Featured What is Lordship Salvation?

I question the thinking of "progressive sanctification" being valid at all.

Sanctification throughout the Scriptures (OT - qadash, NT - hagiazo) is not used as something moved from one place to another as one might move from one town to another.

Sanctify, sanctification, sanctified... IS a state of being, such as a title of ownership.

I have used this illustration: What separates all the cars in the world from the car you own? The title.

When one is saved they are "re-titled" and that is not progressive.

In the OT and NT, the word is used not to show any movement such as a prepositional phrase indicates, but a declaration of ownership. When both the Jews and the believers are told to "sanctify" themselves, it was not some process, but a change of state.

When the temple was sanctified, the temple did nothing. The temple and all that pertained to the temple were marked as sanctified; that did not change the form, shape, geography, or even the purpose of the sanctified items. A covering was still a covering, an altar was still an altar.


All the other "stuff" that pertains to the believer's "conversation" course correcting that is done by the work of the Holy Spirit is not sanctification but the reflection of one sanctified already and the Holy Spirit's working in them.

Sanctification is not being made holy, it is being holy and used for that purpose because it is already holy.

When the Scriptures teach such phrases as "sanctify yourselves" it is not saying it is progressive, because there is no mixture of ownership. Either one is owned by God, or they are not. Either one is sanctified or they are not.

Because the unregenerate who becomes regenerate has no control over what is declared sanctified or not, this further validates that salvation is not progressive nor is it found in anything that mere humankind can do.

This applies to all salvation, because it removes the "Lordship" or any other form of man authored effort from being proclaimed and titled by God as saved, sanctified, His.

 

Aside from all the theories, the moment of salvation does not bring sinless perfection. As time goes along, we become more like Jesus. One will never completely not sin. There seems to be confusion between blatant, unrepentent sin, and daily sin every Christian confesses.

In addition, if God does the saving, and He has touched someone to respond to His call, where does everyone get the idea that the call can be rejected?

 

You just stated in anutter thread that you are onmiscient, but you can sin? You have lessened my opinion of you. Shame.....:laugh:

 

I cannot find a use of either the OT word or NT word for sanctification, sanctify,... used as "becoming more like." (qadash, hagiazo, hagiasmos)

Rather it is used as I described.

It is used to indicate a designation of holy, or our standing in Christ. A static position in which ownership is indicated by title.

Perhaps you could point me to verses in which the word is used to show a progression and movement.

 

What you are describing is the so-called part of salvation called justification. Sanctification is progressive until the point of glorification. All three comprise salvation. How do you read verses like 2 Cor 3:18?

2Cor. 3:18 (ESV) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

 

Certainly there are many verses that present a building of character and Christ likeness and even an eventual glorification/transfiguration.

However, that is NOT sanctification.

The whole thinking of progressive sanctification is really not found in the Scriptures; at least none that I have found. Throughout both the OT and NT something is either sanctified or not. There is no progressive sanctification support that I have found.

There are many who would desire some verse (such as 2 Corinthians 3:18) to suggest that the original presents a movement of "being transformed" and then misapply this to sanctification; however, that verse, in context, is not about sanctification but glorification into His image.

There is no consideration of a progressive sanctification to be found in the passage.

Perhaps someone will find something that I missed.

 

"Progressive sanctification" should not be considered a cardinal doctrine of the faith, but sanctification should and is.

I have no problem considering that a believer does and should mature in the faith. BUT, that is NOT sanctification.

The temple/tabernacle and all that pertain did not become more holy over time. When God sanctifies, he does not move a person but re-titles them as His heir.

One who is sanctified does not become more "holy" over time. That is not part of sanctification.

One is sanctified in Christ at the point of salvation, there is no partial birth.

I am very familiar with the work that some have done, but I frankly have no Scriptural basis for a progressive sanctification view, even though it would be good to have, for then such would provide some measure for securing favor with God by humankind ability.

Again, it isn't found in any passage that I have found that actually has the word sanctification, sanctify, sanctified... in the context.

