Our Role In Sanctification: An Imperative

[DHK]

Technically speaking, functional antinomianism is separating the imperative to put off the old man and put on the new man (Eph. 4:24) from sanctification, while at the same time denying that is being done. I have written more than once in this thread that the work of progressive sanctification (becoming more like Christ) is the work of God. God prevails on the heart of his children, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to become more Christ-like. Painful. Agonizingly slow at times, and invisible at others. Sometimes looking as though the Christian is going in reverse. But the Christian will press on for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:14).

The word "antinomianism" means "against law."
Paul said, in answer to the Romans:
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
--No one here is suggesting to "continue in sin."

You wrote:

the work of progressive sanctification (becoming more like Christ) is the work of God. God prevails on the heart of his children, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to become more Christ-like.

Sanctification is not the total work of God. One cannot go into the middle of a field and expect God to do the work of sanctification. It takes effort on the part of the individual:
Reading his Bible, spending time in prayer, taking the time to be faithful in the local church, etc. There are definite commands in the Bible which he must obey and God isn't going to obey for him. By obeying those commands comes progressive sanctification or growth in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK;

the work of progressive sanctification (becoming more like Christ) is the work of God. God prevails on the heart of his children, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to become more Christ-like.

Sanctification is not the total work of God. One cannot go into the middle of a field and expect God to do the work of sanctification. It takes effort on the part of the individual:
Reading his Bible, spending time in prayer, taking the time to be faithful in the local church, etc. There are definite commands in the Bible which he must obey and God isn't going to obey for him. By obeying those commands comes progressive sanctification or growth in Christ.

[/QUOTE]

so now you have come to agree with the LS position:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

DHK;

so now you have come to agree with the LS position:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
That is not the LS position. That is the position I have always taken. It is progressive sanctification whereas LS teaches immediate sanctification.
Progressive sanctification teaches that one can see fruit in a person's life progressively, that is in a matter of time, not all at once, at the very time of salvation, as LS teaches. LS teaches, as the name implies that Christ is Lord of your life immediately and thus immediate fruit. I don't believe that.

 

[Reformed]

That is not the LS position. That is the position I have always taken. It is progressive sanctification whereas LS teaches immediate sanctification.
Progressive sanctification teaches that one can see fruit in a person's life progressively, that is in a matter of time, not all at once, at the very time of salvation, as LS teaches. LS teaches, as the name implies that Christ is Lord of your life immediately and thus immediate fruit. I don't believe that.

You have misstated the Lordship Salvation position in regards to progressive sanctification I hold to Lordship Salvation (which is not the purpose of this thread by the way). Properly explained it teaches that we are justified at a moment in time and sanctified at a moment in time for the purpose of being set apart for God's use. And there is immediate fruit, although not necessarily outward as we commonly are used to seeing. 2 Cor. 5:17 says the believer is a "new creature" (or "new creation" depending on your translation). The "new creature" immediately has new affections. Unrefined? In need of milk instead of meat? A mere babe in Christ? Yes to all. But when a baby is finally born he acts completely different than he did 5 minutes before he was born. He can breath air and experience with his senses the things he could not do previously when in the womb. As he grows and develops he will mature, much like Christians do the longer they are in the faith. None of the major contemporary advocates of Lordship Salvation expect a new believer to bear mature fruit. That is an accusation you will have to prove.

 

[DHK]

You have misstated the Lordship Salvation position in regards to progressive sanctification I hold to Lordship Salvation (which is not the purpose of this thread by the way). Properly explained it teaches that we are justified at a moment in time and sanctified at a moment in time for the purpose of being set apart for God's use. And there is immediate fruit, although not necessarily outward as we commonly are used to seeing. 2 Cor. 5:17 says the believer is a "new creature" (or "new creation" depending on your translation). The "new creature" immediately has new affections. Unrefined? In need of milk instead of meat? A mere babe in Christ? Yes to all. But when a baby is finally born he acts completely different than he did 5 minutes before he was born. He can breath air and experience with his senses the things he could not do previously when in the womb. As he grows and develops he will mature, much like Christians do the longer they are in the faith. None of the major contemporary advocates of Lordship Salvation expect a new believer to bear mature fruit. That is an accusation you will have to prove.

