive that spirit. Well, you must be a Christian. So, how can I become a Christian. Well, you need that spirit. And how do I get that. Become a Christian. What?!
One is a Christian because he trusts and follows his Lord, who is Christ. Period! Walking in the spirit, works of the spirit, following the spirit, living according to the spirit. All those sayings just means we do God's will. That figurative use of spirit (One's will - God's). Just as the meaning of being in Christ and in God and in His spirit in which we live and move and have our being. God's spirit gives life in that it guides you in God's ways, which by the way also gives life!
I think the best place to find out what this "gift" of holy spirit is comes from all the scriptures in the gospels where Christ explained it in pretty good details what, why, how, when, etc.. (John ch14-16)
I've tried to start answering this several different times, but quit, because I knew I was just gumming up the works, even in my own mind. So, instead of trying to answer EVERYTHING in this one post, I'm going to take one point to chew on for a while. In your last post, TrustAndObey, you wrote, "I think the best place to find out what this "gift" of holy spirit is comes from all the scriptures in the gospels where Christ explained it in pretty good details what, why, how, when, etc.. (John ch14-16)"
My first problem with taking that approach is this, "systematic theology" has fallen out of style. Systematic theology is where the student assumes that different writers of the New Testament mean exactly the same thing when they use the same word. The theologian builds a "system" for what the words mean, and every interpretation needs to be conformed to the system, even if the text has to be massaged in order to make it fit.
Wierwille's theology was HIGHLY systematic, and he would rather do violence to the text than to his system.
The alternative to systematic theology is to come to understand what EACH writer means when he uses a word, and then to compare and contrast the differences/similarities in their meanings.
For instance, both Luke and Paul write about "speaking in tongues." Do they both mean the same thing? Not exactly. "Speaking in tongues" performs a different literary function in Luke's Acts than it does in Paul's Corinthians. Before I could draw any conclusions about what "speaking in tongues" means in general, I would need to examine the differences, as well as the similarities between what Luke and Paul had to say.
The trend away from systematic theology is a good thing. It respects the differences between the books without butchering them to make them "fit like a hand and glove." And a respect for the texts is what my instructors will require of my thesis.
One of the deficiencies I found in all the material I was reading about Acts 2 was that no one ever went to the gospel of Luke to find out what Luke meant by "to be saved". Everybody said that the main theme of Acts is "salvation", but everybody seemed to take it for granted that anyone should automatically know what "to be saved" means. Any writers who did address a larger understanding went to the gospel of John instead of the gospel of Luke. They took a "systematic" approach to salvation.
The writers also emphasized that Luke/Acts is a single work, and need to be read as such. There are things Luke left out of his gospel because he wrote about them in the book of Acts. But there are also things that Luke left out of the book of Acts because he had already addressed them in his gospel. One of these things covered in his gospel but not in Acts was his definition of "salvation." However, the definition he gives in the gospel (Luke 18:18-30) is not an exposition, but rather a set of shorthand references to the Old Testament, "inheriting eternal life" and "entering into the kingdom of God."
Luke deliberately wrote a book detailing events that happened after Jesus' passion. The main thing that happened was the outpouring of Holy Spirit, and how that influenced the growth of the Church.
John deliberately wrote a book that did NOT detail events after Jesus passion. John had to take all the Church's beliefs about Holy Spirit and transpose them back into the period BEFORE Pentecost.
If I did as you suggest, and explain the gift of the Holy Spirit in terms of the gospel of John, my instructors would mark my paper down for using systematic theology.
Thanks for your reply Steve.. While I have no problems with your aversion to "systematic" theology.. I have no issues with whatever theology you choose.. Be it Systematic, Biblical, Historical, Narrative, or other.
Honestly, I am not bound to any, and in fact hold closer to a progressive narrative theology. The only reason to point to the specific verses in John, has more to do with the fact that I believe they do contain a good deal of narrative, "possibly" from our Lord, regarding the gift of h.s. to come. Course that could be an incorrect understanding, so I do challenge you to show me how that might be..
I'm curious as to why you chose Luke's specific record regarding salvation in ch18? It is an interesting section, although I wouldn't displace it from the previous verses that have just as much to do with it as v18ff..
The narrative in that section shows the hole in the thinking that salvation was by works in the Old Covenant.
In v9 Jesus states, "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others."
Just as we know we are "saved by grace, lest any should boast", it is this common thread throughout the entire scriptures. And maybe that's too much of a systematic understanding for you. But God has always gone out of His way to ensure that when salvation came, the people knew it was by God's hand and not their own. Not just eternal salvation, but also temporal salvation which was a sign or figure of the coming future salvation which still has yet to come (salvation unto eternal life).
There never was and never will be a way where people are saved because of their own "works". That was attested way back in the beginning with Adam and Eve. God is the one who clothed them, as they were made righteous and sanctified. And also just as Cain sought to attain righteousness by his works which he showed in his offering, yet Abel knew it was only by God's mercy and thus his offering was accepted.
Course, one could even continue in Luke with that section you gave.. Where the man asked what shall he do to attain eternal life. And some people would stop with Jesus listing out some of the commandments and say, "Ahh see.. Salvation by works..".. But then Jesus didn't stop there..
v22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
That certainly wasn't part of the law of Moses, or any other law. And it is no different today.. Not that Christ added to the law or "requirements" for salvation in that verse. But instead he pointed out what many ignore today when it comes to salvation by grace. Many unfortunately are led to believe it requires "nothing" of them, just a whimsical "belief" that "Jesus is Lord, and God raised him from the dead" (Rom 10:9) and their salvation is secured..
It has never, nor will it ever be by our own works. And while many of old were misled, so the misleading continues today. The scriptures are clear that Christ purchased us by his own blood. He bought us, but it is our choice to give ourselves to Him. Everything that man had, Christ said.. That living sacrifice we also are asked to do (Rom 12:1). To Trust God and Christ enough to give our lives, everything we have, and let Christ lead us. Give all and follow me, Christ said. No different. Nothing about that changed. Except for the secret.. Gentiles becoming fellow heirs and of the same body.. And that body comprised of kings and priests unto God(Rev 1:6) which just as in the Old times, kings and priests received the gift.
Please feel free to add, comment, and let me know where you think something is incorrect..
"I'm curious as to why you chose Luke's specific record regarding salvation in ch18? It is an interesting section, although I wouldn't displace it from the previous verses that have just as much to do with it as v18ff."
This is a very good question. I can't answer it without drawing up a list of all the occurrences of salvation language (soteria, sozo) in the gospel of Luke. I'm not going to present that list here, but I will need to include it as an appendix in my paper.
So, I'm going to be spending the next day or two putting that together, and then I'll be able to show why I think Luke 18:18-30 is a key passage in understanding what Luke means by being "saved".
And I think we'll see some indirect light cast on "sanctification" also!
Recommended Posts
Steve Lortz
I don't know who you're talking about, but I've been studying sanctification lately.
Wesley got concerned about sanctification because he thought "real" Christians should eliminate as much sin as possible from their lives, and it was obvious to him that people didn't automatically stop sinning just because they became Christians. So he posited two "works of grace", the first being "regeneration" when a person becomes a Christian, and the second being "sanctification" when a Christian eliminates sin from his or her behavior. Wesley thought that a person COULD receive "entire sanctification", where the Holy Spirit removed all sin at one time, but that sanctification is almost always a gradual lidfe-long process.
During the late-1800s, the Wesleyan Holiness Movement started emphasizing entire sanctification, and they associated it with receiving the Holy Spirit. In order to receive entire sanctification, a person would have to "consecrate" himself (it was mostly guys, the women knew better) and he would become without sin here in this lifetime. Sanctification was magnified as a "second work of grace".
William Seymour, the pastor who led the Azuza Street Revival came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement, and Pentecostal theologians came to regard "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as a "third work of grace" to empower Christians for service.
Personally speaking, I think sanctification is the process of eliminating sinful thinking and behavior from a Christian's life. I think it's a gradual process directed for each specific person by the Holy Spirit working in that person. "It is God that works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." I think it is done by the renewing of the mind, as set forth in Romans 12:2. The Bible promises complete sanctification, but I don't think that will come to pass until Jesus appears and we are all either raised from the dead or changed.
I hope this helps some. If you've got more specific questions, newlife, I'd be glad to see what I can dig up. I'm curious about the TV minister you refer to in your post.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Hi Steve.....I am really glad you added to this.
Sanctification....Is it by faith only in Christ and him crucified? In other words, anything else that you do outside of that will not sanctify you. You will remain in bondage unless you go by way of the Cross....This is what the guy teaches and I have tried to understand this, and think I finally kind of get what he is saying, but because of the similarities with TWI in aspects I mentioned above, I have had a hard time discerning this teaching as truth, or error. So I thought I would start this thread to see what people had to say about it.
I guess I am really challenged as to his teaching, yet, he is becoming very big and going all over the world via TV teaching this as a "New revelation" that no one else hardly knows.
Thanks for your response......
NL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
You are sealed into Jesus Christ, therefore you are sanctified now, like Romans chapter 8 says, Therefore there is now no condemnation? Watch out for ministers of righteousness, you are righteousness now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
sanctification is living and breathing and growing,
with high and low tides and many in betweens
as is reconciliation and other such words with life
If I could define it, then it would be a dead word
my 2 cents worth
i recall a warning about getting caught by the dead letter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it's sort of like the word - honesty
i don't know what that word will be or mean tomorrow to me
i can't see what it will mean to me in any given situation or day
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
"2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
"3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
"4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Romans 8:1-4
Does Romans 8 really say we are righteous and sanctified without qualification, teachmevp? Was Wierwille righteous and sanctified when he was drugging and raping his young followers? That IS what Wierwille believed and taught, but that's not what Romans says.
Salvation is the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community. First century Judaism held that people needed to change their works BEFORE they could be admitted to the covenant community. Paul differed in saying that God would justify the ungodly on the basis of grace through faith, permitting them to change their fleshly works AFTER entering the covenant community. This is necessary because people CANNOT change from fleshly to spiritual works before they've received the Spirit.
But once a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, that person becomes RESPONSIBLE to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
If people want to be declared righteous at the bema, they need to change their works from fleshly to spiritual.
We are RESPONSIBLE now, newlife, and by God's mercy and grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, we are able to respond properly if we decide to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Don't let anybody talk you out of your responsibility, because your responsibility is also your liberty.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Sanctification is the process whereby we learn to live sanctified, holy, is it not? Which we do by living the best we can today (tomorrow might be better or worse) according to God's commands.
Spiritually, sanctification is a completed work. Practically, it's an ongoing process. Spiritually we are many things as well as sanctified - including being seated in heaven; being more than conquerors, having all things necessary to live. But we aren't yet, physically, are we? And you only have to look at Christian churches overseas to see that many Christians are still being persecuted for their beliefs, including to the point of being murdered. Others live in great poverty with barely enough food to eat each day.
But it's available to everyone to live joyfully and giving thanks in (not for) all things. And we know that one day we will see the reality of the things that are promised.
Living sanctified is in my view living looking forward to the future physical reality of the promised things, and doing our best to live each day as if they were a present physical reality. Living with integrity in the ways God would have us live. Living sanctified is part "active" living = doing what we know God would have us do; and partly abstention living = refraining from some types of behavior. Some of those behaviors are specified in the Bible; others are cultural norms. Living sanctified is doing our best with what we know, understand, hold in our hearts. And not beating ourselves up about what we don't know, don't understand, or don't yet have deeply within our hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Thanks everyone. This has been one of those threads where as I read it and thought about what was written, parts of my understanding were pushed into place such that I have a much fuller understanding of sanctification; what it is, and what it isn't. I remember some one taught me in my early days that sanctification meant that I could stand before God without any sense of sin, guilt or unrighteousness. Of course that means I have to be doing my job too. I'm not trying to return to twi thoughts and contrivances - - but those words in light of this thread help put it together for me.
This falls right in line with what my mother would tell me when I was out of line....You're 9 years old (or whatever age I was at the tine) now act like it! I'm sure I had the only parent in the world who spoke those words (not)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree with you, twinky, 100%!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've been considering this...
As far as I can see, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", which means whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at that time, which guarantees that person will be raised from the dead or changed when Jesus Christ returns.
What does it mean to "call upon the name of the Lord"? I think every person is confronted with an opportunity to decide to be arrogant or humble. My decision to be humble enabled the Lord to work his will in me. I think THAT is when I "called on the name of the Lord". I think it is a personal as well as a communal experience, and I think the personal experience is VERY unique to each individual. The communal aspect is baptism.
The process of sanctification, being guided by the Holy Spirit, can be accomplished only after a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (which is NOT necessarily the same thing as SIT in public). So, yes, the only way to progress in sanctification is through Jesus Christ, but I am suspicious of the pastor's claim that he is the only person who knows what the truth is, and that his way is the only one.
I don't believe true Christians walking by the Spirit dismiss other Christians the way Wierwille did, or the way this pastor seems to be doing.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Thanks everyone for your responses.....I really appreciate them.
I think I have a better grasp on sanctification. For me, who am just a believer, with no specific learning about the bible, other than TWI....It sometimes gets confusing when you listen to other people teach on something. Like this guy I have referenced, it sounds right, and I can't specifically point out if there is anything wrong in his teaching. But, things like, He's got this revelation that no one else has had, and he puts down everyone else because they don't have this knowledge that he has.....that is one thing that sets me to questioning what he is teaching. He's actually written his comments and notes in a bible and sells it to people. And the way it is written, he makes comments after EVERY verse and explains what that verse is saying. He doesn't claim that he is without error in his notes, but does claim that it is anointed (Which I am not sure I understand)
I guess I am in a holding pattern about him and what he teaches. Just things that I see about him and his ministry, that as Kit Sober said, "Quacks like TWI"....there seems to be a lot of anger in people when they are doing the different shows.....like this is the truth and if you don't believe it, you are screwed up and possibly going to "hell". This absolute belief in what they are saying....
And perhaps this is something I should look at.....why am I looking to a man to give me answers??? Cause that's all I've known I guess and I don't at all trust myself to know what it is saying. I was never a "research person" so It gets very frustrating at times. So many questions.
I say to God many times, better send your Son back soon....this world is in a spiritual mess.......my opinion only.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When I was involved with TWI, I did not pay attention to what other Christians were teaching, because I thought EVERYTHING they taught was contaminated by the "errors" they taught. When I realized that I, as a follower of TWI, had been teaching error also, I considered that those errors had NOT contaminated the truth that I had been teaching, too. And the same thing was true of everybody else.
After that, I paid more attention to the parable of the wheat and the tares (weeds that can't be distinguished from wheat until harvest time) in Matthew chapter 13. There are wheat and there are weeds in EVERY faith community (as they like to call them in theological circles). There were wheat and there were weeds in TWI. Unfortunately, the weeds were in the upper hierarchy. There are wheat and there are weeds in EVERY religious organization! Every church teaches a degree of truth and a degree of error.
The Lord sets people in his body where it suits him!
The fact that the TV minister you reference thinks the Lord has revealed something to him that He hasn't revealed to anybody else, and something as important as sanctification, raises a red flag in my mind. The fact that the minister and his followers think that the Lord Jesus Christ, who went onto the cross to save us, is going to condemn people to Hell because they don't fall in line behind this particular minister, is just too big of a red flag for me. When people condemn other people to Hell, they are usurping the authority of the Lord. Jesus Christ is the ONLY ONE who can judge who is and who is not worthy of salvation!
I'd like to know the title of the particular version of the Bible they are trying to sell, if you'd care to post it. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Steve, it's called the "Expository Study Bible" By Jimmy Swaggert........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
newlife, what you say seems to be ringed in red flags! This preacher fellow seems to have a lot of "look at me!" and not a lot of "look at God!" or "look at Jesus Christ!"
You have a bible; read that and do the best you know to do. Ask the Lord to show you better ways to do what is required. Ask him to show you where you can work on reckoning your "old man nature" dead. Stay humble to God and he will show you. Seek the loving support of those you can see live a Christian lifestyle and avoid those who want to berate or belittle you. Avoid like the plague anyone who tells you you are not "meek to the Word" or who is angry or self-opinionated.
Go to a church, or better yet two, if that's helpful. If you keep hearing the same thing in both it's quite likely right. If you hear something that sounds off the wall in one, you can ask at that church or in the other church. Look at the people in your workplace, in your community, and see if any of them are leading a Christian lifestyle, and ask them about it. "I've noticed you always seem so peaceful/ that you always have a smile on your face/ that you're gentle with.../ you're so encouraging with your children..."
Ask yourself if the way you treat other people is the way you'd like God to treat you. If it's not, do your best to treat others as you would expect a loving God to treat you. As you would expect Jesus, if he were right beside you, to treat you - or the other person. If you try to match your behavior to that ideal, you'll be living out your sanctification in grand style. Don't beat yourself up when you fall short of the standard...we all do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I guess that's one way to look at it...
But that quote actually comes from the Old "Testament"(covenant) and I believe has little to nothing to do with the gift of h.s.. This was and always has been God's promise since the beginning of time. Trust in Him, and He shall save you. Both now and in the future. While I'm aware a good many that have left TWI still think like that, since OSAS is so prevalent a teaching these days in Christianity, I have yet to see that written, unless one does the whole administrational separation of writings to gain the view.
In my view (which is just one's man view), putting your trust in Him, is that process of sanctifying your flesh now which is a life long process. Allowing God's path be your path. Whereas putting your trust in Him also, by his grace and mercy, grants you that gift of life through His son forever. Yet one does not require the gift of h.s. anymore than those of old had to have it to gain the gift of everlasting life. And yes, that gift of everlasting life has always been available via the same way, Trusting in Him. That gift of h.s. is not your new you that is saved. (The new man that TWI claimed it to be). It is not your incorruptible seed that TWI claimed it to be. (The good news is the incorruptible seed). And while it is the down payment. It is not THE guarantee that you can walk away from God, go commit murders, and still be granted eternal salvation.
TWI's view of God's gift of h.s. (especially renaming it things like 'new man','incorruptible seed', 'Christ in you', 'inward man' that have a different and clear biblical understanding) , mixed with it's administrational hacking of scriptures and calling scripture irrelevant for today has led to so much misunderstanding. Thinking those in old times were saved by anything BUT grace, anything BUT by trusting God, clearly wipes out a good amount of understanding one can gain from understanding the old writings dealing with the old covenant.
While it is true, the new covenant, promised of old, would place God's spirit in each person's heart. It didn't change how or to whom God saves. Salvation is based on the heart not some spirit gift you don't control. And while the ONE new man that we are saved into (Christ) and are now a part of sanctifies us wholly, our flesh side needs help daily to be sanctified. So while our salvation is a guarantee WHILE we are in that body(His body), that does not mean we do not have the ability to turn our heart and trust away, and that dead person that we are, now made alive and new in Christ, can still choose to serve another, let it not be so.
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree with the things you say about sanctification, Trust And Obey. You hit the nail on the head, but what Wierwille taught about the quote from Joel 2 in PFAL was wrong. Wierwille taught that Peter meant "This is LIKE that which was spoken by the prophet Joel", but that's not what the Word of God says. Peter said "This IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel." That's exactly what Peter meant, and Peter was right. The outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the outpouring prophesied by Joel, and by Ezekiel in 36:27 of his book. The outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is the enablement of the New Covenant.
The dispensationalism Wierwille taught is baloney, pure and simple. The Church, the body of Christ, is composed of the believing remnant of Israel, under the New Covenant promised to Israel in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
What does the phrase "the promise of the Father" mean? Where was the promise made? It was made in the "Old Testament"!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Sorry bout that last post.. Sounds like I was ranting and all.. Just got frustrated when I read the statement that didn't make much sense to me about
Kind of like the chicken and egg, which came first.. The process of setting yourself apart, sanctifying, is what starts the thing, YOU - making that decision to turn to sanctify ones self, starts the process, starts with that act of sanctifying yourself, and was done without the gift.. Kind of hard to say the gift that comes as a result of starting that process is required, when it wasn't required to begin it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and someone can explain it to me!
(I'm not saying it's not a help.. That comforter, that helper, Christ promised.. But being required.. And the process can only be accomplished AFTER... Yeah, just don't get that)..
Thanks!
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I wasn't upset by your post, TrustAndObey! In fact, I find it very helpful.
I was in the hospital in intensive care for a week last August, and I dropped out of school this semester. I'll be strong enough to go back in January. I've been doing some extracurricular reading in the mean time, especially regarding sanctification because the faith community which founded and supports the school I attend came out of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement of the late 1800s, and one of their distinctive doctrines was that of "entire sanctification", that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a "second work of grace", and when a person receives this second work of grace, that person is incapable of sinning anymore in this lifetime. But it's something nobody ever explains, because they all take it for granted.
I recently read Paul & Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation by Preston M. Sprinkle, and it helped me understand a lot of things. Part of what I've been doing here is figuring out how to articulate some of the things I've learned (since I ain't writin' any papers this semester!)
Sprinkle compares the things Paul wrote with the things that were written in the Qumran community (the Dead Sea Scrolls). First, Sprinkle defined "salvation" as "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community." First century Jews in general believed they were in the covenant community as a matter of birth. The Qumran community regarded itself as the believing remnant of Israel, and to become a member of the community, you had to clean up your act first, by doing the works of the law.
Paul said a person could become a member of the covenant community by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Nobody could become a member of the New Covenant community by works of the law, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed us from the law of sin and death. It is by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit that a person becomes a Christian. That doesn't mean a person has to set through session 12 of PFAL or anything at all like that. It means a person simply gets humble in their own heart before the Lord, and when a person does that, the Lord gives them the Spirit of the New Covenant, which enables that particular person to hear straight from God, and do the specific things Jesus wants that particular person to do.
After a person becomes a Christian, that person becomes responsible to do the things the Spirit leads them to do, and those things are not grievous. And Jesus is the ONLY person who can judge how well a member of his body discharges their responsibility. There are NO cookie-cutter Christians.
So stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free! That's what sanctification under the direction of the Holy Spirit is!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Thanks Steve for explaining. And I'm glad you are getting better..
While I understand many "Jewish" communities thought they could "work" their way into being God's elect, that was one of the problems God continually attests to having with them in the old covenant writings. It never was about the "law". Just as it was written, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ... burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required ... I desired mercy not sacrifices." But yet their heart was far from Him. And people still today think God required offerings and sacrifices of them back then when it wasn't. He only wanted their heart. And that, my friend, is the same today. Christ didn't change that. He didn't change law requirements. He only accomplished what God asked.
Just as you say:
And so it was that no one could become a member of the old covenant community any other way.. It was through faith[Trust] in the "coming" resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ now has come. But it didn't change anything regarding salvation except accomplish what God planned to make salvation available. Had Christ not done so, even those of old would not have salvation. For as Christ said, NO MAN cometh unto the Father but through him. He is, was, and shall always be the ONLY way. That has and never will change. And that God continually tried to tell the Israelites. Just as today, many have to be told, it's not by works. So did the Israelites have to be told. As Romans states, there is no salvation by works. Ever! Period! Those who ever thought or think so, delude themselves into thinking they are in control of their destiny. I like the statement, "Not by works, lest any should boast".. The Israelites of old have nothing to boast of, for if they have salvation it is only through Christ and their trust in God.. David look forward to the day.. He trusted God that would happen/ It is only in his trusting that he has salvation, not his works!
That's why I don't quite get your statement that:
When in reality a person becomes a Christian when he trusts God. Follows Christ. Turns his heart to Him. In doing so, he becomes a Christian and in return receives the gift. Again, the chicken and the egg. The gift comes because one has turned not to turn them. It is given to be a help, a guide. In fact, it's mission has never changed. Who was it that received it in the Old Testament? The leaders of course. And who are we today. A kingdom of priests.. The leaders.. All are.. That is what changed from the old to the new covenant. The leaders of old, despite having the gift, turned from God, and in doing so turned many away from God by teaching salvation by works, salvation through yourself. God changed that, everyone is a priest. We all now have the gift. And we all now have that guide, that help. So long as trust in Him instead of ourselves. When we stop trusting in Him, and instead trust in our works as the Israelites did, we turn away from God. That is the reason for the gift. No more blind leading the blind. You have the gift to lead you. You now can lead, be that priest. Doesn't make you perfect. Doesn't guarantee you won't turn away and stop trusting and lose God's gift. But it is the best thing God has done. Because of Christ. This gift is not what saves you or makes you a Christian. It didn't save or make those in the Jewish community part of God's elect. Neither did their works.