Personally, I think that the "progressive sanctification" thinking has taken such a hold, that most merely assume that it is a truth - when it is just not found in Scriptures.

At least not that I have seen to this point.

Perhaps someone will show me a text that will prove that progressive sanctification is Scriptural.

 

I appreciate these comments. The fact that a term is not used in Scripture should always cause us to think twice about what we have assumed. This looks like it would be a good study. Of course, I understand that no one here is saying there is no such thing as maturing in the faith, only that such maturing should not be linked with sanctification.
I am wondering now how this term "progressive sanctification" came into use, and by whom.

 

Genesis 5 :
24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.


Zephaniah 3:2
She obeys no one, she accepts no correction. She does not trust in the LORD, she does not draw near to her God.

Hebrews 7 :
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.



I don't know what happened to the book of Enoch if it was so curropted by man that it could not be included into the Holy Bible.

I will say this that one sentence spoken of him shows the best way to God then all the messengers after him besides our Lord, God and Savior.

To repent of our way of life today and walk with God.

 

As A Baptist, NOT one who holds to reformed baptist theology per say...

Couple thinks that strike me is no matter how hard they try to back off it, part of assurance in salvation seems to be driven by just faithful one is keeping the Laws of God, and also there is a belief that Jesus has to be "Lord over all, or is Lord over none" in order to evidence one has been really saved!

Also think those like me who hold other side DO realise that Christians commanded to walk with God, in the Spirit, staying in fellowship, so really dob't see why the claim is made that we are "lawless!"

 

The admonitions given it the Bible to:
1. walk with God.
2. Walk in the Spirit.
3. Deny the flesh.
4. Confess your sins (1John 1:9)
5. If we have sin we have an advocate with the Father.
6. Christ is our intercessor (for what reason)?
7. to crucify the flesh daily.

And finally the encouragement that Paul gives to Timothy here:
2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

There was the possibility of Timothy not remaining faithful. But Christ would always remain faith to Timothy.

All of the above is a denial of what people today call "Lordship Salvation," a term not found in the Bible, a concept never taught as recent as 20 years ago and earlier.

 

Not one of these denies Lordship salvation, which until recently.
Antinomian dispensationalism has made this a "new topic"

Progressive sanctification is taught in all the epistles.

 

When you actually try to explain what this looks like in the life of a believer, you will mostly describe...."the other side". Thing is, there is in reality no "other side"

 

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Icon:
According to LS advocates that I know, the above verses spell out what you must do in order to be saved. I call them hypocrites, because I am fairly certain they have never obeyed these same commands themselves. They teach these to others yet they themselves can't keep the same commands. What hypocrisy is that. It is the LS hypocrisy.

I do believe in progressive sanctification, and not LS.
That is the difference. A person trusts Christ as Savior, is a new creature in Christ, and allows the Holy Spirit to change him day by day. That is the process of sanctification. It is a process of change. It is progressive.

It is exemplified in the command in Mat.5:48

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The word for "perfect" is teleios". It does not mean perfect as in sinless or perfectly holy. It means complete, or mature. It is a goal that we strive toward. It gives the picture also of ripened fruit. As the fruit of a tree go through a process of ripening and maturing (which takes time), the believer also goes through a time of maturing or "completion" or becoming a mature and complete Christian in Christ through a process of sanctification.

LS teaches the opposite. It denies sanctification and, in fact, makes it a requirement for salvation, turning salvation itself into a works salvation.

 

Lordship salvation teaches progressive sanctification. It is one thing to be surrendered to something and in this case Someone and another to get it done in experience. The flesh has to be dealt with through battles and failures but the heart is surrendered to the rule of the Master. Do you believe a person has to repent to be saved?

 

Out of curiosity, for clarification: do you say that a person must actively repent in order to be saved? (i.e., as a condition for salvation) Or that repentence comes with salvation? Or that God works repentence in us?

 

Scripture sees and calls repentance as the responsibility of each individual as a condition for salvation and is not seperateable from faith which God has given to men.
Matt 9:13
But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Acts 20:21
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mat. 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 6:12
And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 13:3
And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

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

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: