I've found about 2 dozen references to "being saved" in Luke by looking at the words sozo and soteria. They cover a wide degree of types of salvation.
At one end, we have the magnitude of salvation Zacharias prophesied in Luke 1:68-72, "68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant"
This fits well with the definition of salvation Sprinkler puts forward in Paul & Judaism Revisited, "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community."
At the other end, we have individual people being healed of various afflictions. In several places, Jesus tells people that their faith has saved them. Theses records may refer back to aspects of salvation prophesied in Isaiah.
In other places, Jesus tells people that those who seek to save their own lives will lose them. A number of people heckle Jesus while he's on the cross, saying "You saved other people, now save yourself."
The use of sozo in Luke 18:26 becomes interesting when we look at the whole passage from verse 18 through 30,
"18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
"19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
"20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
"21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
"22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him,Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
"23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
"24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
"25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
"26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
"27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
"28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
"29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
"30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."
The first thing to notice is the off-hand way in which Luke uses the phrases "to inherit eternal life" (verse 18), "to be saved" (verse 26) and "to enter into the kingdom of God" (verses 24 & 25) as synonyms. For Luke, they virtually mean the same thing.
When Luke wrote "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" in Acts 2:21, he could just as readily have written "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall enter into the kingdom of God" or "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall inherit eternal life".
And there are another couple of interesting features in Luke 18 that don't show up in the King James English. The phrases "eternal life" in verse 18 and "life everlasting" are both zoen aionion in the Greek, literally "life of the age".
In verse 30, the word "world" is aion or "age" in the Greek. The tail end of verse 30 can be translated "and in the age to come, life of the age." This verse gives the timing for receiving some parts of the salvation we have in Christ... in the age to come.
In Luke 20:34-36, Luke expands on the idea of "life of the age in the age to come". Regarding the Sadducees' inquiry about the woman who was married to seven brothers,
"34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world [aion = "age"] marry, and are given in marriage:
"35 But they which are accounted worthy to obtain that world [aion = "age", "the age to come"], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage:
"36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
The way that a human being, including Jesus Christ, becomes a child of the resurrection is by receiving the promise of the Father set out in Ezekiel 37:13&14, "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 in you, and you 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."
The idea that nothing written before the day of Pentecost applies to the church strips the Church of all the underpinnings of its very existence!
The way this ties back in to sanctification comes in asking what the rich young ruler walked away from.
If we view Jesus' exhortation for the young ruler to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow him as "sanctification" then the young ruler's disobedience (repudiation of Jesus' Lordship) seems remarkably similar to the behavior we've seen from people who refuse to sanctify themselves (and I have VP in mind here).
What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in salvation? What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in sanctification? The questions are a lot closer than systematic theology would have it!
So, are the Calvinists right that there is absolutely no human agency involved in salvation or sanctification?
Are the Wesleyan Holiness folk right in thinking that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace (after salvation/regeneration) that renders a person free from sin in this life, with no responsibility required on the part of the human being?
Are Pentecostals right in thinking receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a third work of grace to empower for mission?
Was Wierwille right to believe he was sanctified as he drugged and raped his followers?
Steve, If you don't mind, can you explain how you understand Ezekiel 37. Since every time you mention it, it seems like you are confusing the resurrection "spirit" with the promised holy spirit. I totally agree the gift of holy spirit was prophesied by Joel as Luke points out in Acts. And it may be the same spirit in v14 of Ezek 37. But the portion regarding the resurrection breath/wind/"spirit", at least in my mind, doesn't match up. Especially since the wording in Ezekiel is not unique regarding the breath(spirit) of life, since it's the same use in Genesis regarding all breath(spirit) life AFTER Adam sinned, and Ezekiel's detail of where that spirit comes, the four spirits(winds), again, not something new. It definitely is one of the many promises of the Father.. Sure. But there are many.
What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in salvation? What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in sanctification? The questions are a lot closer than systematic theology would have it!
Let's get rid of the red herring here.. Unless you are referring to someone's specific "Systematic Theology", by itself, it holds no specific dogma. It is a method, a tool, used by many with varied results. But by itself, does not define how any certain words or questions are defined. That would be like saying a hammer decides how that piece of wood will be described in the end. It has some say in that it can't do some intricate work, but to a skilled person, it can do wonders.
But the questions themselves, definitely deserve an answer. And as you pointed out, there is quite a spectrum of "beliefs" on the subject.
Whether it be sanctification, righteousness, redemption, and/or salvation. They all are a married couple throughout the scriptures. Whether it be temporal or the permanent which the temporal points to, it is well attested to that both God and us have a say, a place, and a responsibility in it all.
The problems I never saw while in TWI, were for that fact alone. I was searching to understand the forest while only staring straight at a dead tree trunk. Dispensation does a magnificent job of just that. Getting people to throw most their scriptures away, claiming this is what's relevant. This tree. Right here. That's all you need! And it's easy to read into fewer scriptures, your own understanding, easier to make it seem to "fit", but it still never did until you start ignoring or changing what it says. No no,.. Peter never said this gift of holy spirit was promised and spoke of by Joel.. He really said it was "similar" to it.. lol..
Stepping back a minute, sanctification is generally defined as "the process of being made or becoming holy". Part of that definition includes being made whole and being set aside for a purpose. Wrapped into this idea is the concept that since God is so pure, humans to interact with Him need to purify themselves through some process, as humans by nature are unholy.
Sanctification has to contain an element that is established by the new birth. With sins being wiped away through the acceptance of Jesus as Savior, humans are made whole and are set apart to be God's children. They are sanctified at the new birth.
Yet just as all of the "old man / new man" imagery shows in Romans, because one is "made whole" or "purified and made holy" at one point of time does not mean this will supersede all life choices made by freedom of will following. Salvation however is used as a license to sin by many, and the sanctification aspect of that involved multiplies sin upon sin. People begin to act like they are a "protected class" because of some special sanctification they perceive for themselves that does not apply for others. I saw this time and time again in TWI with leadership positions and egos. Because this "reverend" was set aside for a different and higher purpose, normal Christian rules didn't apply to them (like the rules highlighted in the "adultery" paper).
I've heard plenty of boring step-by-step twi teachings on "living sanctified", yet somehow the meaning they slanted towards of spending hours in prayer meetings for the BOD and prayer lists still rang hollow.
I guess the way I approach the topic now besides being thankful for being made whole and set aside from wrath by my Savior, is I look at it being pure hearted. More simple, more real, more pure. With God, my family and friends. One example I think I read about that makes me think about this word is the new Pope Francis. That's a guy to me that reminds me of sanctified. He's a simple man, denouncing outward show. I mean if I am rescued and made whole I should be a lot more pure hearted and less impacted by the garbage around me.