Sanctification has been, and is the same. Salvation has been, and is the same. Redemption has been, and is the same. Christ didn't change any of this. He accomplished the plan so that it could continue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for the dialogue, Trust And Obey! You're giving me a workout, and it's good practice for the defense of my thesis I'll have to give when I finish writing it!
Back to some basics: What IS spirit?
Words have literal meanings, but as they are used in metaphors and similes, they take on figurative meanings as well. The literal meaning of "spirit" (ruach in the Hebrew, pneuma in the Greek) is "air in motion". And that is the earth/water/air/fire/ether element "air"... "in motion". Ruach and pneuma both can be translated as "wind", "breath" or "spirit".
Wierwille taught that Adam was originally a three part being, body, soul and spirit, and man's spirit was the part that was created in the image of God. When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirits died, and they went on as body and soul "empties", as TWI came to call non-wafers.
But Genesis 2:7 doesn't say that. It says God formed man, NOT his BODY but man himself, from the dust of the ground. When God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, man BECAME a LIVING soul. It doesn't say man acquired a living soul... it says he BECAME one.
Adam (and later Eve, too) was a two part being, a soul component made up of dust, animated by a breath component. Breath is respiration,air in motion. All breath is spirit, air in motion, but not all spirit is breath, air moving in and out of a material,mortal soul.
What died in the day that they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The animals God had them kill in order to cover themselves with skins. It was a substitutional sacrifice pointing forward to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
I think freedom/responsibility is the aspect in which God created Adam and Eve in His image, and that has never died.
Without quoting a LOT of scripture, the Bible associates identity with the human dust component. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Man's identity is never associated with his respiration.
Now, back in the days the Bible was being written, nobody had the electronic monitors we have in hospitals today. They didn't even know what the pulse meant. The most accurate way to tell if a person was alive or not was whether or not they were breathing. If a person had air moving in and out of him, he was alive. If a person didn't have air moving in and out of him, he was dead. So the literal air in motion "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "life force, as evidenced by the power to move." Moving air moves other things, giving "life" to them.
In Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, it means the life force of God interacted with His creation, moving and imparting life to it.
When people die, they are buried in a hole in the ground. That's why "hell" is underground. Avoiding another bunch of quotations, there is no consciousness in death, because the person's mortal, material soul is dead.
Not much hope in THAT!
Then comes Ezekiel 37 and the valley of the dry bones. God has the son of man speak to the bones, and they come together, flesh comes up on the bones, and the flesh becomes covered with skin, but the Israel does not yet live. God has the son of man prophesy to the wind (ruach = "spirit"), to come into the people, and they lived. "13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves. 14 And shall put my spirit (ruach = "spirit") in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD."
Theologians call this the promise of the "eschatological spirit", the spirit of the last times. THIS is the promise of the Father referred to in Acts chapter 2. God was able to raise Jesus from the dead by giving him this spirit, the spirit of resurrection life. He could do that because Jesus was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Then on the day of Pentecost, Jesus was able to pour out "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which was promised in Joel 2, unto all those who "call upon" his name.
I think the phrase "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2 means "the Holy Spirit, of which the gift is a part" because the Spirit poured out that day was not the whole Spirit of resurrection life. That will be poured out when Jesus returns. The dead will be raised, and those who are still alive will be changed. I capitalize "Holy Spirit" because it is fully God, the life force of God as evidenced by the power to move, combined with the fully human personality of Christ Jesus. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the one place where "Jesus is God".
Every person who is a Christian has received the gift of the Holy Spirit. According to Paul, that's what makes Christians Christians!
Now I hope I haven't gone off on a rant! And if you can poke holes in what I've said, please feel WELCOME to do so! I need the feedback from people who care!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Steve,
I'm hoping it's a welcomed workout, else I'll be glad to refrain. I wouldn't want to impede your recovery.
What is spirit.. I am sure much could be said because while it has a literal meaning, it has a good amount of figurative meaning as well.
Moving air.. Sure, I can agree with that being a good basic literal definition..
But the moment spirit is used figuratively is where I think there is much misunderstanding. It is used of God, and His life giving force. It also used to represent one's desire and direction(ours, God's, and the evil ones). Heck just the use of the evil spirit is misunderstood.
So it is a very vast subject, and one I can't say I have a complete grasp on.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your view, but it looks pretty similar to TWI's view in that the gift of h.s. is considered an individual force given to each believer as their own. God's seed, they say. And being "filled completely" with it, it is different than the spirit given in the Old "Testament"(covenant).
I personally don't subscribe to any of that view.