I can dig up my quotes (or others) if you wish. Paul Washer is a major advocate of LS. The theme is: "If Christ is not Lord of all then he is not Lord at all." Of course he is not Lord of all in the new believer. How could he be? That is where progressive sanctification comes in. It may take him quite some time to give up that smoking addiction, for example. It is not immediate. There is not immediate obedience in every area of his life. That is what LS requires.

In reference to 2Cor.5:17, we are a new creature that is true. That doesn't mean that a person will immediately "feel" any different. Not everyone does. I didn't. I am not an emotional type of guy. I didn't jump up and down shouting praise the Lord. I didn't weep and cry. I didn't give a long exposition of the great peace that had come over me.
All of the above are feelings, emotions. I never "felt" any different. That was difficult for me. How then did I know that I was saved, especially when listening to the testimonies of others?
First, by trusting in the promises of God.
Second. It was others noticing a difference in me, more than me noticing a difference in me. That was very significant.

What differences was I to expect? I was already religious. I had never smoked, never drank, never took drugs, never got in trouble with the law, had a good upbringing and was in college. I was a Pharisee, unsaved.
The Lord kept me from all of that which I am now thankful for. Nevertheless, there was no great out pouring of a change of "affections" as you use the word.

 

[DHK]

You have misstated the Lordship Salvation position in regards to progressive sanctification I hold to Lordship Salvation ...

None of the major contemporary advocates of Lordship Salvation expect a new believer to bear mature fruit. That is an accusation you will have to prove.

Here is a good article that sets forth both sides:

The major argument from the Lordship Salvation camp is that a person must put their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and then they must express their salvation by adhering to the Lordship of Christ in all matters. If a person does not "show" an evidential change of character, and does not put Christ first in their life, then they probably are not saved nor can they really know if they are saved. One must rightfully question their own salvation if they are not submitting to the Lordship of Christ. Indeed, one can even think themselves a Christian, but this is illusory. (The belief that one can falsely think oneself saved does damage to the witness of the Holy Spirit, which indwells believers. We will examine that point further later on.)
In the Lordship Salvation position, one must constantly test oneself to see if they are truly in the faith. According to Bock, "MacArthur's charge is that a Gospel that emphasizes only belief without dealing with sin or that separates the presentation of Jesus as Savior from Jesus as Lord is cheap grace. It produces many false believers and introduces severe moral malaise into the body of Christ, while falsely offering assurance to many not really saved."(4)

You can read the full article here:
http://www.dtl.org/salvation/article/guest/lordship-1.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I can dig up my quotes (or others) if you wish. Paul Washer is a major advocate of LS. The theme is: "If Christ is not Lord of all then he is not Lord at all." Of course he is not Lord of all in the new believer. How could he be?

Jesus is Lord of all right now...the person who becomes saved begins to grow in grace as the Spirit indwells him. It is as if you keep pushing this idea of sinless perfection that no one teaches...no one.

That is where progressive sanctification comes in. It may take him quite some time to give up that smoking addiction, for example. It is not immediate. There is not immediate obedience in every area of his life. That is what LS requires.

A persons obedience or lack of obedience does not change their responsibility.

 

[DHK]

DHK
Jesus is Lord of all right now...the person who becomes saved begins to grow in grace as the Spirit indwells him. It is as if you keep pushing this idea of sinless perfection that no one teaches...no one.

You are taking what I say out of context and I think you know that, for I have posted the same thing.

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
--I have been pushing that for some time now, and if it is finally sinking in then praise the Lord.
But that is a far thing from what LS teaches. LS teaches that the new believer must submit to him as Lord of all in his life the moment he is saved. That is not biblical.
Thus the phrase: "If Christ is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all."
It is not a phrase applied to the world, like Peter did in his sermon.
It is a phrase (in LS) applied to the new believer at the point of salvation.

A persons obedience or lack of obedience does not change their responsibility.

No it doesn't. But to some LS advocates it may change their minds on whether or not they are saved.

 

[Reformed]

Here is a good article that sets forth both sides:

You can read the full article here:
http://www.dtl.org/salvation/article/guest/lordship-1.htm

Not exactly an unbiased article.

 

[DHK]

Not exactly an unbiased article.

What do you think is unbiased?
He presents the LS position as Washer and most others believe it.
In that sense it becomes a works-based salvation.
The confusion here is that many of us have a different definition or perception of what LS is. He presents it as what I understand it to be.

Lordship Salvation has left the roots of sola fide IMO.

 

[Reformed]

I can dig up my quotes (or others) if you wish. Paul Washer is a major advocate of LS. The theme is: "If Christ is not Lord of all then he is not Lord at all." Of course he is not Lord of all in the new believer. How could he be? That is where progressive sanctification comes in. It may take him quite some time to give up that smoking addiction, for example. It is not immediate. There is not immediate obedience in every area of his life. That is what LS requires.

Please do dig up the quotes from Paul Washer. Specifically I want to see where he states that a new believer has to display mature fruit.

I do not believe you understand progressive sanctification as historically defined. You are referencing the practical aspects of Christ's Lordship. To a degree I will agree with you. A new believer does not fully possess an understanding of the Word at day one of his new life as he will on day five thousand. But Jesus Christ is Lord by the very fact that he is God. Jesus is always Lord. He is Lord when the individual was a sinner. He is Lord after the sinner believes. He is Lord thirty years into the Christian's journey on earth. He is Lord when the Christian departs this world for glory.

This is where the charge of functional Antinomianism comes in. If "Bob" comes to faith in Christ today, your version of progressive sanctification would give him a pass on his sins and stunted spiritual growth until such time as he rededicates his life to the Lord; making Jesus the Lord of all in his life. In other words, until he yields complete control to Christ, Jesus is not really Lord of his life. The train of though this creates goes thus: "New Christians are going to be immature and struggle with sin until the time comes when the finally make Jesus Lord of their life. So, we can't expect too much from them until that time." DHK, you may claim not to believe that (or that you would never say those words), but that is the product of your misunderstanding of progressive sanctification.

The majority of Baptists have turned rededication into a third ordinance of the church. But it is fraught with peril. What do we tell a person who is struggling with addiction. You mentioned smoking. Nicotine is addictive. If a Christian who smokes makes Jesus the lord of his life, what are we to say if he doesn't give up smoking? "Oh, you never made Jesus the lord of your life. Do it again." And do it again they do. Some altar calls have more repeat visits by Christians who feel beat down and defeated because of abiding sin in their life, so they keep coming forward to rededicate their life. It's as though they are seeking some dispensation of grace from God at the altar. They do that because they have been taught a defective theology about sanctification.

I have already given examples of the correct view of progressive sanctification in other posts, so I will not restate again.

In reference to 2Cor.5:17, we are a new creature that is true. That doesn't mean that a person will immediately "feel" any different. Not everyone does. I didn't. I am not an emotional type of guy. I didn't jump up and down shouting praise the Lord. I didn't weep and cry. I didn't give a long exposition of the great peace that had come over me.
All of the above are feelings, emotions. I never "felt" any different. That was difficult for me. How then did I know that I was saved, especially when listening to the testimonies of others?
First, by trusting in the promises of God.
Second. It was others noticing a difference in me, more than me noticing a difference in me. That was very significant.

I agree with you about emotions. You'll notice I never mentioned them. What I did mention were changed affections. You will notice them. You will notice a desire to read the word, to be with God's people, and to pray. You will also notice the conflict within. The mind, which has been trained by sin, will war against the Spirit. Paul had this in mind in Romans 12:1, 2. You will be tempted, sin, repent, and struggle with temptation again. To the extent you resist sin (in the Spirit) you will be better prepared to resist it again. I like the old saying referencing growing in Christian maturity, "You will not be sinless, but you will sin less."

What differences was I to expect? I was already religious. I had never smoked, never drank, never took drugs, never got in trouble with the law, had a good upbringing and was in college. I was a Pharisee, unsaved.
The Lord kept me from all of that which I am now thankful for. Nevertheless, there was no great out pouring of a change of "affections" as you use the word.

Oh, but there was a change of affections in your life even if you think they weren't visible. There had to be. If you truly came to faith in Christ, the the Holy Spirit came to reside in you at that moment. The statement of reality in 2 Cor. 5:17 is not that you will become a new creature, it is that you are a new creature. Before you were a Christian you could not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Once you became a believer that all changed. I am not talking about external evidence (which seems to be your defense), but about the internal work of the Spirit.

 

[Reformed]

What do you think is unbiased?
He presents the LS position as Washer and most others believe it.
In that sense it becomes a works-based salvation.
The confusion here is that many of us have a different definition or perception of what LS is. He presents it as what I understand it to be.

Lordship Salvation has left the roots of sola fide IMO.

The article did not present Lordship Salvation correctly. It is biased because of the presupposition of the author. Plus, you have this fascination with Paul Washer. I have my favorite whipping boys too, but I would rather reason from scripture.

 

[DHK]

Please do dig up the quotes from Paul Washer. Specifically I want to see where he states that a new believer has to display mature fruit.

You can take a look at these two links and see what you think.

http://expreacherman.com/2011/03/24/...nd-repentance/

http://expreacherman.com/2012/08/08/...-of-salvation/

 

[DHK]

The article did not present Lordship Salvation correctly. It is biased because of the presupposition of the author. Plus, you have this fascination with Paul Washer. I have my favorite whipping boys too, but I would rather reason from scripture.

There is no "Lordship Salvation" in Scripture.
When Peter began his sermon in the house of Cornelius he emphasized:
Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
--Christ is Lord. This is not Lordship Salvation, but rather that Christ is Lord of all. It is more in context of Christ our Creator, Christ the Lord of all the world, the universe.

Note how Peter concluded this same message:
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
"Through his name...believeth in him...shall receive remission of sin."
In this invitation there is no emphasis on believing the "Lord Jesus Christ."
It is a simple invitation to believe in Him, meaning Christ.

They spoke in tongues while Peter was yet preaching. They were saved during that time. Peter interrupted his own sermon, took the time to baptize them immediately realizing that the speaking in tongues was evidence of their salvation. Up to this point they had done nothing but believe.

 

[Reformed]

You can take a look at these two links and see what you think.

http://expreacherman.com/2011/03/24/...nd-repentance/

http://expreacherman.com/2012/08/08/...-of-salvation/

DHK,

A couple of things.

1. It is not helpful to your position to make others do your work for you. You post links instead of providing the rebuttal yourself.

2. I took the time to look at one of the links. The author comes to the wrong conclusion about about what Paul Washer said for two reasons. First, he makes it clear he is interpreting Washer from an Arminian/Semi-Pelagian theological bent. The author writes, "He apparently either ignores or does not understand the two natures (old and new) of the believer and the free will we have to be obedient to the Lord or not" (emphasis mine). Second, he is not able to understand the dogmatic and practical aspect of doctrine. Dogmatic: "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor.5:17). Practical: "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). When Paul Washer says, "It is impossible to be embraced by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not to be changed at the very core of your being and it not be manifest to those around you" he is absolutely correct, although the author you cite disagrees. At the risk of beating 2 Cor. 5:17 into the ground, it is apropos in this context. The former sinner is changed at the very core of his being. How else can you make sense of becoming a new creature? Of being re-created? Of death becoming life or light out of darkness -- lux ex tenebris? What Washer does not say, and what the author infers, is that a complete visual change must take place in the believer's life at the moment of justification. This is sloppy and shoddy scholarship. Did Paul Washer put a time frame on how long it will take for the organic change that takes place in a new Christian's life to manifest to others? No. He did not.

 

[Reformed]

There is no "Lordship Salvation" in Scripture.

If you mean the term "Lordship Salvation" you are absolutely correct. There is also no "progressive sanctification" (which you claim to believe in) and no Trinity (which I hope you believe in). These terms are not found anywhere in the Bible. Be careful about the premise of your argument because you might just be sinking your own boat.

When Peter began his sermon in the house of Cornelius he emphasized:
Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
--Christ is Lord. This is not Lordship Salvation, but rather that Christ is Lord of all. It is more in context of Christ our Creator, Christ the Lord of all the world, the universe.

Yes. Jesus Christ is Lord due to the fact he created all there is (Hebrews 1:2). However Acts 10 really isn't about sanctification or Christian obedience. It is about the gospel going forth to the Gentiles.

Note how Peter concluded this same message:
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
"Through his name...believeth in him...shall receive remission of sin."
In this invitation there is no emphasis on believing the "Lord Jesus Christ."
It is a simple invitation to believe in Him, meaning Christ.

So, you are going to build a doctrine on a single verse, especially from the transitional book of Acts? Yet you do not think it would have been helpful to balance Acts 10:43 with Acts 16:30-31?:

The he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and your household" (emphasis mine).

 

[DHK]

IMO, I think we will be talking past each other unless we can come to an agreement on what Lordship Salvation is.
If you google Lordship Salvation you will find out what the consensus is, of those who believe it and those who don't.
For me it borders on heresy, and is a works-based salvation. I come to those conclusions based on material I have read.

If it were a simple matter of "Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," there would be no dispute between us or between any Calvinist or non-Cal. We all agree on that. But it is quite evident that LS entails quite a lot more and thus all the controversy.

 

[Reformed]

IMO, I think we will be talking past each other unless we can come to an agreement on what Lordship Salvation is.
If you google Lordship Salvation you will find out what the consensus is, of those who believe it and those who don't.

I don't mean to sound cruel, but is this the sum total of your theological education? Google? Aren't you capable of handling the text yourself? I'm not talking about seminary level work, just basic rudimentary exegesis. I don't need to peruse Google to understand theological terms and I certainly don't post links to make my point without positing my own argument.

For me it borders on heresy, and is a works-based salvation. I come to those conclusions based on material I have read.

Which is it? Speak plainly. Does it border on heresy in your opinion or is it heresy? If it is a works-based salvation then it is heresy and I am not saved, nor others who believe like me.

If it were a simple matter of "Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," there would be no dispute between us or between any Calvinist or non-Cal. We all agree on that. But it is quite evident that LS entails quite a lot more and thus all the controversy.

You do not understand what Progressive Sanctification or Lordship Salvation is. I think I have done an adequate job of proving that.

 

[Thousand Hills]

IMO, I think we will be talking past each other unless we can come to an agreement on what Lordship Salvation is.
If you google Lordship Salvation you will find out what the consensus is, of those who believe it and those who don't.
For me it borders on heresy, and is a works-based salvation. I come to those conclusions based on material I have read.

Again for the readers at home, who might be sitting on the fence. DHK has for a second time in one of the LS threads presented "evidence" from the expreacherman website:

Originally Posted by DHK View Post
You can take a look at these two links and see what you think.

http://expreacherman.com/2011/03/24/...nd-repentance/

http://expreacherman.com/2012/08/08/...-of-salvation/

Let's take a look at who expreacherman believes to be a heretic:

Wiki-Index


Wiki-Index: ExP’s mission is not to tear down, but to defend the Truth of God’s Word and protect the sheep from being deceived. We expose lies and error of all teacher, preachers and organizations, some of whom shamefully and falsely fly under the umbrella of Free Grace.