You know parables, many times I read them over and over, and depending on life's experiences and maybe God's inspiration, different things stand out to me at different times. This time with the rich young ruler what stood out to me is the overall impression I got. This was a good boy, a young boy who HAD obeyed, done things right. Jesus was giving him some life advice - he was going to have some choices ahead of him in life as he really hadn't experienced much of life or life's trials and tribulations yet. Because the kids dad was a rich ruler Jesus was pointing out his upcoming fork in the road, his defining choice in life that was still ahead - to continue in the footsteps of wealth living easily at the expense of his poor neighbors, like would have naturally progressed with his life with a rich ruler dad, or to concern his life with what really mattered, helping others. Be a rich jerk, or be a whole servant. He might have had to state the choice that dramatically to the young kid BECAUSE his family were a whole bunch of really rich jerks.
Anyway a few thoughts on the topic. Merry Xmas everyone in doctrinal :)
The problems I never saw while in TWI, were for that fact alone. I was searching to understand the forest while only staring straight at a dead tree trunk. Dispensation does a magnificent job of just that. Getting people to throw most their scriptures away, claiming this is what's relevant. This tree. Right here. That's all you need! And it's easy to read into fewer scriptures, your own understanding, easier to make it seem to "fit", but it still never did until you start ignoring or changing what it says. No no,.. Peter never said this gift of holy spirit was promised and spoke of by Joel.. He really said it was "similar" to it.. lol..
I'm thinking about the questions you put forward. It may be a day or two before I can articulate some answers. What you say about staring at a dead tree trunk for so long is a very apt description of my experience also. I am STILL trying to broaden my understanding, and I guess that's why I'm so tickled to have fallen in with a faculty that is itself trying to free its thinking from "systematic" straight jackets, even though theirs were not exactly the same as TWI's.
I find you an enjoyable dialogue partner, TrustAndObey!
I've spent most of my life in abysmal ignorance of the Old Testament. As a consequence, I have spent most of my life in unwitting abysmal ignorance of the New Testament as well.
The blinders of dispensationalism, that nothing written before the day of Pentecost can be applied to the Church, is egotistical foolishness of the worst sort.
When I broke with CES in the late '90s, I started looking to find "the promise" referred to in Acts 2:30, and I am still learning more... every day!
There are two routes to restoration presented in the Old Testament. One route is that of the Deuteronomist, that God will provide restoration after Israel cleans up its act.
The history of the Deuteronomist is a history of DOOM: doom for all of Israel, doom for all of mankind, and even doom for the Messiah.
The other route to restoration is that of the prophets, of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel among others. In the prophetic route, God will provide restoration for Israel and all of mankind for His own name's sake, through the obedient works of Jesus Christ!
Since the time of the Reformation, Protestant theologians have tended to focus on the Deuteronomic parts of the Old Testament and characterize the whole thing as "salvation by works" as opposed to Protestant salvation by "faith alone". But that's a caricature.
The dispensationalists took an ax to the Bible, and teach that the Church is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel, so NOTHING in the Old Testament or the gospels applies to us today. Everything starts from scratch on the Day of Pentecost. But if that's the case, what is the promise Peter refers to when he said "the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call"?
The promise is not just that somebody may or may not speak in tongues...
The promise of the Old Testament can be epitomized in a few quotes:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"31 Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
"32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
"33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
"34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Ezekiel 36:22-28
"22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD: I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
"23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
"24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
"25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
"26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
"27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
"28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."
Ezekiel 37:11-14
"11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
"12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
"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 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."
To be brief, this is "the promise [that] is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call."
There are many implications that I will write more about as time permits!
First implication: Acts 2:33, "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."
Jesus Christ, whom Paul calls "the firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18, is the first, and so far, the only one who has received the Spirit promised in Ezekiel 37:14.
The Spirit we received when we confessed with our mouths the Lord Jesus, and believed with our hearts that God has raised him from the dead, is the "earnest of our inheritance", the part given to guarantee receipt of the whole, that we also will receive the resurrection Spirit when Jesus Christ returns.
The promise is of a part in the inheritance of the New Covenant. The death of Jesus on the cross mediated the New Covenant, making something available to us today that was only symbolic in the Old Testament. That's what Hebrews 9 is all about. The boys at CES taught that we aren't under the New Covenant today, because that was something promised to Israel, not the Church. They made the New Covenant Paul wrote about something different from the New Covenant in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hebrews. That sounds goofy, but it was the logical extension of what Wierwille taught.
The truth is, the mystery first revealed to Paul was that Gentiles could become members of the New Covenant community on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ, without having to first convert to Judaism.
I've spent most of my life in abysmal ignorance of the Old Testament. As a consequence, I have spent most of my life in unwitting abysmal ignorance of the New Testament as well.
The blinders of dispensationalism, that nothing written before the day of Pentecost can be applied to the Church, is egotistical foolishness of the worst sort.
...
There are two routes to restoration presented in the Old Testament. One route is that of the Deuteronomist, that God will provide restoration after Israel cleans up its act.
There is quite a bit of sun shine when one steps out of the woods and views the entire panorama of scripture, to find there is more to it than just the laws of Moses vs some age of Grace.
Without a doubt, there are 2 covenants with a transition from the old to the new. But unlike the "dispensational" view where they sat at stark contrast with one another, it is more a progression up a mountain. A growth to a higher level. Not a black and white, one or the other concept. Which is why we can learn much during the time of the old covenant. Because the new hasn't changed much of it's foundation.
The problem that I see, is many still take the view like you mentioned that there were 2 routes to restoration. Man without trust in God always turns to himself, thinking there is another way and have never ceased to teach that. Yet Romans sets so clearly what the law and commandments were for. They were not for a route to full restoration, never so. They were a guide, a teacher, until the time came. And there is still much they can teach today. Man was not made for the law, but the law made to help man. Was it unlawful for David to eat the shewbread? Sure by the letter of the law, it was. And that's still the view many hold today when it comes to the law. And try and stick those of the old covenant as if they had to keep the letter of the law. But in the spirit is life, not the letter. And it has never been the other way around. Just because the Pharisees and other's taught so, and continue to teach by the letter, they do a disservice and mislead many who would otherwise know God. But to ignore the spirit of the law is another great fallacy.
Even in the "epistles" it is written that "all" scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And to put that in context, there was no New Testament when that was penned. Yet the distorted dispensational view is those same scriptures are really not that important, cause all "important" scripture is recorded after Christ. It's a very limiting view.
Ephesians 3:4ff "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
That was the secret. The one body in Christ. The gentiles becoming fellow heirs. But being "IN" Christ is the key.. In the body. Speaking of righteousness, sanctification, justification, and salvation.. They come to those in the body [in Christ]. Christ was perfect. Us being in Him makes us perfect. Not because YOU are made perfect of your own, but because your identity resides with him who IS perfect. That's where our sanctification comes from. It's again, not by our works, and not because there are no works involved as the book of James points out (or the Old testament) that faith without works is not faith. But because there are no works YOU can do to obtain such. Impossible to obtain it by works, Romans points out. But that statement "not by works" has been taken out of context as to say that there are no works involved.