I first don't see how one can make a distinction between the new covenant spirit and what was given to those in Israel. While VPW tried to say the difference was that the spirit is "in" the believer, but not "in" the Old, or that it is filled to overflowing in the new and not the old, but that doesn't hold up to anyone who does a search. Since they will find old testament believers being "filled" and having the spirit "in". Why I never did search myself until I left TWI, I will never know.
When the spirit was given to the 70 Israel elders and Medad and Eldad prophesied in the camp. Moses proclaimed, that he desired God to put his spirit on all his people, that they might prophesy. This is what happened on the day of Pentecost. It was God's will from the beginning. It was prophesied about that he would place it in all. There is no mention of this being something "different" other than placing it in "all" instead of some.
So my question to you is where do you see a distinction written in scripture? (Or do you see the spirit given to the 70 the same as given in Acts)
The predominant view in the new covenant writings of course calls the gift of holy spirit God's. It doesn't call it "your spirit", and certainly not "your spirit in the inner man" as TWI liked to call it. It is always called "God's spirit in you". His spirit that abides in you. That is the gift given to us. But it is no more you than God is you.
But to say it is what makes a Christian a Christian. I think that's overstating it. Sure, all who are truly Christian's have God's spirit in them. But to say it is what makes you one, if you would please explain where in the scriptures you get such a view. It would be like saying books is what makes a student a student because he get's them when he becomes a student (ignore that he could lose the books and still be a student). The books don't make a student a student, they are just a result of being one.
If God's spirit in us is what makes us a Christian and is the same "resurrection life" given to Christ when he arose, there would be no more death. We die, and God's spirit returns to Him. It was never you, it did not give you eternal life. It only "helps", "guides", and directs you while you are alive(via breathing air). To try and make it synonymous with the resurrected life force Christ received (even a small tiny portion), to me, just makes zero sense. I don't believe a living soul is made of 2 things or 3 things. Neither body and soul, nor with the added spirit. Man is man. Living soul is a living soul. A living soul has parts, sure. A Body. A head, A leg, a brain, synaptic thoughts.. But to separate body and soul.. Unless soul is used figuratively, which it is at times, it typically refers to a whole person. A living being(err I mean soul). God breathed into man life, and he became what? 2 parts - body and soul? No, it says he became a "living soul". A living being. And that added spirit you've been given. Well, it's not you! It's still called God's spirit not yours! Yours is that figurative use of spirit, your desire..
I agree, when Christ comes back, we will be changed. Corruption will put on Incorruption.. Oh wait, don't we already have that incorruptible seed? Yes, we do. BUT IT ISN"T THE SPIRIT. Only usage is in 1 Peter 1:23, and it is referring to God's word! What God says is incorruptible. Lives and abides forever, it says. Not your spirit! Your spirit will definitely die a death (unless Christ returns). God's spirit.. It doesn't die, cause, well, it's part of God! And whether he gave it to you or not, you still would have eternal life. Unless you mean God grants you eternal life, in saying the holy spirit gives you life, it doesn't just cause you have God's spirit in you, any more than it makes you a Christian. It is the result of being one. It is a gift.
To me, it's circular logic. How can one receive that spirit. Well, you must be a Christian. So, how can I become a Christian. Well, you need that spirit. And how do I get that. Become a Christian. What?!
One is a Christian because he trusts and follows his Lord, who is Christ. Period! Walking in the spirit, works of the spirit, following the spirit, living according to the spirit. All those sayings just means we do God's will. That figurative use of spirit (One's will - God's). Just as the meaning of being in Christ and in God and in His spirit in which we live and move and have our being. God's spirit gives life in that it guides you in God's ways, which by the way also gives life!
I think the best place to find out what this "gift" of holy spirit is comes from all the scriptures in the gospels where Christ explained it in pretty good details what, why, how, when, etc.. (John ch14-16)
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've tried to start answering this several different times, but quit, because I knew I was just gumming up the works, even in my own mind. So, instead of trying to answer EVERYTHING in this one post, I'm going to take one point to chew on for a while. In your last post, TrustAndObey, you wrote, "I think the best place to find out what this "gift" of holy spirit is comes from all the scriptures in the gospels where Christ explained it in pretty good details what, why, how, when, etc.. (John ch14-16)"
My first problem with taking that approach is this, "systematic theology" has fallen out of style. Systematic theology is where the student assumes that different writers of the New Testament mean exactly the same thing when they use the same word. The theologian builds a "system" for what the words mean, and every interpretation needs to be conformed to the system, even if the text has to be massaged in order to make it fit.
Wierwille's theology was HIGHLY systematic, and he would rather do violence to the text than to his system.
The alternative to systematic theology is to come to understand what EACH writer means when he uses a word, and then to compare and contrast the differences/similarities in their meanings.
For instance, both Luke and Paul write about "speaking in tongues." Do they both mean the same thing? Not exactly. "Speaking in tongues" performs a different literary function in Luke's Acts than it does in Paul's Corinthians. Before I could draw any conclusions about what "speaking in tongues" means in general, I would need to examine the differences, as well as the similarities between what Luke and Paul had to say.