We will post quotes from and links to ministries, Pastors and teachers who, in our opinion, are teaching and preaching a false message of “works based” Lordship “Salvation” (LS) or Calvinism, which teachings are contrary to the clear, sound Biblical message of God’s Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, without any requirement for “works” before or after salvation is freely granted by God through our Faith in Jesus Christ.

How: Hover your cursor over the name of choice and read the balloon quote. Some links are click-able by which you may read the actual Statement of Faith or articles from which we quote, most of which are from ExP. Warning: Links with a ≠ sign preceding the name will take you to the actual document or site, which will either have or explain the doctrinal error. Beware.

Legend: <ctrl> F = Find a name

Beware Link w/ ≠ before the name

Baucham, Voddie (HollyG)
Bell, Rob
Berean Call at ExP (FryingPan)
≠ BLACKABY, Henry SoF
Blanchard, Ken at ExP
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (Holly G.)
Cahill, Mark (Holly G)
Cameron, Kirk at ExP
Campus Crusade Christ (CRU)at ExP
Chan, Francis at ExP
Chandler, Matt at ExP
Charisma Magazine at ExP
Church of Christ from their SoF
Colson, Chuck (Holly G.)
Comfort, Ray at ExP
Coy, Bob (FryingPan9) @ExP
Crouch, Jan and Paul TBN
Dever, Mark at ExP
Driscoll, Mark at ExP
Falwell, Jerry and Family
Fellowship Tract League- BEWARE
Foster, Richard at ExP
Furtick, Steven at Exp
Gendron, Mike (Holly G)
Giglio, Louis (Holly G)
Graham, Billy (Org) at ExP
Greear, J.D. at ExP
Hagee, John Pentecostal
Ham, Ken AIG, at ExP
Hinn, Benny
Hybels, Bill (Holly G)
Idleman, Kyle PDF or Jim F Review
IHOP Mike Bickle (Word of Faith)
Johnson, Bill, Bethel Chuch (HollyG)
Jones, Tony at ExP
Keating, Thomas at ExP
Keller, Tim, Calvinist at ExP
Laurie, Greg
Liberty University – Falwell
MacArthur, John at ExP
McLaren, Brian (Contemplative)
McManus, Erwin at ExP
Merton, Thomas at ExP
Metaxas, Eric (Holly G.)
Meyer, Joyce (Holly G)
Middletown Bibe Church at ExP
Moore, Beth (Author)
Nickel, Brenda at ExP
Nouwen, Henri at ExP
Peterson, Eugene (Holly G)
Pink, A. W.
Pinto, Chris, Adullum Films (FryingPan)
Piper, John at ExP
Platt, David – at ExP
Reagan, David (Holly G)
Ritenbaugh, John W. at ExP
Rushdoony, R.J
Slick, Matt (Holly G)
Southern Baptist Convention
Sproul, R.C. at ExP
Spurgeon, C.H. (1800s) ExP
Stearns, Richard at ExP
Swaggart, Jimmy
Talbot, John M. at ExP
Tchividjian, Tullian at ExP
Thomas Road Baptist Falwell
Towns, Elmer
Wallis, Jim
Warren, Rick at ExP
Washer, Paul at ExP
White, Paula
White, Randy GBN
Wilkerson, Dave @ExP (HollyG)
Willard, Dallas
Young, Sarah (Jesus Calling)
Zacharias, Ravi

http://expreacherman.com/wiki-heresies/

Now here again, there are a handful of these I would agree with him on. And as much as I have differences with some of what the SBC does, I think its a bit irrational to lump the whole conference in there.

 

[Reformed]

Again for the readers at home, who might be sitting on the fence. DHK has for a second time in one of the LS threads presented "evidence" from the expreacherman website:



Let's take a look at who expreacherman believes to be a heretic:



Now here again, there are a handful of these I would agree with him on. And as much as I have differences with some of what the SBC does, I think its a bit irrational to lump the whole conference in there.

I agree. There are many good local churches in the SBC. Pastor Tom Ascol's church in Cape Coral, FL comes to mind.

As for ex-preacherman, well, to comment further would be to give him the attention he does not deserve.