Galatians 5:14ff For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ... But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh... But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Stepping back a minute, sanctification is generally defined as "the process of being made or becoming holy". Part of that definition includes being made whole and being set aside for a purpose. Wrapped into this idea is the concept that since God is so pure, humans to interact with Him need to purify themselves through some process, as humans by nature are unholy.
While I'd agree with you chockfull, that those are generally accepted views of Sanctification, I think they cloud the truth more than they reveal. The idea that God is so pure that humans need to purify themselves to interact is purely man's view. Purification recorded in the old testament signified what was to come in the promised future, the promised sanctification, it was never as a do this and now you're considered pure enough to interact with Him. In fact, that is the opposite view of what God wanted and wanted to convey. He wanted to convey a closeness, and a joining. Whereas the emphasis of separation was to this world, never to Him.
The first letter of the word is a picture of the sun at the horizon. The joining of the two. The second letter is a picture of the door way. This is the way. The last letter is a picture of grinding teeth. Separate yourself from the grinding of this world, through this door, and join me. That was the original understanding.
A husband "sets apart" his wife to be with him, or better said, he joins himself to her, with that union becoming one with her! Does not Christ "set us apart" for himself, and has he not bonded us together as it is written, "It is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me."
2 Cor 11:2 "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him."
God's vision from the beginning was set forth in Genesis. The perfect creation. The perfect setting. And the perfect union. Marriage was a sign from the beginning of what God wanted. The 2 becoming one. That is what Sanctification is. We have ran away from God, and God is calling us back. Join yourself to me. Be APART, use the words set apart if you like, but the idea is to BE APART! Not separate from Him. But of course, you can't be attached to 2 things. Join me. Be a part of me. Be one with me. And let go, separate yourself from the world.
Sanctification has to contain an element that is established by the new birth. With sins being wiped away through the acceptance of Jesus as Savior, humans are made whole and are set apart to be God's children. They are sanctified at the new birth.
No doubt we are sanctified by Christ. He was one with God. And now is our choice. Do we join them. Do we become one. And if so, we must detach from the things of this world. There is no other way. We cannot serve 2 masters. We cannot be one with both God and this world. We are not capable of perfecting ourselves, cleansing ourselves, and freeing ourselves from our old master, sin. That is how it is not by your works, but Christ who accomplished that. But it requires our trust, believing, faith, and yes, works, and responsibility to shed the things of this world that we may join Him.
I am thankful for everybody's input on this thread...
I'm not making any snappy answers, because I'm thinking about what's been said.
In some ways, I think we're all on the same page, here, but it's important for me to learn the different perspectives God has shown people on this topic.
In TWI, there was only one way to express any truth... the way Wierwille taught in the classes. In reality, there are as many different expressions of true experience as there are people. I no longer think that words like "salvation" and "sanctification" can be as narrowly defined and as tightly restricted as theology has been apt to do.
While I'd agree with you chockfull, that those are generally accepted views of Sanctification, I think they cloud the truth more than they reveal. The idea that God is so pure that humans need to purify themselves to interact is purely man's view. Purification recorded in the old testament signified what was to come in the promised future, the promised sanctification, it was never as a do this and now you're considered pure enough to interact with Him. In fact, that is the opposite view of what God wanted and wanted to convey. He wanted to convey a closeness, and a joining. Whereas the emphasis of separation was to this world, never to Him.
I think I used the word "process" which is misleading. The "process" of sanctifying one's self is the new birth. The general idea I was expressing is pretty much the same one you are - that sanctification involves a separation from the world and its corruption, and a setting aside by God for a purpose. I don't know that I agree with you that a closeness or joining together with God is implied in the definition of the word sanctification - I haven't heard that before, don't see it in any definitions of works I have available. There are plenty of other words that convey that better. Of course, if one is set aside from corruption for the purpose of serving God, I suppose that a closeness is implied.
Anyway I guess doctrinal discussions are a blend of trying to be accurate with also trying to not miss the forest for the trees.
The first letter of the word is a picture of the sun at the horizon. The joining of the two. The second letter is a picture of the door way. This is the way. The last letter is a picture of grinding teeth. Separate yourself from the grinding of this world, through this door, and join me. That was the original understanding.
Where are you getting this from? Hebrew anagrams? A commentary write up? It sounds cool. However, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of claims of "the original understanding". I'd like to look into this further myself.
A husband "sets apart" his wife to be with him, or better said, he joins himself to her, with that union becoming one with her! Does not Christ "set us apart" for himself, and has he not bonded us together as it is written, "It is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me."
I know the verses where a believing husband "sanctifies" an unbelieving wife, which seems like a clear concept to me. I'm not recalling currently other sections of scripture about two Christians in a marriage sanctifying one another in that fashion - should be unnecessary. Yes Christ sets us apart for himself, or the Father does through Christ, depending on the Trinitarian consideration you support.
But yes, we are set aside into one Body, bonded together, as you have stated - it is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me.
God's vision from the beginning was set forth in Genesis. The perfect creation. The perfect setting. And the perfect union. Marriage was a sign from the beginning of what God wanted. The 2 becoming one. That is what Sanctification is. We have ran away from God, and God is calling us back. Join yourself to me. Be APART, use the words set apart if you like, but the idea is to BE APART! Not separate from Him. But of course, you can't be attached to 2 things. Join me. Be a part of me. Be one with me. And let go, separate yourself from the world.
I get what you are saying in this free-form commentary. Separate from the world - joined to Christ. To me sanctification is twofold - to be set aside from wrath that is deserved, and to be set aside for a higher calling as a Christian. To me this word emphasizes what you are set aside from and for, as opposed to what you are joined to. Other words in the Bible convey better what you are joined to and the scope of that relationship.
So to me the whole "joined" concept is implied rather than defined in sanctification. Actually, the definition kind of emphasizes the opposite - "separated from", not "joined". But hey, maybe the Hebrew anagram clears all that up.
No doubt we are sanctified by Christ. He was one with God. And now is our choice. Do we join them. Do we become one. And if so, we must detach from the things of this world. There is no other way. We cannot serve 2 masters. We cannot be one with both God and this world. We are not capable of perfecting ourselves, cleansing ourselves, and freeing ourselves from our old master, sin. That is how it is not by your works, but Christ who accomplished that. But it requires our trust, believing, faith, and yes, works, and responsibility to shed the things of this world that we may join Him.
Sure I get this too - to me the message is for life ongoing is that if you are spared from wrath and the corruption of the world and set aside for a purpose, it makes no sense to "re-join" yourself to all the things you have been set aside from.
Anyways good to think through all the concepts here and to discuss them. Thanks.
In some ways, I think we're all on the same page, here, but it's important for me to learn the different perspectives God has shown people on this topic.
I think we are on the same page too. There are different perspectives, but we are all looking at a different angle of the same thing.
In TWI, there was only one way to express any truth... the way Wierwille taught in the classes. In reality, there are as many different expressions of true experience as there are people. I no longer think that words like "salvation" and "sanctification" can be as narrowly defined and as tightly restricted as theology has been apt to do.
yeah, VP's "literal definition according to usage" is basically saying "my opinion which is right because of the snow on the gas pumps". I'm trying more recently to go for some kind of boundaries around word definitions for accuracy (words are used because of their precision) along with basically not being a scribe - so focused on grammar that I miss the intent.
Thinking about what we all have said!
Love,
Steve
Me too. It's nice to do this and consider other Christian's perspectives without all the BS baggage we had attached in TWI.
Anyway I guess doctrinal discussions are a blend of trying to be accurate with also trying to not miss the forest for the trees.
Our accuracy will only be as good as the measure we use. It's imperfect no matter who, what, or how one goes about it. I see it as an opportunity to share one's view and learn from another's, to sharpen one another.
Yes, I think we all see aspects of the same. Sanctification to me is the purpose of the book. And while that's clearly subjective as most theological thoughts are, it is how I see scripture.
Where are you getting this from? Hebrew anagrams? A commentary write up? It sounds cool. However, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of claims of "the original understanding". I'd like to look into this further myself.
No anagram here. lol.. Not sure how you figured that! And I'll admit, it could very well be incorrect in it being the "original understanding".
But where it came from, has to do with the history and understanding of language. Specifically the semitic languages that the first part of the Old Testament were written in. While it would take a good amount of time and space to even give you a decent overview, I'll point you to this You Tube series to explain the research behind the Ancient Hebrew language. Not to be confused with the current Hebrew language. Around part 4 is where it starts to explain things....
But for a real quick primer.. Written languages started with people drawing symbols. Those symbols represented "real" things. A picture of a nut on a jar so they knew what the jar contained. Later you have pictographic languages. Which is where Ancient Hebrew/Semitic languages were, unlike today. It was similar to the Phonetician/Samaritan language. and basically was a language that was both spoken and written, but the written portion was pictures. What we have today in the Hebrew language is really a derivative of a derivative language, and is more Aramaic as the original Hebrew was lost when they went into captivity. While our language and the original picture language are still very similar in writing form, everything else changed. Words no longer had as much of a relation to the "writing" as before. Instead it's just letters on a page that make up "a" word. Much of the Old Testament however was "originally" written in the pictographic language, and those pictures gave the meaning.
It's REAL hard to explain without drawing the details. But if you take a piece of paper and write the word "AL" on it.. Now turn it upside down. You actually have a close representation of what their word for "AL" looked like 1000's years ago. The A, Aleph, upside down, is a picture of an ox head. Aleph meant Ox. It stood for strength as well as other things. The L, Lamed, was a bit curved, and upside down depicted a shepherd's staff. It carried the understanding of leading, or power. AL, or rather in English we translate it EL, was the basic word for 'god". It actually is spelt and looks the same, only upside down. And it meant, one who is strong with power or authority, one who leads with strength. That can be a "GOD" or a man or an angel or a king or a judge.. You get the picture, literally, I hope? Our letters and the original pictures became squarer, simpler, more refined, but share a ton in common with the original. But our word's picture no longer form the understanding. That was lost just as it has in current Hebrew today.
There's still tons more how all this fits, and how words were understood. It's been awhile since I studied the ANCIENT Hebrew language, needless to say, pictures defined and described the people and culture with greater detail than words do today. Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I could be very mistaken. But I can definitely say after studying it that there is much in the writings that is lost because of our culture, our words, and our understanding that are so foreign to those who penned the Old Testament.
But where it came from, has to do with the history and understanding of language. Specifically the semitic languages that the first part of the Old Testament were written in. While it would take a good amount of time and space to even give you a decent overview, I'll point you to this You Tube series to explain the research behind the Ancient Hebrew language. Not to be confused with the current Hebrew language. Around part 4 is where it starts to explain things....
OK cool. I actually did a little bit of work in the Hebrew language - at one point I could sound out letters in text (but didn't have enough of a vocabulary to read).
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen that resource before. I haven't watched all of it yet - just the intro and I'll get to part 4 in a bit.
But for a real quick primer.. Written languages started with people drawing symbols. Those symbols represented "real" things. A picture of a nut on a jar so they knew what the jar contained. Later you have pictographic languages. Which is where Ancient Hebrew/Semitic languages were, unlike today. It was similar to the Phonetician/Samaritan language. and basically was a language that was both spoken and written, but the written portion was pictures. What we have today in the Hebrew language is really a derivative of a derivative language, and is more Aramaic as the original Hebrew was lost when they went into captivity. While our language and the original picture language are still very similar in writing form, everything else changed. Words no longer had as much of a relation to the "writing" as before. Instead it's just letters on a page that make up "a" word. Much of the Old Testament however was "originally" written in the pictographic language, and those pictures gave the meaning.
So where you are coming from is the pictographic meaning of individual letters in a word. (BTW that's pretty similar to an anagram, no?) I remember learning those somewhere. So like for the word "jelly" you would give me a "j", give me an "e", give me a "ll", "y", and the meaning of each letter carries significance. I know in English that is absolutely not the case, but the Hebrew language with jots and tittles had some protection around it, so there is a certain element to that.
I guess what it boils down to is if you are studying original language in Hebrew, there may be a little added essentials in the meaning of the individual letters in the Hebrew word for sanctified, or "qadash" - with 3 primary letters in the word (6942 for references with Strong's numeric system). Can you detail out for me a little more your understanding of those 3 Hebrew letters in "qadash"?? I think that is what you were getting at earlier, no?
It's REAL hard to explain without drawing the details. But if you take a piece of paper and write the word "AL" on it.. Now turn it upside down. You actually have a close representation of what their word for "AL" looked like 1000's years ago. The A, Aleph, upside down, is a picture of an ox head. Aleph meant Ox. It stood for strength as well as other things. The L, Lamed, was a bit curved, and upside down depicted a shepherd's staff. It carried the understanding of leading, or power. AL, or rather in English we translate it EL, was the basic word for 'god". It actually is spelt and looks the same, only upside down. And it meant, one who is strong with power or authority, one who leads with strength. That can be a "GOD" or a man or an angel or a king or a judge.. You get the picture, literally, I hope? Our letters and the original pictures became squarer, simpler, more refined, but share a ton in common with the original. But our word's picture no longer form the understanding. That was lost just as it has in current Hebrew today.
good explanation. i'm a little bit familiar, but you had no way to know that. it helps jog the memory.
There's still tons more how all this fits, and how words were understood. It's been awhile since I studied the ANCIENT Hebrew language, needless to say, pictures defined and described the people and culture with greater detail than words do today. Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I could be very mistaken. But I can definitely say after studying it that there is much in the writings that is lost because of our culture, our words, and our understanding that are so foreign to those who penned the Old Testament.