The trend away from systematic theology is a good thing. It respects the differences between the books without butchering them to make them "fit like a hand and glove." And a respect for the texts is what my instructors will require of my thesis.
One of the deficiencies I found in all the material I was reading about Acts 2 was that no one ever went to the gospel of Luke to find out what Luke meant by "to be saved". Everybody said that the main theme of Acts is "salvation", but everybody seemed to take it for granted that anyone should automatically know what "to be saved" means. Any writers who did address a larger understanding went to the gospel of John instead of the gospel of Luke. They took a "systematic" approach to salvation.
The writers also emphasized that Luke/Acts is a single work, and need to be read as such. There are things Luke left out of his gospel because he wrote about them in the book of Acts. But there are also things that Luke left out of the book of Acts because he had already addressed them in his gospel. One of these things covered in his gospel but not in Acts was his definition of "salvation." However, the definition he gives in the gospel (Luke 18:18-30) is not an exposition, but rather a set of shorthand references to the Old Testament, "inheriting eternal life" and "entering into the kingdom of God."
Luke deliberately wrote a book detailing events that happened after Jesus' passion. The main thing that happened was the outpouring of Holy Spirit, and how that influenced the growth of the Church.
John deliberately wrote a book that did NOT detail events after Jesus passion. John had to take all the Church's beliefs about Holy Spirit and transpose them back into the period BEFORE Pentecost.
If I did as you suggest, and explain the gift of the Holy Spirit in terms of the gospel of John, my instructors would mark my paper down for using systematic theology.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Thanks for your reply Steve.. While I have no problems with your aversion to "systematic" theology.. I have no issues with whatever theology you choose.. Be it Systematic, Biblical, Historical, Narrative, or other.
Honestly, I am not bound to any, and in fact hold closer to a progressive narrative theology. The only reason to point to the specific verses in John, has more to do with the fact that I believe they do contain a good deal of narrative, "possibly" from our Lord, regarding the gift of h.s. to come. Course that could be an incorrect understanding, so I do challenge you to show me how that might be..
I'm curious as to why you chose Luke's specific record regarding salvation in ch18? It is an interesting section, although I wouldn't displace it from the previous verses that have just as much to do with it as v18ff..
The narrative in that section shows the hole in the thinking that salvation was by works in the Old Covenant.
In v9 Jesus states, "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others."
Just as we know we are "saved by grace, lest any should boast", it is this common thread throughout the entire scriptures. And maybe that's too much of a systematic understanding for you. But God has always gone out of His way to ensure that when salvation came, the people knew it was by God's hand and not their own. Not just eternal salvation, but also temporal salvation which was a sign or figure of the coming future salvation which still has yet to come (salvation unto eternal life).
There never was and never will be a way where people are saved because of their own "works". That was attested way back in the beginning with Adam and Eve. God is the one who clothed them, as they were made righteous and sanctified. And also just as Cain sought to attain righteousness by his works which he showed in his offering, yet Abel knew it was only by God's mercy and thus his offering was accepted.
Course, one could even continue in Luke with that section you gave.. Where the man asked what shall he do to attain eternal life. And some people would stop with Jesus listing out some of the commandments and say, "Ahh see.. Salvation by works..".. But then Jesus didn't stop there..
v22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
That certainly wasn't part of the law of Moses, or any other law. And it is no different today.. Not that Christ added to the law or "requirements" for salvation in that verse. But instead he pointed out what many ignore today when it comes to salvation by grace. Many unfortunately are led to believe it requires "nothing" of them, just a whimsical "belief" that "Jesus is Lord, and God raised him from the dead" (Rom 10:9) and their salvation is secured..
It has never, nor will it ever be by our own works. And while many of old were misled, so the misleading continues today. The scriptures are clear that Christ purchased us by his own blood. He bought us, but it is our choice to give ourselves to Him. Everything that man had, Christ said.. That living sacrifice we also are asked to do (Rom 12:1). To Trust God and Christ enough to give our lives, everything we have, and let Christ lead us. Give all and follow me, Christ said. No different. Nothing about that changed. Except for the secret.. Gentiles becoming fellow heirs and of the same body.. And that body comprised of kings and priests unto God(Rev 1:6) which just as in the Old times, kings and priests received the gift.
Please feel free to add, comment, and let me know where you think something is incorrect..
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"I'm curious as to why you chose Luke's specific record regarding salvation in ch18? It is an interesting section, although I wouldn't displace it from the previous verses that have just as much to do with it as v18ff."
This is a very good question. I can't answer it without drawing up a list of all the occurrences of salvation language (soteria, sozo) in the gospel of Luke. I'm not going to present that list here, but I will need to include it as an appendix in my paper.
So, I'm going to be spending the next day or two putting that together, and then I'll be able to show why I think Luke 18:18-30 is a key passage in understanding what Luke means by being "saved".
And I think we'll see some indirect light cast on "sanctification" also!
Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.