Yes I agree. So it seems after some discussion we are all on somewhat the same path - sanctification having the primary meaning that emphasizes separation from something (sin and the old nature), and some of the Hebrew letter meanings from the symbols present a secondary emphasis of drawing closer to something (God).
Makes perfect sense to me and seems accurate. Any detail to add from the etymology of the symbols for Hebrew letters and meanings there?
True that, TrustAndObey! There is an awful lot of cultural meaning from the Greek that we've lost, too!
Here are some things that seem to be dawning on me...
I've been studying Paul & Judaism Revisited by Preston M. Sprinkle (2013, IVP Academic). In it, Sprinkle tries to get to the basic idea of salvation shared by all of the writers in the first century, Second Temple Jews in general, the writers of the Essene community (the Dead Sea scrolls) and Paul. He arrived at the simple definition "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community". Then he can work on how different people wrote variations on that definition.
He points out that there were two major views of salvation put forward in the Old Testament, depending on which part of the OT you're reading, distinguished by the source of agency. One view, the deuteronomic, holds that God brings restoration to his people when they turn away from their sin and back to him. The prophetic view holds that God will bring restoration, not for the sakes of his people's works, but for the sake of his own name. The deuteronomic view places reliance on human agency. God moves because the people decide to act. The prophetic view places reliance on divine agency. God moves because HE decides to act, regardless of his peoples' actions.
These views may seem to contradict each other, if we look at them as analytic, categorical propositions. But that's not what they are. They are two poetic loci that set up a cognitive tension. Not cognitive dissonance, but a cognitive tension between the role of divine agency and the role of human agency.
That made me think of the process of raising a child to become a responsible adult.
When a person is born, that infant has no ability whatsoever to take responsibility for anything. The child's upbringing is the result of the adult's agency.
But a the process goes on, the adult trains the child to take responsibility by allowing the child to exercise what agency the child is ready to exercise.
The goal is to eventually present the child to the world as a fully functional adult, capable of exercising her or his own agency.
I'm not thinking sanctification is something distinct from salvation. I'm thinking sanctification is the part of salvation wherein God leads us from our miserable ungodly lifestyles to responsible holy living. I'm thinking sanctification begins with divine agency, but transitions to human agency as the person grows in Christ...
What do you guys think? Am I on to something, or just barking up a tree?
Interesting thoughts. The prophetic and deuteronomic views and your description of cognitive tension remind me of the conversation regarding predestination, foreknowledge, and free will. You are describing a balance in life and Christianity IMO, and yes I think there are many of those in life and Christianity. Does God move first? Or does He wait until an individual moves first? If He is omnipresent not constrained by time then does it matter? He sees those drawing to Himself and moves, at the perfect time so as not to interfere with freedom of will.
I don't see sanctification as separate from salvation. In an OT sense it was Israel set apart from the other nations. In NT it is those accepting Christ. I see it as a facet of salvation, one that if we dwell on helps foster thankfulness, closeness to God in prayer, and a purity from the corruption in the world.
Recommended Posts
Steve Lortz
I've found about 2 dozen references to "being saved" in Luke by looking at the words sozo and soteria. They cover a wide degree of types of salvation.
At one end, we have the magnitude of salvation Zacharias prophesied in Luke 1:68-72, "68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant"
This fits well with the definition of salvation Sprinkler puts forward in Paul & Judaism Revisited, "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community."
At the other end, we have individual people being healed of various afflictions. In several places, Jesus tells people that their faith has saved them. Theses records may refer back to aspects of salvation prophesied in Isaiah.
In other places, Jesus tells people that those who seek to save their own lives will lose them. A number of people heckle Jesus while he's on the cross, saying "You saved other people, now save yourself."
The use of sozo in Luke 18:26 becomes interesting when we look at the whole passage from verse 18 through 30,
"18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
"19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
"20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
"21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
"22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him,Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
"23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
"24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
"25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
"26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
"27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
"28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.
"29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,
"30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting."
The first thing to notice is the off-hand way in which Luke uses the phrases "to inherit eternal life" (verse 18), "to be saved" (verse 26) and "to enter into the kingdom of God" (verses 24 & 25) as synonyms. For Luke, they virtually mean the same thing.
When Luke wrote "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" in Acts 2:21, he could just as readily have written "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall enter into the kingdom of God" or "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall inherit eternal life".
And there are another couple of interesting features in Luke 18 that don't show up in the King James English. The phrases "eternal life" in verse 18 and "life everlasting" are both zoen aionion in the Greek, literally "life of the age".
In verse 30, the word "world" is aion or "age" in the Greek. The tail end of verse 30 can be translated "and in the age to come, life of the age." This verse gives the timing for receiving some parts of the salvation we have in Christ... in the age to come.
In Luke 20:34-36, Luke expands on the idea of "life of the age in the age to come". Regarding the Sadducees' inquiry about the woman who was married to seven brothers,
"34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world [aion = "age"] marry, and are given in marriage:
"35 But they which are accounted worthy to obtain that world [aion = "age", "the age to come"], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage:
"36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
The way that a human being, including Jesus Christ, becomes a child of the resurrection is by receiving the promise of the Father set out in Ezekiel 37:13&14, "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 in you, and you 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."
The idea that nothing written before the day of Pentecost applies to the church strips the Church of all the underpinnings of its very existence!
Hope this explains a few things!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The way this ties back in to sanctification comes in asking what the rich young ruler walked away from.
If we view Jesus' exhortation for the young ruler to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow him as "sanctification" then the young ruler's disobedience (repudiation of Jesus' Lordship) seems remarkably similar to the behavior we've seen from people who refuse to sanctify themselves (and I have VP in mind here).
What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in salvation? What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in sanctification? The questions are a lot closer than systematic theology would have it!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
So, are the Calvinists right that there is absolutely no human agency involved in salvation or sanctification?
Are the Wesleyan Holiness folk right in thinking that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace (after salvation/regeneration) that renders a person free from sin in this life, with no responsibility required on the part of the human being?
Are Pentecostals right in thinking receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a third work of grace to empower for mission?
Was Wierwille right to believe he was sanctified as he drugged and raped his followers?
Or is there something more to it?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Steve, If you don't mind, can you explain how you understand Ezekiel 37. Since every time you mention it, it seems like you are confusing the resurrection "spirit" with the promised holy spirit. I totally agree the gift of holy spirit was prophesied by Joel as Luke points out in Acts. And it may be the same spirit in v14 of Ezek 37. But the portion regarding the resurrection breath/wind/"spirit", at least in my mind, doesn't match up. Especially since the wording in Ezekiel is not unique regarding the breath(spirit) of life, since it's the same use in Genesis regarding all breath(spirit) life AFTER Adam sinned, and Ezekiel's detail of where that spirit comes, the four spirits(winds), again, not something new. It definitely is one of the many promises of the Father.. Sure. But there are many.
Let's get rid of the red herring here.. Unless you are referring to someone's specific "Systematic Theology", by itself, it holds no specific dogma. It is a method, a tool, used by many with varied results. But by itself, does not define how any certain words or questions are defined. That would be like saying a hammer decides how that piece of wood will be described in the end. It has some say in that it can't do some intricate work, but to a skilled person, it can do wonders.
But the questions themselves, definitely deserve an answer. And as you pointed out, there is quite a spectrum of "beliefs" on the subject.
Whether it be sanctification, righteousness, redemption, and/or salvation. They all are a married couple throughout the scriptures. Whether it be temporal or the permanent which the temporal points to, it is well attested to that both God and us have a say, a place, and a responsibility in it all.
The problems I never saw while in TWI, were for that fact alone. I was searching to understand the forest while only staring straight at a dead tree trunk. Dispensation does a magnificent job of just that. Getting people to throw most their scriptures away, claiming this is what's relevant. This tree. Right here. That's all you need! And it's easy to read into fewer scriptures, your own understanding, easier to make it seem to "fit", but it still never did until you start ignoring or changing what it says. No no,.. Peter never said this gift of holy spirit was promised and spoke of by Joel.. He really said it was "similar" to it.. lol..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Stepping back a minute, sanctification is generally defined as "the process of being made or becoming holy". Part of that definition includes being made whole and being set aside for a purpose. Wrapped into this idea is the concept that since God is so pure, humans to interact with Him need to purify themselves through some process, as humans by nature are unholy.
Sanctification has to contain an element that is established by the new birth. With sins being wiped away through the acceptance of Jesus as Savior, humans are made whole and are set apart to be God's children. They are sanctified at the new birth.
Yet just as all of the "old man / new man" imagery shows in Romans, because one is "made whole" or "purified and made holy" at one point of time does not mean this will supersede all life choices made by freedom of will following. Salvation however is used as a license to sin by many, and the sanctification aspect of that involved multiplies sin upon sin. People begin to act like they are a "protected class" because of some special sanctification they perceive for themselves that does not apply for others. I saw this time and time again in TWI with leadership positions and egos. Because this "reverend" was set aside for a different and higher purpose, normal Christian rules didn't apply to them (like the rules highlighted in the "adultery" paper).
I've heard plenty of boring step-by-step twi teachings on "living sanctified", yet somehow the meaning they slanted towards of spending hours in prayer meetings for the BOD and prayer lists still rang hollow.
I guess the way I approach the topic now besides being thankful for being made whole and set aside from wrath by my Savior, is I look at it being pure hearted. More simple, more real, more pure. With God, my family and friends. One example I think I read about that makes me think about this word is the new Pope Francis. That's a guy to me that reminds me of sanctified. He's a simple man, denouncing outward show. I mean if I am rescued and made whole I should be a lot more pure hearted and less impacted by the garbage around me.
You know parables, many times I read them over and over, and depending on life's experiences and maybe God's inspiration, different things stand out to me at different times. This time with the rich young ruler what stood out to me is the overall impression I got. This was a good boy, a young boy who HAD obeyed, done things right. Jesus was giving him some life advice - he was going to have some choices ahead of him in life as he really hadn't experienced much of life or life's trials and tribulations yet. Because the kids dad was a rich ruler Jesus was pointing out his upcoming fork in the road, his defining choice in life that was still ahead - to continue in the footsteps of wealth living easily at the expense of his poor neighbors, like would have naturally progressed with his life with a rich ruler dad, or to concern his life with what really mattered, helping others. Be a rich jerk, or be a whole servant. He might have had to state the choice that dramatically to the young kid BECAUSE his family were a whole bunch of really rich jerks.
Anyway a few thoughts on the topic. Merry Xmas everyone in doctrinal :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm thinking about the questions you put forward. It may be a day or two before I can articulate some answers. What you say about staring at a dead tree trunk for so long is a very apt description of my experience also. I am STILL trying to broaden my understanding, and I guess that's why I'm so tickled to have fallen in with a faculty that is itself trying to free its thinking from "systematic" straight jackets, even though theirs were not exactly the same as TWI's.
I find you an enjoyable dialogue partner, TrustAndObey!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've spent most of my life in abysmal ignorance of the Old Testament. As a consequence, I have spent most of my life in unwitting abysmal ignorance of the New Testament as well.
The blinders of dispensationalism, that nothing written before the day of Pentecost can be applied to the Church, is egotistical foolishness of the worst sort.
When I broke with CES in the late '90s, I started looking to find "the promise" referred to in Acts 2:30, and I am still learning more... every day!
There are two routes to restoration presented in the Old Testament. One route is that of the Deuteronomist, that God will provide restoration after Israel cleans up its act.
The history of the Deuteronomist is a history of DOOM: doom for all of Israel, doom for all of mankind, and even doom for the Messiah.
The other route to restoration is that of the prophets, of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel among others. In the prophetic route, God will provide restoration for Israel and all of mankind for His own name's sake, through the obedient works of Jesus Christ!
Since the time of the Reformation, Protestant theologians have tended to focus on the Deuteronomic parts of the Old Testament and characterize the whole thing as "salvation by works" as opposed to Protestant salvation by "faith alone". But that's a caricature.
The dispensationalists took an ax to the Bible, and teach that the Church is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel, so NOTHING in the Old Testament or the gospels applies to us today. Everything starts from scratch on the Day of Pentecost. But if that's the case, what is the promise Peter refers to when he said "the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call"?
The promise is not just that somebody may or may not speak in tongues...
The promise of the Old Testament can be epitomized in a few quotes:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"31 Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
"32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
"33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
"34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Ezekiel 36:22-28
"22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD: I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
"23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
"24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
"25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
"26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
"27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
"28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."
Ezekiel 37:11-14
"11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
"12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
"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 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."
To be brief, this is "the promise [that] is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call."
There are many implications that I will write more about as time permits!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
First implication: Acts 2:33, "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."
Jesus Christ, whom Paul calls "the firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18, is the first, and so far, the only one who has received the Spirit promised in Ezekiel 37:14.
The Spirit we received when we confessed with our mouths the Lord Jesus, and believed with our hearts that God has raised him from the dead, is the "earnest of our inheritance", the part given to guarantee receipt of the whole, that we also will receive the resurrection Spirit when Jesus Christ returns.
Merry Christmas!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And we find sanctification mixed in with the promise too! In Ezekiel 36.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The promise is of a part in the inheritance of the New Covenant. The death of Jesus on the cross mediated the New Covenant, making something available to us today that was only symbolic in the Old Testament. That's what Hebrews 9 is all about. The boys at CES taught that we aren't under the New Covenant today, because that was something promised to Israel, not the Church. They made the New Covenant Paul wrote about something different from the New Covenant in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hebrews. That sounds goofy, but it was the logical extension of what Wierwille taught.
The truth is, the mystery first revealed to Paul was that Gentiles could become members of the New Covenant community on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ, without having to first convert to Judaism.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
There is quite a bit of sun shine when one steps out of the woods and views the entire panorama of scripture, to find there is more to it than just the laws of Moses vs some age of Grace.
Without a doubt, there are 2 covenants with a transition from the old to the new. But unlike the "dispensational" view where they sat at stark contrast with one another, it is more a progression up a mountain. A growth to a higher level. Not a black and white, one or the other concept. Which is why we can learn much during the time of the old covenant. Because the new hasn't changed much of it's foundation.
The problem that I see, is many still take the view like you mentioned that there were 2 routes to restoration. Man without trust in God always turns to himself, thinking there is another way and have never ceased to teach that. Yet Romans sets so clearly what the law and commandments were for. They were not for a route to full restoration, never so. They were a guide, a teacher, until the time came. And there is still much they can teach today. Man was not made for the law, but the law made to help man. Was it unlawful for David to eat the shewbread? Sure by the letter of the law, it was. And that's still the view many hold today when it comes to the law. And try and stick those of the old covenant as if they had to keep the letter of the law. But in the spirit is life, not the letter. And it has never been the other way around. Just because the Pharisees and other's taught so, and continue to teach by the letter, they do a disservice and mislead many who would otherwise know God. But to ignore the spirit of the law is another great fallacy.
Even in the "epistles" it is written that "all" scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And to put that in context, there was no New Testament when that was penned. Yet the distorted dispensational view is those same scriptures are really not that important, cause all "important" scripture is recorded after Christ. It's a very limiting view.
That was the secret. The one body in Christ. The gentiles becoming fellow heirs. But being "IN" Christ is the key.. In the body. Speaking of righteousness, sanctification, justification, and salvation.. They come to those in the body [in Christ]. Christ was perfect. Us being in Him makes us perfect. Not because YOU are made perfect of your own, but because your identity resides with him who IS perfect. That's where our sanctification comes from. It's again, not by our works, and not because there are no works involved as the book of James points out (or the Old testament) that faith without works is not faith. But because there are no works YOU can do to obtain such. Impossible to obtain it by works, Romans points out. But that statement "not by works" has been taken out of context as to say that there are no works involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
While I'd agree with you chockfull, that those are generally accepted views of Sanctification, I think they cloud the truth more than they reveal. The idea that God is so pure that humans need to purify themselves to interact is purely man's view. Purification recorded in the old testament signified what was to come in the promised future, the promised sanctification, it was never as a do this and now you're considered pure enough to interact with Him. In fact, that is the opposite view of what God wanted and wanted to convey. He wanted to convey a closeness, and a joining. Whereas the emphasis of separation was to this world, never to Him.
The first letter of the word is a picture of the sun at the horizon. The joining of the two. The second letter is a picture of the door way. This is the way. The last letter is a picture of grinding teeth. Separate yourself from the grinding of this world, through this door, and join me. That was the original understanding.
A husband "sets apart" his wife to be with him, or better said, he joins himself to her, with that union becoming one with her! Does not Christ "set us apart" for himself, and has he not bonded us together as it is written, "It is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me."
God's vision from the beginning was set forth in Genesis. The perfect creation. The perfect setting. And the perfect union. Marriage was a sign from the beginning of what God wanted. The 2 becoming one. That is what Sanctification is. We have ran away from God, and God is calling us back. Join yourself to me. Be APART, use the words set apart if you like, but the idea is to BE APART! Not separate from Him. But of course, you can't be attached to 2 things. Join me. Be a part of me. Be one with me. And let go, separate yourself from the world.
No doubt we are sanctified by Christ. He was one with God. And now is our choice. Do we join them. Do we become one. And if so, we must detach from the things of this world. There is no other way. We cannot serve 2 masters. We cannot be one with both God and this world. We are not capable of perfecting ourselves, cleansing ourselves, and freeing ourselves from our old master, sin. That is how it is not by your works, but Christ who accomplished that. But it requires our trust, believing, faith, and yes, works, and responsibility to shed the things of this world that we may join Him.
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I am thankful for everybody's input on this thread...
I'm not making any snappy answers, because I'm thinking about what's been said.
In some ways, I think we're all on the same page, here, but it's important for me to learn the different perspectives God has shown people on this topic.
In TWI, there was only one way to express any truth... the way Wierwille taught in the classes. In reality, there are as many different expressions of true experience as there are people. I no longer think that words like "salvation" and "sanctification" can be as narrowly defined and as tightly restricted as theology has been apt to do.
Thinking about what we all have said!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think I used the word "process" which is misleading. The "process" of sanctifying one's self is the new birth. The general idea I was expressing is pretty much the same one you are - that sanctification involves a separation from the world and its corruption, and a setting aside by God for a purpose. I don't know that I agree with you that a closeness or joining together with God is implied in the definition of the word sanctification - I haven't heard that before, don't see it in any definitions of works I have available. There are plenty of other words that convey that better. Of course, if one is set aside from corruption for the purpose of serving God, I suppose that a closeness is implied.
Anyway I guess doctrinal discussions are a blend of trying to be accurate with also trying to not miss the forest for the trees.
Where are you getting this from? Hebrew anagrams? A commentary write up? It sounds cool. However, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of claims of "the original understanding". I'd like to look into this further myself.
I know the verses where a believing husband "sanctifies" an unbelieving wife, which seems like a clear concept to me. I'm not recalling currently other sections of scripture about two Christians in a marriage sanctifying one another in that fashion - should be unnecessary. Yes Christ sets us apart for himself, or the Father does through Christ, depending on the Trinitarian consideration you support.
But yes, we are set aside into one Body, bonded together, as you have stated - it is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me.
I get what you are saying in this free-form commentary. Separate from the world - joined to Christ. To me sanctification is twofold - to be set aside from wrath that is deserved, and to be set aside for a higher calling as a Christian. To me this word emphasizes what you are set aside from and for, as opposed to what you are joined to. Other words in the Bible convey better what you are joined to and the scope of that relationship.
So to me the whole "joined" concept is implied rather than defined in sanctification. Actually, the definition kind of emphasizes the opposite - "separated from", not "joined". But hey, maybe the Hebrew anagram clears all that up.
Sure I get this too - to me the message is for life ongoing is that if you are spared from wrath and the corruption of the world and set aside for a purpose, it makes no sense to "re-join" yourself to all the things you have been set aside from.
Anyways good to think through all the concepts here and to discuss them. Thanks.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think we are on the same page too. There are different perspectives, but we are all looking at a different angle of the same thing.
yeah, VP's "literal definition according to usage" is basically saying "my opinion which is right because of the snow on the gas pumps". I'm trying more recently to go for some kind of boundaries around word definitions for accuracy (words are used because of their precision) along with basically not being a scribe - so focused on grammar that I miss the intent.
Me too. It's nice to do this and consider other Christian's perspectives without all the BS baggage we had attached in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Our accuracy will only be as good as the measure we use. It's imperfect no matter who, what, or how one goes about it. I see it as an opportunity to share one's view and learn from another's, to sharpen one another.
Yes, I think we all see aspects of the same. Sanctification to me is the purpose of the book. And while that's clearly subjective as most theological thoughts are, it is how I see scripture.
No anagram here. lol.. Not sure how you figured that! And I'll admit, it could very well be incorrect in it being the "original understanding".
But where it came from, has to do with the history and understanding of language. Specifically the semitic languages that the first part of the Old Testament were written in. While it would take a good amount of time and space to even give you a decent overview, I'll point you to this You Tube series to explain the research behind the Ancient Hebrew language. Not to be confused with the current Hebrew language. Around part 4 is where it starts to explain things....
But for a real quick primer.. Written languages started with people drawing symbols. Those symbols represented "real" things. A picture of a nut on a jar so they knew what the jar contained. Later you have pictographic languages. Which is where Ancient Hebrew/Semitic languages were, unlike today. It was similar to the Phonetician/Samaritan language. and basically was a language that was both spoken and written, but the written portion was pictures. What we have today in the Hebrew language is really a derivative of a derivative language, and is more Aramaic as the original Hebrew was lost when they went into captivity. While our language and the original picture language are still very similar in writing form, everything else changed. Words no longer had as much of a relation to the "writing" as before. Instead it's just letters on a page that make up "a" word. Much of the Old Testament however was "originally" written in the pictographic language, and those pictures gave the meaning.
It's REAL hard to explain without drawing the details. But if you take a piece of paper and write the word "AL" on it.. Now turn it upside down. You actually have a close representation of what their word for "AL" looked like 1000's years ago. The A, Aleph, upside down, is a picture of an ox head. Aleph meant Ox. It stood for strength as well as other things. The L, Lamed, was a bit curved, and upside down depicted a shepherd's staff. It carried the understanding of leading, or power. AL, or rather in English we translate it EL, was the basic word for 'god". It actually is spelt and looks the same, only upside down. And it meant, one who is strong with power or authority, one who leads with strength. That can be a "GOD" or a man or an angel or a king or a judge.. You get the picture, literally, I hope? Our letters and the original pictures became squarer, simpler, more refined, but share a ton in common with the original. But our word's picture no longer form the understanding. That was lost just as it has in current Hebrew today.
There's still tons more how all this fits, and how words were understood. It's been awhile since I studied the ANCIENT Hebrew language, needless to say, pictures defined and described the people and culture with greater detail than words do today. Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I could be very mistaken. But I can definitely say after studying it that there is much in the writings that is lost because of our culture, our words, and our understanding that are so foreign to those who penned the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
OK cool. I actually did a little bit of work in the Hebrew language - at one point I could sound out letters in text (but didn't have enough of a vocabulary to read).
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen that resource before. I haven't watched all of it yet - just the intro and I'll get to part 4 in a bit.
So where you are coming from is the pictographic meaning of individual letters in a word. (BTW that's pretty similar to an anagram, no?) I remember learning those somewhere. So like for the word "jelly" you would give me a "j", give me an "e", give me a "ll", "y", and the meaning of each letter carries significance. I know in English that is absolutely not the case, but the Hebrew language with jots and tittles had some protection around it, so there is a certain element to that.
I guess what it boils down to is if you are studying original language in Hebrew, there may be a little added essentials in the meaning of the individual letters in the Hebrew word for sanctified, or "qadash" - with 3 primary letters in the word (6942 for references with Strong's numeric system). Can you detail out for me a little more your understanding of those 3 Hebrew letters in "qadash"?? I think that is what you were getting at earlier, no?
good explanation. i'm a little bit familiar, but you had no way to know that. it helps jog the memory.
Yes I agree. So it seems after some discussion we are all on somewhat the same path - sanctification having the primary meaning that emphasizes separation from something (sin and the old nature), and some of the Hebrew letter meanings from the symbols present a secondary emphasis of drawing closer to something (God).
Makes perfect sense to me and seems accurate. Any detail to add from the etymology of the symbols for Hebrew letters and meanings there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
True that, TrustAndObey! There is an awful lot of cultural meaning from the Greek that we've lost, too!
Here are some things that seem to be dawning on me...
I've been studying Paul & Judaism Revisited by Preston M. Sprinkle (2013, IVP Academic). In it, Sprinkle tries to get to the basic idea of salvation shared by all of the writers in the first century, Second Temple Jews in general, the writers of the Essene community (the Dead Sea scrolls) and Paul. He arrived at the simple definition "the restoration God brings to those in the covenant community". Then he can work on how different people wrote variations on that definition.
He points out that there were two major views of salvation put forward in the Old Testament, depending on which part of the OT you're reading, distinguished by the source of agency. One view, the deuteronomic, holds that God brings restoration to his people when they turn away from their sin and back to him. The prophetic view holds that God will bring restoration, not for the sakes of his people's works, but for the sake of his own name. The deuteronomic view places reliance on human agency. God moves because the people decide to act. The prophetic view places reliance on divine agency. God moves because HE decides to act, regardless of his peoples' actions.
These views may seem to contradict each other, if we look at them as analytic, categorical propositions. But that's not what they are. They are two poetic loci that set up a cognitive tension. Not cognitive dissonance, but a cognitive tension between the role of divine agency and the role of human agency.
That made me think of the process of raising a child to become a responsible adult.
When a person is born, that infant has no ability whatsoever to take responsibility for anything. The child's upbringing is the result of the adult's agency.
But a the process goes on, the adult trains the child to take responsibility by allowing the child to exercise what agency the child is ready to exercise.
The goal is to eventually present the child to the world as a fully functional adult, capable of exercising her or his own agency.
I'm not thinking sanctification is something distinct from salvation. I'm thinking sanctification is the part of salvation wherein God leads us from our miserable ungodly lifestyles to responsible holy living. I'm thinking sanctification begins with divine agency, but transitions to human agency as the person grows in Christ...
What do you guys think? Am I on to something, or just barking up a tree?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interesting thoughts. The prophetic and deuteronomic views and your description of cognitive tension remind me of the conversation regarding predestination, foreknowledge, and free will. You are describing a balance in life and Christianity IMO, and yes I think there are many of those in life and Christianity. Does God move first? Or does He wait until an individual moves first? If He is omnipresent not constrained by time then does it matter? He sees those drawing to Himself and moves, at the perfect time so as not to interfere with freedom of will.
I don't see sanctification as separate from salvation. In an OT sense it was Israel set apart from the other nations. In NT it is those accepting Christ. I see it as a facet of salvation, one that if we dwell on helps foster thankfulness, closeness to God in prayer, and a purity from the corruption in the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think you're on to something there.
Link 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.